Is Doug Ford anti-Catholic? He’s forcing Catholic school boards to adopt gender ideology
Disclosure: Tanya Granic Allen is a former Ontario PC leadership candidate in the last race in which Ford won. She also ran in the last Ontario provincial election as a PC candidate until Ford decided she could no longer run for the party after the Liberals pushed a video of her speaking about sex-ed and gay marriage in the context of a previous Marxist-Yugoslav Communist regime.
The Ford “conservative” government is continuing its bullying of Ontario Catholic schools into adopting the full program of neo-Marxist, gender ideology–the very same gender ideology that Pope Francis condemned as “demonic” and comparable to “the educational policies of Hitler.”
I saw an opinion piece posted a few days ago on The Post Millennial titled “Ontario teachers need to realize how great they have it” and it started to really bug me.
I am a secondary teacher in Ontario and am proudly walking the picket line to fight for my students. I am used to seeing all the misinformation posted online when it comes to our recent job action with the province and I have gotten pretty good at brushing it off. I was unable to with this particular opinion piece because of the amount of stereotyping and general misinformation that the author chose to write about. I want to provide some key context for what was said and what is actually happening in our schools.
First, I would like to point out that teaching is not a part-time job. I am at my school from 7:30 a.m. until at least 3:30 p.m. in the afternoon. I often work through my “lunch” break as I am spending time with students, in meetings, marking, or preparing lessons. I worked it out once and between the time that I am actually at school, preparing, marking at home, and supervising extra curricular activities, I work approximately 50 hours a week. I am only paid for the classes I teach.
While I am on the subject of pay, in order to reach the top end of the pay scale, you have to be 10-plus years in, a department head or some other administrative type role, have taken a number of of additional qualification courses at your own cost, and more often than not, have a master’s degree. Those that the author cite as making over $100,000 are principals, vice-principals and superintendents who do not fall into our union. I’m four years in and have yet to make more than $40,000.
This leads me to my next point regarding “vacation”. It’s true there are 11 weeks of the year where we are not in school, but they are not vacation days. We are unemployed during those times. We have our 10-month salary distributed over 12 months. The money that we receive during the summer is for hours we have already worked. Most of us spend our summers taking upgrading courses or seminars to improve our practice. We also spend time preparing for the next year. I spend at least two unpaid weeks in August in my school getting prepared for the year ahead.
When you look at what we are asking for in our negotiation in terms of pay, it is to keep up with the cost of inflation. Inflation is around 2-2.5 percent a year. That is all we are asking for. As one of my students said, “So you’re asking to make the same amount of money that you already do?”
Yes, we want to keep the salary that we have so we can keep up with the rising cost of everything around us.
That cushy pension and benefits you mention, I pay for it. I put about as much into my pension each pay as I do to income tax. So yes, some of us can afford to retire early, but that is because we have paid into it. As for benefits, I pay into those as well. I am not ETFO so I cannot comment on what the author listed there but I will tell you that if you are not full-time, the benefits cost outweigh what you are given. In my four years, I have only had a full benefit package for one semester (5 months).
I also want to mention that the reason I voted in favour of strike action was not about pay. Class size matters. Those that say, “Well I had 35-plus students in class when I was in high school so what does it matter?” were not living during a time of full integration. This means that I have students with a variety of learning needs in my classes that would not have been in a mainstream class 20 years ago. The higher the student to teacher ratio is, the less time I have to support each of my students. Mandatory e-learning won’t work for every student.
How can you expect a 13 year-old with dyslexia to be responsible for a full course online with no direct supervision? You can’t. Yes some students will thrive in that situation but it will hurt more than it will help. There is also the issue of where these students are expected to take these mandatory online course. What if they don’t have access at home? What if they simply cannot learn in that environment, are there exceptions for students who simply can’t do it? These questions have not been answered by the government nearly a year after they announced this proposed change. All we are asking for is more data to ensure that this plan is actually in the best interest of students.
In the final point of the article the author mentioned a pattern of teachers going on strike. That is not true. The last time there was a full withdrawal of services (a walk out/ strike) by any and all of the four unions was in 1997. Since then contracts have been able to be negotiated with only limited withdrawal of service. I work with teachers who are 21 years in and this is the only time it has escalated to this level.
The government and the minister of education have been negotiating in bad faith since the beginning of this process, which got underway last May. They have failed to show up to the table to even talk about meaningful issues that will have lasting impacts on generations of students to come. In three days of negations, the government was present for less than an hour. We have been open and transparent about where we stand from the beginning. Readers can take a look for themselves to learn more about these issues.
We are still dealing with the ramifications of some of the implications from the 1997 strike. What we want is to ensure that what this government wants to implement will not cause lasting damage to one of the top rated education systems.
So next time the author of that article drives by a picket line maybe instead of shouting at us to “quit complaining” and we “have part-time jobs”, engage us in a conversation about what this is actually about and what the conditions are in our classroom that have led us here. There are real issues at play here that the government has yet to address. We are looking out for generations of students.
According to Global News, Premier Doug Ford’s house is currently being investigated by Toronto police’s hazardous materials team for a suspicious package. The package was reportedly opened by Ford’s wife, Karla.
There was reportedly white powder in the package that authorities have not yet been able to identify.
A spokesperson for the Toronto police informed Global News that officers received a call to show up at a house in Etobicoke on Tettenhall road where the Premier’s house is situated.
Two protestors have been charged after they allegedly dumped a load of manure on the sidewalk in front of Doug Ford’s constituency office in Etobicoke, according to CTV News.
The incident itself occurred on Dec. 22, as two men were recorded shovelling manure from a pickup truck in front of Ford’s office.
It later turned out that Extinction Rebellion organized the protest—saying that they were upset by the Progressive Conservative government’s environmental policy.
An Instagram post showed Extinction Rebellion taking credit for the incident, saying “from killing Hamilton’s LRT to the (expensive!) cancelling of clean energy projects to his attempts to open the Greenbelt for development, it’s clear the premier is putting our children’s future in danger.”
“We think that’s bullsh*t,” they added. In the post, they also used a photograph of the manure and an eco-radical with a shovel.
Two Hamilton residents have been charged in relation to this incident. Cameron Topp, 49, and Dennis Alvey, 55, were charged with mischief under $5,000.
Kenny Shim is the Spokesperson and Chief Operating Director of the Ontario Korean Businessmen’s Association (OKBA).
On Feb. 3 a Globe and Mail story suggested that the Ontario government was about to introduce new regulations to ban most flavoured vaping products from convenience stores–while allowing specialty vape stores to continue selling hundreds of them. If true, this policy change is unfounded, unfair, and harmful to thousands of Ontario’s C-store owner-operators.
The health of our young people is at the heart of this issue, so it’s critical that any new policy is done right.
According to the Centres of Disease Control & Prevention in the US the recent rash of vape-related deaths and hospitalizations have largely been attributed to vitamin E acetate added to open-pod systems. Convenience stores typically DO NOT carry these products, while every vape shop does. C-stores sell a small range of flavoured vaping products, including tobacco and mint, and a limited range of flavoured closed-pod systems to encourage smokers to transition away from cigarettes. Vape shops on the other hand often sell hundreds of different flavours in conjunction with open-pod systems that users can modify to change concentration levels.
Of youth surveyed in Health Canada’s 2017 Canadian Tobacco, Alcohol and Drugs Survey, 49 percent admitted trying a vape reported they borrowed, shared or bought it from a friend. Twenty-three percent admitted purchasing their vapes from a vape shop, but only 12 percent claimed they purchased their vape from a convenience store.
Banning flavours from C-stores will not curb youth usage; if flavoured vapes remain available in vape shops and online, youth who want them will figure out a way to get them–convenience stores are not the problem!
C-store operator’s livelihood depends on their ability to responsibly sell various age-restricted products. In Ontario this includes tobacco, lottery and in some locations (where stores operate LCBO Convenience Outlets), beverage alcohol. Convenience stores have proven to be responsible and trusted government-partners over the last several decades. Recent government statistics show C-store compliance rate in checking ID is over 96 percent! Meanwhile, current stats on the diligence of vape shops is not widely available. A recent Health Canada letter to vaping retailers stated that more than 80 percent of vape stores inspected were in violation of the Tobacco & Vaping Products Act. Convenience store associations are working hard to ensure none of their members sell age-restricted products to minors, and that ID is always requested, regardless of how old the customer looks.
If Health Canada’s most recent Tobacco/Alcohol & Drugs survey confirms that twice as many minors admitted purchasing their vapes from vape stores over convenience stores, why is the government not banning these products across all retail channels?
With a strong track record of not selling to kids–C-stores have earned the right to fair treatment.
The Ontario Korean Businessmen’s Association (OKBA) supports any initiative to protect public health, particularly youth, but strongly opposes measures that single out convenience store owners as irresponsible and untrustworthy. The proposed policy to ban flavoured vape sales from C-stores implies a complete lack of trust in thousands of hardworking entrepreneurs, who are otherwise considered capable of responsibly selling tobacco, lottery and beverage alcohol (through LCBO Convenience Outlets), not to mention the direct government-removal of a current revenue stream from these legal retail products.
The Ontario Government needs to consider the facts before introducing potential regulations that could harm convenience stores–both financially and reputationally.
The OKBA and its members were very pleased with the Ford government’s attitude towards making Ontario “Open for Business” and look forward to regulations around vaping retail that are fair for all stakeholders.