Public policy is generally judged on the basis of its intended effect.
But not infrequently the public is left to contend with the unintended consequences of a policy—for instance, the NEP of the Trudeau years or the Meech Lake Accord of the Mulroney years—long after the intended effects would have been consummated.
Politicians seek the glow of the intended effects of policies they initiate, and flee from the unintended consequences of those same policies that might leave the society worse off than the situation when a particular policy was proposed or enacted.
An astute assessment, therefore, would be considering the likely unintended effects as the measure in judging the merits of a proposed policy.
John Tory’s proposal to extend public funding to “faith-based schools” in Ontario is flawed as its unintended consequences exceed disproportionately its intended effect.
The aim of Mr. Tory’s proposal is for greater fairness and inclusiveness in Ontario’s publicly funded school system than the present arrangement.
The case for “fairness” was dismissed in the 1996 ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada, and Mr. Tory has not advanced any substantive argument that would make one pause and reconsider the SCC ruling.
Similarly, the case for inclusiveness was dealt with in the Supreme Court ruling when the justices pointed out the cost borne by parents for sending their children to private faith-based schools is one of choice.
Choices come with costs, and Mr. Tory has not found any other credible explanation of why the public should bear the cost of those parents who choose to send their children outside of the already inclusive public school system.
Instead the proposed remedy as an alternative to the exclusive funding of the Roman Catholic schools—and this cannot be open to Charter-based attack as the Supreme Court ruled—is to publicly fund faith-based schools.
But the remedy offered only increases several times over the “problem” considered initially unfair of publicly funding one faith-based system by funding what will likely become a public system fragmented with proliferating faith-based schools.
The reason for this being any time discretionary spending for a particular good or service is publicly subsidized, the demand for it quickly multiplies.
Ontario is not only the most heavily populated province in Canada, it also annually receives the largest number of immigrants from other cultures.
The existing school system has done well to be the one place where new immigrants and their children by necessity come together to learn about being Canadian, especially when the officially endorsed policy of multiculturalism encourages the same new immigrants to retain and grow with the cultures they entered Canada.
Unintentionally fragmenting the existing school system, as Mr. Tory’s proposal would do, weakens the one institution that pulls the divergent communities of Ontario together, and strengthens those elements in our society that pull us apart on ethno-religious grounds.
And then there is the genuine concern of public funds going into Muslim faith-based schools—the Canadian census figures show the Muslim community is growing most rapidly in numbers—supervised by people whose like-minded brethren have brought ruin to most Arab-Muslim countries.
The question of “fairness” is why Ontarians, and Canadians, would subsidize “madrassa” (Muslim faith-based schools) culture when the evidence of its ill-effects is undeniable in our post-9/11 world.
The answer is likely negative. And this is how it should be.
He is a member of the Board of Directors for the Center for Islamic Pluralism based in Washington, D.C., a Senior Fellow with the Canadian Coalition for Democracies, and an academic-consultant with the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C. He has been a consultant with CIDA on development issues and has published widely in academic journals on foreign policy matters and area studies of the Middle East and South Asia.
Mansur is featured on the documentary Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West produced by the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He also unsuccessfully ran for the Canadian Alliance party in 2000.
Mansur has been accused by Canadian Islamic Congress of using "provocative, self-serving rhetoric", and for "promoting an anti-Arab and anti-Muslim agenda".
He is an Ismaili Muslim.
At a press conference on October 2, 2008, Mansur stated that "Islam is my private life, my conscience...[but] my faith does not take precedence over my duties...to Canada and its constitution, which I embrace freely;" "I am first and most importantly a Canadian;" "only in a free society will you find Islam as a faith and not a political religion." Mansur also criticized New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton, whom Mansur said "has gone to bed with Islamists", because he is running candidates in Ontario and Quebec who are closely identified with the push for Sharia law.
- Israel: Decades-old conflict not about to cease - Saturday November 24, 2012 at 1:56 pm
- The better man lost the U.S. election - Saturday November 10, 2012 at 9:16 am
- The puzzle in U.S. presidential elections - Saturday November 3, 2012 at 8:43 am
