1) "People are starting their own schools; and recently, ArchBishop Ouellet has started one, too"

It will still have to teach the Government sanctioned courses including Ethics and Religious Culture. (If you need pointers to that effect I can supply)

2) "Other parents are homeschooling."

Yes, there is some practical freedom there (at great cost), but none in principle. Maitre Boucher, the Government counsel at the Loyola court case, said that homeschoolers must still teach this course (although this is difficult to enforce, some homeschoolers have to show the ethics work done during the year when they present their so-called portfolio to their schoolboard).

The only official exemptions : Inuits and Crees in the Kativik schoolboard.

http://pouruneecolelibre.blogspot.com/2009/05/cit...

3) "Parents must stop blaming BigBrother and get off their butts"

Parents must go on blaming Big Brother and get off their butts.

The three news Rs are also imposed in Quebec so-called "private" schools since the curriculum is basically the same (a few extra courses can be presented), the teaching methodology (skill-based rather than fact-based) is the same and the exams are the same...

The State has a Monopoly of Education rather than a Ministry of Education.

Madeyoulook you said :

"The Ministère de l'éducation provides per-pupil funding to public school boards AND to private schools."

Provides to some private schools, not all. And funding is not an issue here : whether a private school receives or not some money through the State (taken from the parent's pocket who pay twice since the "generous" subsidy covers at most 60% of tuition) , the course of Ethics and religious culture is imposed on all the children attending that school.

Such is the meaning of liberty in Quebec : the State must be able train all its future citizens (this is actually what the Minister of Education stated in their written closing arguments).

Yes, Justin, I agree wholeheartedly. I stand corrected.

Yes. Follow the link (http://www.loyola.ca).

Jack,

Are you saying the Quebec State should be the new Catholic Church with its new compulsory Ethics and Religious Culture course during 11 years of school?

No way to escape its missionary endeavour, the new universal belief system. (For those little versed in Greek, "catholikos" means universal).

Do you also know of the new "Spiritual Animation and Community Involvement Services" paid by the taxpayer and officiating in all schools? Thoroughly PC and New-Ageish all the way. That's the new religion. Did you know that if the State is kicking out Christian faith its still wants to promote a vague and undefined spirituality?

"A school shall, in particular, facilitate the spiritual development of students so as to promote self-fulfilment."
Article 36 of the Education act (added in 2000 if I remember properly)

http://answers.polldaddy.com/poll/1754351/

What is at issue here is whether a private school can be forced to teach a course in a way its deems contrary to its mandate (because it is basically an atheistic or an agnostic way of teaching) while it proposes the governement a course it deems equivalent which respects the two goals of the course : work for the common good and respect of other people and its three core "competencies" : dialogue, discussing ethical questions and knowing aspects of six or seven religions.

Why should the State be able to dictate everything a PRIVATE school wants to teach and more profoundly HOW it wants to the teach it?

I'm sorry but this is more and more looking like soft fascism (the State deciding everything, with a smile this time, well, not in court obviously).

(The analogy with spaghetti is inept : you are born and stay Italian whether you can cook spaghetti or not, your philosophical outlook can be changed through teaching, if it weren't the case why would the State be so adamant to impose this course? In the State's eyes this course is crucial, as one of its expert witness, George Leroux, told the court, this is why there can be NO exception.)