TORONTO - Trustees for the Toronto Catholic District School Board are meeting tonight, again. For the umpteenth time to decide whether they acted within the law when they decided to censure one of their colleagues for defending the Catholic ethic – a task he and all others had sworn to accomplish as part of their mandate in office. More broadly, the implications for Catholic education may prove severe.
Just to review; an ambitious former Chief Commissioner for Human Rights in Ontario, in September of 2019, sent a letter to the TCDSB demanding that it subvert its Catholic doctrine to her organization’s perceptions of equality and dignity of the individual. She had no business or authority to do so.
The Law and the Constitution prohibit her from so doing. She is now a judge and Catholics are left to cleaning up after her. It will be tough with all the “roadkill” her uninformed decision has let loose. The future is in the hands of very questionable characters.
Maria Rizzo, then Chair, and facing unresolved conflicts of interest as well as personal Labour Relations grievances for uttering [profane laden] threats of aggravated assault against a Union representative in the workplace (still unresolved) was only too happy to deflect attention to other issues. And Voila’, the Board has become hideout for homophobia and discrimination which obviously only she and her band of supine acolytes can correct.
Arrogant rookie trustee Markus De Domenico was desperate to be Chair, then Vice-Chair. Now he is reported to be seeking a nomination to run against the MPP in Etobicoke Centre. His communications skills involve heaping scorn on mothers who demand the Catholic upbringing for their children. He spends his time on twitter supporting a radical activist, telling him to carry on because he, Markus, “has his back”.
The radical is a Board employee. This is his biography: former member of the Law Society described as “ethical elf” for his practices; a grade one teacher; still practices law; teaches a college level law program; composes music; promotes his mediator company; preaches withholding donations to the Church; threatens to kick the Cardinal out of his classroom; advises Catholics to send their children to public schools; threatens trustees with Code of Conduct complaints for upholding Catholic practices and the International Languages Program.
But his saving grace is that he will protect six-year olds from homophobia in Catholic schools (this is a serious individual?).
Should be easy to do. The Board has on retainer and least two law firms who advertise their specialization in matters of “diversity”. I may be cynical, but will there be an incident which they will not see through the “diversity lens”.
Rubin Thomlinson’s Michelle Bird, for example, found Trustee Del Grande in breach of the Trustee Code of Conduct because his “tone” and “flippancy” may have offended some particularly sensitive members of a certain diverse group at a public debate. This is a new standard.
Presumptuous rookie Trustee Di Pasquale, “smear artist par excellence”, thinks reading from the Catholic Catechism in a Catholic environment is offensive and “dangerous”. No one has launched a complaint against his conduct yet. He conducts research for the Opposition Leader’s Office.
Another haughty rookie, Trustee Li Preti, who confuses asbestos fibres and mould with “pixie dust”, is all in a rage because her colleagues and the Board are “homophobic”. She questions whether the archbishop really understands the Pope’s views on the issues of today. She is seeking the Liberal nomination in York- Humber for the next provincial election. What is her focus?
Outside legal counsel provided by BLG, an ardent defender of “diversity” – a growth industry in the litigation business – from our perspective has “no skin in the game”, unless the firm and the lawyer are cited as co-defendants in a defamation suit for deliberately counselling activity that goes against the Law of the land.
The point of all this is that one should not expect the Board to build towards tomorrow until and unless it rids itself of the above influences. The corrosion is generated from within the Board.
For instance, one Nicole Richard, a gadfly who specializes in the guerilla tactics of approaching employers and advertisers of those who may disagree with her, in a tweet, yesterday morning, revealed contents of a confidential document to be discussed at the meeting in Private session tonight.
How did she come into possession of that document, Director Browne?
TO READ PREVIOUS COMMENTS: https://www.corriere.ca/english-articles