DOUKHOBOR CHILDREN: CAUGHT in the MIDDLE Introduction

Table of Contents

DOUKHOBOR CHILDREN: CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE Introduction ...... 43 Retroactive Justice? ...... 44 Who Are the Doukhobors? ...... 45 Lost Childhood ...... 49 A Question of Compensation ...... 51 Education and Culture ...... 52 Discussion, Research, and Essay Questions ...... 55 DOUKHOBOR CHILDREN: CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE Introduction

For the children who did not fully understand most Doukhobors did not engage in. either government policy or the complexities The government of British Columbia at the of their parents’ beliefs, the experience was time, like many members of the public, saw terrifying. During police raids in British the Sons of Freedom Doukhobors as radicals Columbia between 1953 and 1959, children or terrorists who were not to be trusted. In the of Sons of Freedom Doukhobors were government’s view there was no doubt the seized, sometimes forcibly, and detained in a group displayed a disregard for traditional former tuberculosis sanatorium in New morality and the law. Government officials Denver for up to six years. The now middle- also were very wary of a group who would aged adults say they suffered from systemic bomb and burn buildings as a form of pro- abuse that impaired their development. Some test. Provincial authorities questioned remember that they were neglected: that the whether they were fit parents and whether facility was not properly staffed, that the they would teach their children harmful ideas meals they were served were meagre, and and practices. Because they thought publicly that one boy with a broken arm was sent to funded education would expose their chil- bed without medical attention. Other former dren to a Canadian patriotism contrary to residents of the New Denver institution their beliefs, the Sons of Freedom did not explain that they were forced to work and allow their children to attend school. In the even perform hard labour, such as hauling end, the government took away the children heavy rocks to build a path for one of the of the Sons of Freedom by using a section of matrons. Perhaps most distressingly, children the Protection of Children Act designed in were separated from their parents for weeks part to ensure that all children receive a at a time. After a chain-link fence was con- provincially sanctioned education. structed around the facility in 1956, most The former residents of the New Denver visits with parents took place through the institution who are now suing the govern- fence. These Doukhobor children say they ment of British Columbia for compensation felt like criminals, although they were not say authorities did them much more harm sure what they had done wrong. than good by taking them away from their The children interned at the New Denver homes. They assert that officials deprived institution were innocent victims caught in them of their civil liberties and purposely the middle of a long-standing conflict be- isolated them from their families so that they tween the Sons of Freedom Doukhobors and would become more Canadianized, more the government of British Columbia. Mem- assimilated, and that all links to their culture bers of the Sons of Freedom movement, a were eliminated. Although there have been breakaway sect of the Russian Doukhobor many changes both in child welfare policy social movement, held many of the same and in public opinion of minority groups principles as other Doukhobors: they were since the events in question took place nearly pacifists who believed in community-based 50 years ago, this case raises tricky questions land ownership and self-sufficiency in social about the role of the state in protecting welfare. But in order to protest against children’s rights and cultural diversity. The government interference in their way of life, story also raises the question of whether this Sons of Freedom members conducted dem- is another skeleton in the closet of Canadian onstrations in the nude and carried out history. bombings and acts of arson, practices that

News in Review — 43 — May 2001 DOUKHOBOR CHILDREN: CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE Retroactive Justice?

The 49 adult Doukhobor children who are suing the province of British Columbia were from six to 15 years old when they were seized and confined because their parents, members of the Sons of Freedom group, refused to send them to government-run schools. In order to assess the alleged injustice committed against them, one must consider their rights as members of a minority group, but also as children. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child lists children’s rights that are essential to their wellbeing as individuals, as members of a family, and as participants in society. The rights of children outlined in the Convention can be divided into four main categories:

Non-discrimination: Children should not be treated differently because of their or their family members’ race, colour, sex, language, religion, political views, nationality, ethnic origin, or disability. More than that, children cannot be punished for the activities or beliefs of their parents, guardians, or other family members.

Best Interests of the Child: All public or private institutions that deal with children should work with the welfare of children in mind. In facilities responsible for the care of children, this can be achieved by adhering to guidelines defined by competent authorities in the areas of safety, health, and supervision.

Survival and Development: All children have the right not only to live, but also to grow and evolve.

Participation: Children’s opinions should be taken seriously. In judicial or administrative proceedings that involve them, children should be given the chance to share their views, either directly or through a representative.

Applying a Universal Standard Before viewing this News in Review report, discuss why each of the above principles is important. Then divide a piece of paper into four sections for each of the four principles. As you watch the report, make notes on each category of rights as it applies to the case of the Doukhobor children. As a class, discuss your findings.

Different Times? Drew Schroeder, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, asserts, “They took the children away and punished the children in order to punish the parents. That’s what they did, and that was wrong then and it’s wrong today. It was wrong in 1950. It’s always been wrong.” Some observers, however, say it is inappropriate to apply today’s social standards to events that occurred in the 1950s; the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, for instance, only entered into force in 1990. Canada is a much more liberal society today than it was in the 1950s in many re- gards. Was the government of the time acting in the best interests of the children according to the social climate of the time? During a second viewing of the report, make a list of the wrongs as described by the plaintiffs. Can any of these complaints be excused, explained, or justified in terms of the historical context?

May 2001 — 44 — News in Review DOUKHOBOR CHILDREN: CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE Who Are the Doukhobors?

Canada is a nation of immigrants, a “vertical mosaic” of ethnic and cultural groups who all have contributed to the evolution of the nation. As a nation today, we strive to recognize and be aware of all of the groups and sub-groups in this mosaic. As you read the following information, think about the importance of these principles. Also think about universal principles and issues that the Doukhobors and the Sons of Freedom represent: principles and issues shared by other groups. A History of Dissent Although little is known of the Doukhobors’ origins in 17th-century Russia, it is clear that by the 18th century they were well known as a distinct group of dissenters from the Orthodox Church. The label “Doukho-boret,” which was later shortened to just “Doukhobor,” means “Spirit Wrestler,” and it was first applied to the group in 1785 by an Orthodox archbishop who wanted to criticize them as people who wrestled against the Holy Spirit. The Doukhobors do oppose many of the Orthodox Church’s practices and beliefs, including the worship of icons, the acceptance of the Bible as the ultimate source of divine revelation, and the need for intermediaries in the form of priests. Instead of seeking God in symbols or hierarchical structures, they maintain that a divine force dwells in all humans. Thus, according to Doukhobors, no person has authority over another, and no person has the right to kill another. However derogatory its original sense may have been, the name “Doukhobor” was appropri- ated by the dissenters, who made it a positive designation by interpreting it to mean a person who wrestles for and with, rather than against, the Spirit. Since then, the Doukhobors have had to deal with many other disparaging labels, negative charges, and even persecution. In 1802, after a period of persecution in the previous century, people who held Doukhobor beliefs were allowed to settle in the Crimean region of Russia. When repression began again under the leadership of Nicholas I 40 years later, the Doukhobors were forced to move to Transcaucasia, an area that today includes the former Soviet republics of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. The group eventually prospered, until the government tried to implement compulsory military service at the end of the 19th century. The Doukhobors refused to accept this, and in 1895 approximately 7000 members of the group participated in mass burnings of their weapons, resulting in an intensification of government persecution. The Doukhobors were tortured and exiled. News of the Doukhobors’ persecution elicited sympathy for the group among humanitarians and pacifists throughout the world. One well-known social critic, the Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy, was particularly interested in the group. He wrote articles that supported their cause, and it was largely as a result of his support that the Doukhobors were able to escape the oppressive conditions in Russia. In 1897, the Tsarist government of Russia gave the Doukhobors permission to leave the country, on condition that they would arrange and pay for their own trips, and that they would never return. The Doukhobors in Canada Organizations that supported the relocation of the Doukhobors helped to find an area that would welcome the group. Although places such as Texas, Hawaii, Brazil, and Egypt were

News in Review — 45 — May 2001 suggested, a committee of Tolstoyans was influenced by the anarchist Peter Kropotkin’s description of Canada. Kropotkin had been impressed by the Mennonite communities he had visited in the Prairies. In the late 1890s, the government of Canada wanted immigrants to establish communities in the West. Clifford Sifton, the Minister of the Interior in the government of Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier, encouraged settlement by offering 160 acres of land to all adult male new- comers. Through James Mavor, a University of Toronto professor who was an acquaintance of Tolstoy and Kropotkin, arrangements were made for the Doukhobors to settle in three districts. An agreement was also reached so that the Doukhobors could continue to follow two important tenets of their faith: pacifism and communal living. The Doukhobors benefited from an amendment that had already been made to the Dominion Lands Act so that Menno- nite settlers could live in communal structures. In 1899, approximately 7500 Doukhobors immigrated to what is today known as Saskatchewan; up to 12 000 members of the sect stayed in Russia. Unfortunately, the Doukhobors continued to encounter problems in Canada, partly because their agreement with the government regarding communal land settlement was not formalized in a contract. The situation remained uneasy, and in 1905, under a new Minister of the Inte- rior, Frank Oliver, the government reversed its policy toward the Doukhobors. The group was told it would have to change its communal living structure and swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown in order to keep its land. While some Doukhobors known as the Independents did accept the government’s conditions, another group known as the Community Doukhobors refused to do so. About 75 per cent of Doukhobor land returned to the government. From 1908 to 1912, at least 5000 Community Doukhobors relocated to the Kootenay region of British Columbia, where they purchased their own land under the direction of Peter V. Verigin, a Doukhobor leader who had been in exile in Russia until 1902. The group operated successful businesses such as jam factories and brickyards. Their prosperity began to wane, however, following the death of Peter V. Verigin in a mysterious and still unexplained train explosion in 1924. Subsequently, during the Depression of the 1930s, the Doukhobors again lost most of their land to Canadian authorities when it was repossessed for lack of payment of taxes. Reflection: Tracing the Links Summarize in your own words the chain of events that resulted in members of this Russian sect making its home in Canada. What do you think is significant about the Doukhobors choosing Canada? The Sons of Freedom The Sons of Freedom, a relatively small faction of the Doukhobors, was established in 1902 in Canada by Doukhobors who believed that Spirit Wrestlers should be more radical in their resistance to the world. Especially frustrated by the government’s ambivalent attitude toward their land concerns, they released their own cattle and began a pilgrimage through villages in Saskatchewan and into Manitoba that lasted from mid-October to the beginning of November. Not surprisingly, the trek, which eventually included up to 1700 people, gained the attention of the public and the press.

May 2001 — 46 — News in Review Some Sons of Freedom tried to initiate another great march the following spring, only to find they could not attract the same amount of interest as before. It was at this time that they decided to start marching in the nude, a tactic that certainly did attract attention. The protesters were arrested and imprisoned for indecent exposure. It is important to remember that other Doukhobors did not approve of this behaviour. In fact, the Sons of Freedom often protested against the rest of the Doukhobors, who they thought trusted too much in science and material goods. The Sons of Freedom committed acts of arson against equipment and buildings be- longing to themselves and to other Doukhobors as a way to demonstrate their rejection and disapproval of worldly possessions. In the 1920s, the Sons of Freedom embarked on a campaign against the government, bombing power poles and railway tracks, and burning schools. In The Doukhobors, a work first published in 1968, George Woodcock and Ivan Avakumovic describe these activities as acts of guerilla warfare carried out in an attempt to slow down the Sons of Freedom’s assimilation into Canadian society. These guerilla operations, which continued in sporadic outbreaks over the next 40 years, led to a general fear in the public of the Sons of Freedom Doukhobors that no doubt contributed to the decision to remove their children from them. But by the early 1960s, the Sons of Freedom movement fell apart, weakened by infighting and by group members who were more preoccupied with violence for its own sake than for any specific cause. In spite of their long fight against just such an outcome, many Sons of Freedom moved to Vancouver and were absorbed into Canadian society. Reflection: Assessing Actions In groups of three or four, suggest reasons why the behaviour of the Sons of Freedom might have been considered outrageous or dangerous to society. In your opinion, how did their public actions have or not have an impact on their children? Other Perspectives Personal reactions by prominent people to the Doukhobors in general and the Sons of Free- dom have varied. Examine the following four quotes and then proceed to the discussion. “[The Sons of Freedom] movement has shown that there lives in them what is most precious and important—a religious feeling, not passive and contemplative, but active, drawing them to the renunciation of material advantages. . . .” — Leo Tolstoy, Russian novelist “I have always been grateful for the generosity of the Doukhobor people to the Japanese during the war. As a child in Slocan I well remember the vegetable wagons that were our only source of fresh food. I also remember a beautiful Doukhobor girl who was one of the few white children who would talk to me. Needless to say, I had a mad crush on her.” — David Suzuki, Canadian scientist “When I first heard the word Doukhobor I remember being filled with a sentiment of mixed terror, curiosity, and admiration that I find hard to admit.” — Gabrielle Roy, Canadian author “I have watched with hopelessness and sorrow that marked changes that occur during the lives of Freedomite [Sons of Freedom] children. They begin as beautiful, well-behaved youngsters. There is a sweetness and gentleness—though usually sadness—in their faces. Then suddenly changes start. By the time they are 10 or 12 the hatred their parents tell them all outsiders feel for them shows on their faces. Many become sullen around non-Doukhobor,

News in Review — 47 — May 2001 believing them to be government or agents of the government.” — Simma Holt, author of Terror in the Name of God: The Story of the Sons of Freedom Doukhobors Reflection: Character Witnesses What key issues does each of the above speakers identify? How do these references to the Doukhobors and Sons of Freedom suggest a general process of socialization? A Lack of Awareness or a Conflict of Principles? As the above quotations demonstrate, reactions to the Doukhobors in general but especially to the Sons of Freedom, have run the gamut from high esteem to strong disapproval. Koozma J. Tarasoff, a Doukhobor descendent who has written a number of books and articles on the Doukhobors’ history, suggests that many assertions about them are based on an incomplete or one-sided understanding of the group. People who wholeheartedly praised the group, like Leo Tolstoy did, were often humanitarians who observed Doukhobor actions from afar but who did not have to deal with the consequences of their protests. Other people who condemned segments of the Doukhobor population, such as Simma Holt did, were often Canadians who were offended by the Doukhobors’ disregard for mainstream values and who did not understand the religious sentiment behind their actions. Most Canadians were not able to base their judgment of the Doukhobors on personal meetings but rather judged them on the basis of rumours, hearsay knowledge, and sensational media reports. Not surprisingly, opinions at the time when the seizure and confinement of the Sons of Free- dom Doukhobor children occurred also varied. People who valued civil liberties disapproved of the situation, and journalists from outside British Columbia who came to visit New Denver often criticized the institution, commenting on its prison-like atmosphere. Certain other commentators, however, held that compulsory schooling was for the children’s own good. Simma Holt, who often asserted her concern for children’s rights and safety, thought that the young Doukhobors would be much better off if they were Canadianized than if they followed their parents’ way of life. Recent sentiment toward the Doukhobors has been much more positive than in the past. In the 1970s and 1980s, the growing multicultural movement, though criticized by some, inspired many people to learn more about their own cultures as well as those of others. Doukhobors began to organize celebrations and establish museums that would preserve their heritage. Today, approximately half of the world’s 60 000 Doukhobors live in Western Canada; the other half live in Russia. While some Canadian Doukhobors still try to preserve elements of their culture such as the Russian language and traditional dishes, many aspects of the Doukhobor philosophy are now no longer practised. For example, Doukhobors no longer live communally, and their children attend public schools. Follow-up Activity Working in small groups, consider the following. Using this News in Review story as a case study, what can we learn from the Doukhobors, the confinement of the children of the Sons of Freedom, and Canadian society in general? Make a list of key principles, precedents, constitu- tional guarantees, and current Canadian values that, in your opinion, need to be considered carefully when assessing this part of Canadian history.

May 2001 — 48 — News in Review DOUKHOBOR CHILDREN: CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE Lost Childhood

“All the world’s riches are not worth the life of a single child.” — Doukhobor saying

The Ombudsman’s Report An ombudsman is an officer appointed by Parliament or a government to investigate complaints by private citizens about unfair, negligent, or improper government administration. The office of the ombudsman must be impartial and independent from the government, so that its findings will be perceived as trustworthy by both the public and the government. Although the ombudsman does not have the power to make decisions for the government, recommendations made by ombudsmen are often adopted.

In 1999, British Columbia’s Ombudsman, Dulcie McCallum, reported the findings of her investigation of charges of systemic abuse that children of Sons of Freedom Doukhobors brought against the government of that province. In a report entitled “Righting the Wrong: The Confinement of the Sons of Freedom Doukhobor Children” McCallum concludes that government policy regarding the children of the Doukhobors had a detrimental effect on them. The Ombudsman outlines the numerous losses suffered by those who were detained in the institution at New Denver. She listed the following: (a) loss of love and nurturing (b) loss of parental and community guidance (c) loss of childhood (d) loss of dignity from living in an institutional setting, from suffering abuse and neglect, and from deprivation of affectionate caregivers (e) loss of self-respect from unfair and harsh punishment and living conditions and being denied access to parents and family (f) loss of privacy from living in an institutional setting (g) loss of individuality from living in an overcrowded institution and having significantly restricted access and visiting to parents and family (h) loss of civil liberties, including loss of language, religion, and culture

Discussion The Ombudsman’s report refers to a loss of childhood on the part of the confined children. In your opinion, what does this mean? Can you give specific examples of what such children might have lost?

The Fragility of Childhood Childhood is a time of innocence and a time of great importance in terms of the formation of the adult the child will become. Although many observers note that children are resilient and able to overcome difficulties, how a child develops and learns to overcome adversity has a significant effect on his or her later life. Role-modelling, primarily with the parents, is still the key learning mode in childhood. Although experts in the field of child psychology, child care, and other related professions are not in full agreement about the nature of support systems needed to fully meet children’s developmental needs, the Ombudsman’s report links a “loss of

News in Review — 49 — May 2001 childhood” with being deprived of parental love, nurturing, and guidance. Commenting on the effects of parent-child separation, Régis Thill, who is in charge of Educational Facilities of the SOS Children’s Village Association in Luxembourg, says that separation from one’s parents is always a traumatic experience for a child. He adds, however, that children who are separated from their parents will not necessarily suffer permanent damage.

The Stages of Development of Childhood Children develop in stages, physically, emotionally, and spiritually. As you examine the following stages of child development, consider to what extent separation from one or both parents might affect a child or play a greater or lesser role at each stage. What is the importance of this information in terms of this news story?

The Infant (birth to 12 months): At this stage, a baby develops her first social relationships. At some point between six and eight months of age she will form attachments—bonds of affection and dependency—to other people. Although this type of bond often involves the child’s mother, a baby will become attached to any person who comforts her. Another important development at this stage is the establishment of trust in caregivers who demonstrate affection toward the baby.

The Toddler (12 to 24 months): At this age, the child gains a sense of himself as an individual distinct from his parental figures. While too much independence will harm the child, he likes to do things for himself. The rapid developments in language and motor skills that occur during this stage allow for this autonomy.

The Preschooler (three to five years): Starting when she is about three years old, a child develops extraordinary creativity, enjoying things like art and storytelling. She will also be able to express her own opinions, which she will defend vehemently. While the child starts to learn to control her own behaviour, she needs the assurance that an adult is nearby to offer guidance.

The Primary School Child (six to eight years): During this stage of development, the child gains a sense of values and is able to follow his family’s rules. Play with other children is especially important during the primary school years, since it helps a child’s social development.

Middle Childhood (nine to 11 years): The child in middle childhood learns from reinforce- ments and punishments received from people who are not her parents, as well as from her parents. She may model her behaviour on that of others around her, whether they are adults or children.

Follow-up Activity and Discussion Revisit the list of losses mentioned in the Ombudsman’s report and suggest the stage of childhood development at which, in your opinion, each particular loss would be especially critical.

May 2001 — 50 — News in Review DOUKHOBOR CHILDREN: CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE A Question of Compensation

In most societies, when a wrong has been committed and an individual has been harmed or victimized, the perpetrator is usually punished or required to compensate the victim in some way. The dilemma, however, is that by their very nature as events in the past, some wrongs are almost impossible to redress. The harm has been done and something irretrievable has been taken away from the victim. Bearing this in mind, consider the issue of compensation for these children as explained below. Can or should these adults be compensated, and if so, how? The report on the confinement of the Doukhobor children by the Ombudsman of British Columbia includes recommendations on how the present government of the province can respond to the children’s losses. The Ombudsman suggests that the government should admit that the way the children were seized and detained was wrong, that it should give the former New Denver residents a “full and adequate” explanation of why they were detained, and that it should apologize publicly to them. Most importantly, but also most controversially, she also recommends that the current government compensate these Doukhobor children after consul- tation with them. Unfortunately for the children of the Sons of Freedom, McCallum’s findings and recommendations have no legal weight. Two years after the “Righting the Wrong” report was tabled, the government of British Columbia had not acknowledged any of its suggestions. Finally, in April 2001, a group of 49 adults who had been confined took matters into their own hands by launching a lawsuit. These now-grown Doukhobors are currently plaintiffs in a class action suit—a combined lawsuit that allows similar cases to be heard at once—against the government of British Columbia. Should it be found that the children of the Sons of Freedom were injured by the actions of the government, they will be eligible to obtain damages—an estimated monetary equivalent for the loss they sustained. This case involves tort law, an area of civil law that deals with wrongful acts other than breaches of contract. In tort law, the intention is not to punish the person or group who committed the wrongful act; rather, the aim is to compensate the person or group who suffered the consequences of the act. A wrongful act can be committed even by a well-meaning person. Objections to Compensation Not everybody thinks the Doukhobor children should receive compensation for their losses. Some people, such as Eli Tétrault, a former member of the RCMP who was involved in bringing the children to the New Denver school, even think the children should be grateful they received an education that allowed them to obtain jobs later in life. Other observers, such as lawyer and writer Karen Selick, do not dispute the rights of the victims to collect damages for their losses, but do question a system in which taxpayers end up footing the bill for wrongs committed by others. Others have commented on what they call a “culture of compensation,” in which people seem to be eager to portray themselves as victims in order to obtain remuneration. Discussion In your opinion, should compensation payments be given to these adults who, as children, were confined? If so, how would such payments benefit them? How should the amounts be determined? Where should the money come from?

News in Review — 51 — May 2001 DOUKHOBOR CHILDREN: CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE Education and Culture

In part, this News in Review story is about education. When we talk about education, we often think in terms of schooling—the formal instruction or training that takes place in a classroom setting. Education, however, is broader than that: it is any system, whether formal or informal, through which people develop not only knowledge and skills, but also beliefs and values. Education, then, takes place in any group or society, and is essential to the survival of distinct social groups, because participating in shared knowledge and ideals helps people relate to a group and preserve its norms. It is usually recognized that parents are the first and main educators in a child’s life. But experts point out that parents are not the sole educators in a child’s life nor the only ones responsible for educating their children. In Canada, we support public education through taxes whether we have children in school or not or, indeed, whether we have children at all. And just as all health-care providers are not in hospitals, clinics, and doctors’ offices, all educators are not in public classrooms. Furthermore, the role of teachers in classrooms and other individuals who work with young people in a mentorship relationship has been referred to as co-parenting. If, therefore, as a society we commit ourselves to the well-being of “our” children, we must also recognize that there may be times when the parenting or educating roles are shared or may even overlap.

The confinement of the children of the Sons of Freedom Doukhobors occurred as a result of a disagreement over education, both in the narrow sense of formal schooling and in the larger sense of the development and maintenance of culture. On one level, the Sons of Freedom and the government of British Columbia disagreed about whether children should be required to follow a system of formal instruction. The government believed it had the right to require children to attend school, and some Doukhobor parents believed they had the right to keep their children away from school. At the heart of this disagreement, however, was a much larger dispute about systems of values. Both government officials and the Sons of Freedom Doukhobors believed in certain ideals and wanted the children to strive for these ideals. More than that, both government authorities and the children’s parents mistrusted the education the children would receive at the hands of the other group. Because some officials saw the Sons of Freedom as terrorists, they also wanted to protect the group’s children from learning violent resistance to the government from their parents. Because the religious views of the Sons of Freedom rejected the authority of the state, they did not want their children to learn loyalty to the Canadian government and its secular values through public (state) schools. In this respect, therefore, the controversy involved the role of the state in the private lives of citizens— essentially raising the question of what rights or role the state has in determining how children should be raised.

Reviewing the Educational “System” 1. Education takes place in all social groups. Make a list of the groups and communities to which you belong. How has each group contributed to your education? Select one group and identify skills, information, traditions, or values that you have learned from it. Compare your list with those of your classmates.

May 2001 — 52 — News in Review 2. All private, alternative, or home schooling programs and schools in Canada are required by law to conform to clearly defined governmental criteria and standards. Based on what you have learned about the Doukhobors, what traditions and principles that this group wished to follow would appear to have conflicted the most with standard Canadian educational curriculum and practices? Education by Public Consensus? When the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) published its “Report on Education in Canada” in 1976, it suggested that the goals and objectives of formal education in Canada did not elicit much controversy or discussion among the citizens of this country: “Canadian education policy may be one of the least ‘politicized’ in the world.” Such a judgment overlooks the actions and opinions of small minority groups, such as the Sons of Freedom Doukhobors, who did oppose the official policy on education. However, as Cana- dian society has become more diverse, and as governments at federal and local levels have started to focus on cost-cutting measures, more debate about the structure and goals of education has taken place. In order to engage in discussion about future directions of educational systems in Canada, it is necessary to understand the overall structure of formal education in this country.

While the federal government does contribute funds to education services and at times develops policies that have an effect on education, Canada’s Constitution grants authority over educational organization to individual provinces (and now also territories). In all provinces and territories, the majority—over 90 per cent—of students are educated in public schools controlled by school boards or districts. In four provinces, a denominational Protestant or Roman Catholic school system makes up part of the public system, and about one third of public school students in the country attend these separate schools.

But not all students in Canada are registered in the public school system. All provinces autho- rize private or independent schools to offer an alternative to the public system, usually for those who can afford to pay for it, while five provinces do allot some funding to privately controlled institutions, the bulk of operating costs are covered by tuition fees. Although only a small percentage of Canadian students attend private or independent schools, the number of students enrolled in these institutions has doubled in the past 30 years. Religious groups run about half the independent or private schools in Canada.

Home Schooling Another alternative to the public school system, and one that has been gaining in popularity in recent years, is home schooling. In fact, although children educated at home make up less than two per cent of students in Canada, home schooling is the fastest-growing education option in this country. According to the Ontario Federation of Teaching Parents, families who choose home schooling fall into three main categories: those who are fundamentalist Christians, those who do not believe that publicly run schools will meet their children’s interests and learning styles, and those who live far from schools. While some people think that home schooled children will not develop proper social skills because they do not interact with their peers on a daily basis, many educational experts have commented that students educated at home perform well academically when they reach the college or university level. The home schooling system varies throughout Canada. British Columbia provides the most support for home

News in Review — 53 — May 2001 schoolers, usually in the form of school supplies. The Vancouver Island school board even equips home schoolers with computers.

Native Education Another change that has taken place in Canadian education over the past few decades involves Native people. When Canada’s government-funded residential school system was phased out in the 1960s, Native students were expected to join non-Native students in public schools—but many problems prevented this from occurring. Over the past three decades, Native communities have taken control of education in their communities, and Native authorities now make decisions about curriculum and staffing.

Follow-up Discussion 1. What are some advantages and disadvantages of the different types of formal schooling described above? Based on what you have learned about the Doukhobors in the 1950s, which system of education do you think would have best suited their lifestyle? Explain your answer.

2. In Canada, the law requires that people attend some form of school between the ages of six and 16. Suggest why these particular ages have been chosen.

3. What benefits to society as a whole does a system of public education offer? What role do you think private schooling should play in this country? Can you suggest ways in which public educational services are in fact privatized—that is, learning or tutorial situations offered for a fee in the community that might formerly have occurred in the school? Who, in your opinion, is qualified to home school his or her children?

May 2001 — 54 — News in Review DOUKHOBOR CHILDREN: CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE Discussion, Research, and Essay Questions

1. The Doukhobors have sometimes been described as a utopian community. The notion of utopia refers to a hypothetical place or existence that is considered to be perfect; it also suggests something that is impossibly ideal, especially in terms of social or political aims. Why might this group have been described in these terms?

2. Pacifism is an opposition to war or violence of any kind. Find out more about other groups that have pacifist beliefs, such as the Quakers, the Mennonites, or the Hutterites. Write a report outlining the history of one of these groups, comparing and contrasting the group with the Doukhobors.

3. Prepare a book review on one of the following books dealing with the Doukhobor community: The Community Doukhobors: A People in Transition, by John W. Friesen and Michael M. Verigin; The Doukhobors, by George Woodcock and Ivan Avakumovik; Plakun Trava: The Doukhobors, by Koozma J. Tarasoff.

4. One of the Doukhobors’ most influential leaders, Peter V. Verigin, gleaned many of his philosophies from the Russian writer Leo Tolstoy (War and Peace, Anna Karenina), who was also well known as a social critic. Following a profound spiritual crisis Tolstoy assumed numerous moral positions, including passive resistance to evil, rejection of religious or civil authority and private ownership, and a return to a basic form of mystical Christianity. His works were banned in Russia and he was excommunicated by the Orthodox Church. Prepare a report on Tolstoy and suggest how his beliefs may have influenced the Doukhobors.

5. Learn more about the office of the ombudsman/ombudsperson, a term that has come into English from Swedish. What is the history of the office? What kind of ombudspersons exist in Canada at the federal, provincial, and territorial levels? One good source of information is the Web site of the International Ombudsman Institute at the University of Alberta (www.law.ualberta.ca/centres/ioi/).

6. Research the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, an international agreement created with input from different societies, religions, and cultures and adopted as an international human rights treaty on November 20, 1989. After studying this document, suggest if you believe that the actions of the B.C. government toward the Doukhobor children would have been in contravention of the treaty if it had been in place at the time. Begin your research at www.unicef.org/crc/.

7. Research three other “skeletons in the closet” of Canadian history: (a) Native residential schools, (b) the Chinese head tax, and (c) Japanese internment camps. How has the Canadian government attempted to make amends in these cases? In your opinion, is the case of the Doukhobor children of equal seriousness to the above? Present your findings to the class.

News in Review — 55 — May 2001