The 1990 Kirpan Case: Cultural Conflict and the Development of Equity Policy in the Peel District School Board

Home , History of Brampton, Kirpan, Ontario Khalsa Darbar

THE 1990 KIRPAN CASE: CULTURAL CONFLICT AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF EQUITY POLICY IN THE PEEL DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD

Mary S. Martin

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education Graduate Department of Theory and Policy Studies Ontario Institute of Studies in Education University of Toronto

THE 1990 KIRPAN CASE: CULTURAL CONFLICT AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF EQUITY POLICY IN THE PEEL DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Doctor of Education, 2011 Mary S. Martin Graduate Department of Theory and Policy Studies Ontario Institute of Studies in Education University of Toronto

Abstract

In 1990, a case came before the Ontario Human Rights Commission involving the collision of a religious rights policy enshrined in the Ontario Human Rights Code 1981 and a Peel Board of

Education disciplinary policy prohibiting weapons including the kirpan, a dagger-like article of religious faith worn by baptized Sikhs. Harbhajan Singh Pandori claimed infringement of his religious rights as a Sikh under the Code. In a joint complaint, the Ontario Human Rights

Commission alleged the Code had been violated in a Peel Board policy restricting the religious rights of Sikhs by prohibiting the kirpan. Attempts to mediate between complainant Sikhs and the Peel Board failed. The dispute went before an Ontario Human Rights Commission tribunal adjudicated by Rabbi W. Gunther Plaut who ruled that the kirpan was a religious symbol and could be worn to school subject to restrictions.

The Pandori kirpan case illustrates the complexity of resolving issues of cultural and religious conflict in public institutions undergoing demographic change. Significant to the kirpan case were Canadian immigration policy changes which eliminated race and ethnicity from admission criteria. As a result, the Region of Peel witnessed significant intake of immigrants including

Sikhs, some of whom insisted on their right to wear a kirpan. The extensive public debate that followed afforded valuable insight on the political process of policy-making in education and

ii accommodating diversity in public educational institutions. The debate also set the stage for the development of the Peel Board’s equity policy documents-- Manifesting Encouraging and

Respectful Environments and The Future We Want launched in 2000. Despite the new equity documents, some observers have remarked that institutional change is slow unless pressure is applied by the courts or the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

While the kirpan issue has been put to rest in Canada, issues of competing rights continue to challenge Canadians. The kirpan case demonstrates that balancing competing rights in a multicultural society is an ongoing struggle with no final resolution. In the twenty-first century, as Canada continues to diversify, debates concerning accommodation continue to be reflected in the public schools.

iii Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my thesis advisor, Dr. Harold Troper for his generosity in supervising this research. Dr. Troper offered constant encouragement and shared an infectious love of historical inquiry. This dissertation would not have been possible without his enthusiastic guidance. Thank you to Dr. Nina Bascia for her guidance in matters of educational policy and her willingness to share her knowledge and insights. Dr. Bascia contributed immensely to my understanding of policy. Thank you to Judge Marvin Zuker for his support in navigating the maze of education and law, and his interest in matters of religious accommodation in education.

In addition, I would like to thank Dr. David Levine for serving as a member of my defense committee and for his inspired teaching of historiography. Thank you to my external examiner,

Dr. James W. Walker for reading this dissertation and offering his insightful comments, questions and recommendations. Dr. Walker has broadened my thinking and encouraged further exploration of human rights issues.

My father, Dmytro Pawlyszyn instilled a passion for education while struggling to support a family as an immigrant factory worker. My cousin-in-law Dr. Blaine Baker generously supported my efforts and shared his passion for legal history and education. My mother-in-law,

Patricia Martin and sons-in-law, Dr. Josh Levinson and Wojciech Kostelecki supported me with their good humour and understanding. My daughters Seanna, Kristin and Jillian Martin are precious beyond words. I encourage them to pursue their unique interests in the years ahead. My husband Jim Martin encouraged this work, shared my enthusiasm, and provided unconditional support and wonderful vegan food every step of the way.

iv Table of Contents

Abstract...... ii Acknowledgements...... iv Abbreviations...... vii Chapter 1: Introduction...... 1 Education Policy: A Contested Process...... 6 Balancing Competing Rights: Multiculturalism and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms ...... 14 Religious Diversity in Schools...... 18 Contributions...... 22 Research Methodology ...... 24 Chapter 2: Immigration: An Incredible Explosion ...... 27 Immigration in the Region of Peel...... 29 Peel: Three Distinct Communities...... 34 Town of Caledon...... 35 City of Mississauga...... 36 City of Brampton ...... 37 History of Brampton...... 38 Murder at Brampton Centennial Secondary School ...... 41 The Peel Board of Education ...... 53 Chapter 3: The Kirpan: Religious Article or Knife?...... 70 District Court of Ontario...... 84 Why Don’t You Go Back to India? ...... 93 Pandori and the Peel Board of Education ...... 96 Summer 1988...... 99 The Peel Board of Education Conducts its Research on Kirpans...... 101 December 12, 1988: The `Peel Board of Education Meeting...... 110 The Peel Board of Education’s Decision...... 118 Chapter 4: The Kirpan: Prohibited Weapon or Catalyst for Equity Policy?...... 125 Ongoing Investigation...... 130 Case Disposition on Behalf of Pandori...... 135 Case Disposition-OHRC...... 138 Appointment of a Board of Inquiry ...... 139 Rabbi Gunther Plaut...... 139 An Ontario Human Rights Commission Board of Inquiry Convenes ...... 145 Press ...... 147 Ontario Human Rights Commission Board of Inquiry...... 150 Board of Inquiry...... 151 Uncontested Facts ...... 155 Harbhajan Singh Pandori: Complainant ...... 157 Kirpan Policy in Other Jurisdictions: Testimonies Given at the Board of Inquiry...... 159 Inderjit Mehat...... 159 Roy Hardie...... 161 Ralph Prentice...... 162 David Weldon ...... 163

v Tony Pontes ...... 167 Norman Gollert ...... 168 William Malcolm Campbell ...... 169 Carolyn Parrish ...... 171 Linda Palazzi...... 174 Zubeda Vahed ...... 176 Dr. Edward Blackstock ...... 180 Concluding Arguments ...... 183 Chapter 5: The Future We Want: A Never Ending Journey...... 184 Rabbi Plaut’s Decision...... 188 Legal Analysis ...... 188 Application of Section 10 to the Case...... 191 Indirect Discrimination...... 191 Undue Hardship...... 191 Safety...... 191 Religious Rights...... 196 Kirpan Stabbings...... 197 Rabbi Plaut’s Conclusion...... 197 Rabbi Plaut’s Order...... 199 Public Response...... 200 The Peel Board of Education’s Decision to Appeal ...... 203 Appeal...... 207 Response ...... 209 Strategic Planning Directions for Renewal in the 1990s ...... 212 1990 to 1995: Anti-Racism and Ethnocultural Equity Policy ...... 215 Chapter 6: Concluding Thoughts...... 222 Bibliography ...... 229

List of Figures

Figure 1. Region of Peel...... 30

vi Abbreviations

AO Archives of Ontario, Toronto, RG 76-5-1, OHRC Pandori/Peel Board

DCO District Court of Ontario, Brampton, Court File # 7685/88, Sukhdev Singh

Hundal and the Peel Board of Education

KC Keel Cottrelle, Toronto, File M3779, Peel DSB-Kirpan Records

OHRC Ontario Human Rights Commission, Toronto, #90-008, Harbhajan Singh

Pandori and OHRC and Peel Board of Education

Plaut Papers Library and Archives Canada, Ottawa, MG31, Series F6 Volume 300,

OHRC - Pandori v. Peel Board of Education.

SCO File #793/90 Supreme Court of Ontario - Divisional Court, Toronto, Court File

#793/90, Harbhajan Singh Pandori and OHRC and the Peel Board of

Education

SCO File #1170/89 Supreme Court of Ontario - Divisional Court, Toronto, Court File

#1170/89, Peel Board of Education and Ontario Human Rights

Commission

vii

Chapter 1: Introduction

Modern industrial states will keep being reshaped through the mixing, within their borders, of different races, religions, languages, and nations; thus they will have to keep finding solutions to the ever new problems created by the clash of cultures. 1

On April 2, 2010 there was a stabbing in a Brampton Sikh temple involving a kirpan. 2

The stabbing focused community attention on the kirpan, its potential for use as a weapon, and

the larger issue of ethnic violence. As this study explains, the kirpan, violence, and issues of

accommodating diversity have previously been front and center in Brampton. In these regards,

cultural conflict has long been part of the Canadian historical narrative, and accommodating

diversity continues to pose challenges for Canadians into the twenty-first century. 3 It is important

to ask: how are equity issues that arise in educational institutions addressed in the context of a

changing, democratic, multicultural society? This thesis considers a telling incident of cultural

policy conflict and its consequences in the context of the Peel public schools. In 1990 a case

came before a Board of Inquiry of the Ontario Human Rights Commission involving the

1 J. W. Berry and J. A. Laponce, “Evaluating Research on Canada’s Multiethnic and Multicultural Society: An Introduction,” in Ethnicity and Culture in Canada. The Research Landscape , eds. J. W. Berry and J. A. Laponce (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994), 4.

2 Raveena Aulakh, “Dagger fight raises fears for symbol of Sikh faith,” The Toronto Star , April 6, 2010, A1.

3 Recent press reports document debate about the limits of accommodation, tolerance or freedom of religious expression in Canada. See for example: Ingrid Peritz, “Gym, Jews don’t see eye to eye,” The Globe and Mail , November 8, 2006, A1; Prithi Yelaja, “Turban tale sparks campaign; Sikh who alleges eatery barred him entry wins international support after Facebook posting,” The Toronto Star , May 1, 2007, D.3; Les Perreaux, “Quebec Woman lodges complaint after being asked to remove niqab,” The Globe and Mail , March 3, 2010, A4; Don MacPherson, “Figuring out what’s reasonable shouldn’t be this difficult,” The Gazette , March 4, 2010, A23; Margaret Wente, “Two solitudes and the niqab,” The Globe and Mail , March 13, 2010, A23; Ingrid Peritz, “Veil dispute reveals Quebec’s hardening line on religious displays,” The Globe and Mail , March 10, A1; Rheal Sequin, “Quebec body rules against right to wear niqab,” The Globe and Mail , March 17, 2010, A13.

1 2

collision of two policies: religious rights as enshrined in the Ontario Human Rights Code 1981

and the Peel Board of Education Discipline Policy No. 48, a disciplinary policy prohibiting

weapons on Peel Board property. On one side of the dispute, Harbhajan Singh Pandori claimed

infringement of his religious rights as a Sikh under ss. 4(1) and 8 of the Ontario Human Rights

Code 1981. In a joint complaint, the Ontario Human Rights Commission alleged that s.s.1, 8 and

10 of the Code had been violated in a Peel Board policy restricting the religious rights of

students and teachers by prohibiting the wearing of the kirpan, a dagger-like religious symbol

with profound spiritual significance for Khalsa Sikhs.

Central to the kirpan dispute and its implications for equity policy is the reverence Sikhs

accord to articles of faith called the five K’s. Manohar Singh Bal has written that those religious

symbols “touch an emotional chord for all Sikhs, who yearn to have them accepted in Canada.”

Reviewing the long history of the five K’s, Bal points out that the five symbols and the turban

were instituted by Guru Gobind Singh in 1756. The symbols include: “the kara (steel bangle),

kangha (comb), kachh (short breeches), kirpan, (sword), and kes (uncut hair). He argues that

most Canadians do not understand the 5 K’s or “Panj kakkars,” and mistakenly view the kirpan

as “dangerous” and the turban as an interference with Canadian culture. Bal notes that the Panj

kakkars have inspired Sikhism to remain a living force and that they have provided strength and

reaffirmation of Sikh values in the face of adversity. According to Bal, “the sanctity which the

community attaches to the kirpan arises from Guru Gobind Singh’s merging of the idea of divine

might with the sword.” 4 But the sword in this case is a symbol of strength not aggression.

Violence is not condoned in the Sikh tradition, and the use of the kirpan for self-defence is

4 Manohar Singh Bal, “Sikh Symbols - The Five K’s,” in Sikhs in Ontario , eds. Judith Bali and Manohar Singh Bal (Toronto: Ontario Council of Sikhs, 1993), 116, 119.

restricted, and violations of this stricture are extremely rare. No reported incident of violence in

any Canadian school had involved the use of a kirpan in the nearly 100 years that Sikhs had

resided in Canada. 5 What is more, wearing of kirpans had not been banned by any other public school board in Canada except Peel. 6

For its part, the Peel Board denied any infringement of religious freedom had occurred.

From the Board’s perspective, it was its right and duty under the Ontario Education Act to maintain discipline and safety in the schools. In this case, the Board did so by adopting a no- weapons policy that was read to include the wearing of the kirpan. The banning of the kirpan from Peel schools created the collision of Peel Discipline Policy No. 48 and religious rights as enshrined in the Ontario Human Rights Code 1981 . In spite of reference to federal multicultural policy and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , all attempts to mediate an end to tensions between complainant Sikhs and the Peel Board failed. The dispute eventually went before an Ontario Human Rights Commission tribunal adjudicated by Rabbi W. Gunther Plaut

(Pandori v. Peel Board of Education (1990), 12 C.H.R.R. D/364, aff’d (1991), 3. O.R. (3d) 531).

At the conclusion of that hearing, Rabbi Plaut ruled that the kirpan was a religious symbol and not a weapon. He further ruled that wearing the kirpan was not a violation of the Peel Board’s weapons policy. The kirpan could, therefore, be worn in school, subject to certain reasonable conditions.

What are we to understand from the kirpan case? Was it an anomalous event driven not by a desire to clarify issues of religious rights but rather the product of uncompromising

5 A. Brown and M.A. Zuker, Education Law (Toronto: Thomson Canada Limited, 2002), 247.

6 A subsequent kirpan case emerged in the late-1990s in Quebec, and was ultimately heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. See Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys, (2006) 1 S.C.R. 256.

demands of Sikh “fundamentalists”? 7 Faced with students wearing what they regarded as daggers in class, Peel Board officials claimed they were justified in taking actions designed to safeguard schools. Others might argue that in outlawing the kirpan in schools the Peel Board showed itself to be racially insensitive by privileging the dominant Anglo-Christian majority at the expense of racial and ethno-religious minorities. Still others might point to a fatal 1975 shooting in a Peel secondary school. It was hardly surprising that, recalling this gun tragedy and facing fears of escalating school violence in the 1980s, school board officials lined up against the kirpan which one person described as “inherently dangerous with its steel blade of varying lengths.” 8

Weapon or religious symbol? The gulf between Sikh community and Peel School Board positions seemed irreconcilable. But Rabbi Plaut attempted to square the circle. In the end, Rabbi

Plaut found no evidence of racism in the Peel Board’s banning of the kirpan. On the contrary, he later noted in his memoirs, school board officials made repeated and sensitive attempts to accommodate Khalsa Sikh students who wore kirpans to school. 9 At the same time, while he found no fault with the Board’s motives, he ruled that the kirpan was not a weapon and, therefore, not subject to exclusion from the classroom. Rabbi Plaut’s ruling, however, much as he tried to be even-handed, came at the end of a protracted dispute that, to this day, underscores

7 Cynthia Mahmood argues that the Canadian media has linked Sikhs to religious fundamentalism and a discourse of terrorism. A dispute about tables and chairs in a British Columbia Sikh gurdwara, for example, was portrayed by the press as an “obscurantist fundamentalist debate.” See C. K. Mahmood, “Sikhs in Canada: Identity and Commitment,” in Religion and Ethnicity in Canada , eds. P. Bramadat and D. Seljak (Toronto: Pearson Education Canada, Inc., 2005), 59.

Darshan Tatla has also noted that the 1985 Air India bombing, which killed everyone aboard the plane, was linked to Sikh terrorists. For a comparative study of the Sikh experience in India, Canada, U.S. and Britain see Darshan Tatla, “Sikhs in Multicultural Societies,” International Journal on Multicultural Societies (IJMS) , vol. 5, no. 2 (2003), 177-192.

8 Keel Cottrelle File M3779, Peel DSB-Kirpan Records, hereafter KC. Letter to Hundal from Board Peel DSB kirpan records, Jan 11, 1989.

9 See W. G. Plaut, More Unfinished Business (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997), 58.

how difficult it is to resolve issues of cultural and religious conflict in public institutions,

including schools, that are being reshaped by a new demographic reality.

If as James Walker argues, a single case “can be teased out for meaning to offer a key to

an entire period or phenomenon,” then the kirpan case study can be seen as revealing of the

process of education policy development, its implementation and unintended consequences,

against a backdrop of population change. 10 Significant to the kirpan case were the immigration policy changes which officially eliminated race and ethnicity from immigration admission criteria during the 1900s and instead, introduced a points system based on individual and adaptive capacity in accord with Canadian economic needs. 11 In the wake of this immigration

policy change, the Region of Peel witnessed significant intake of immigrants including many

Sikhs, some who would eventually assert that it was their right to wear the kirpan, even in Peel

Board schools.

This case study details social, cultural, and political factors which impacted the

development and implementation of education policy in the Peel Board as it relates to the kirpan.

It also discusses the fallout of competing rights, the tension between dominant groups and

religious minorities, and the consequences of policy lag in a world of rapid demographic change.

10 James W. St. G. Walker, “Race,” Rights and the Law in the Supreme Court of Canada. Historical Case Studies (The Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History and Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1997), 41.

See also David Ley’s case study of a conflict involving the removal of trees in suburban Vancouver. Ley suggests the incident symbolizes “the meeting of the local with the global, the collision of the past with the present, the conjunction of hegemonic blocs with roots in Europe and Asia.” David Ley, “Between Europe and Asia: The Case of the Missing Sequoias,” in Ecumene , 2(2), 1995, 202.

11 For a discussion of immigration policy since 1945, see H. Troper, “Canada’s immigration policy since 1945,” International Journal (Spring 1993), 255-281.

An overarching question raised by this study is: what are the legitimate limits of accommodation

in a multicultural society or, more crudely, what tolerance is there for intolerance?

Education Policy: A Contested Process

To better understand how and why the Peel Board’s kirpan issue led to a debate about

competing rights, it is useful to examine a representative sample of secondary literature that

addresses the development, implementation and consequences of education policy. A review of

research on education policy provides a foundation for understanding the implications of actions

taken by the Peel Board and the larger implications for the treatment of diversity in Canada.

Numerous scholars have argued that education policy evolves through a political process of conflict and contestation, driven by issues of value and power, within a specific social, cultural, historical and political context. As Nina Bascia has pointed out, “North American schools have been peculiarly permeable to a variety of ideas; schools can be seen as political arenas to which divergent ideas about preferred social futures are brought, and where they are integrated or contested.” 12 In his review of American public school reform, David Tyack argues that debates about education are “part of the contested terrain of power and values that make education reform a characteristic arena for debating and shaping America’s future.” 13 According to Sandra Taylor et al., the functions of public policy in education have been to provide both an account of cultural norms considered desirable by the state, and a mechanism of accountability

12 Nina Bascia, “Pendulum Swings and Archaeological Layers: Educational Policy and the Case of ESL,” in The Erosion of Democracy in Education: From Critique to Possibilities , eds. J. Portelli and P. Solomon (Calgary: Detselig, 2001), 248.

13 David Tyack, “Public School Reform: Policy Talk and Institutional Practice,” in American Journal of Education , vol.100, no. 1 (November 1991), 16.

for students and teachers. Since the 1960s, policy has been said to serve an additional function.

Taylor et al. have observed that governments have had to respond to the political demands of

interest groups and social movements dissatisfied with the role of education in maintaining social

order. Thus, the authors argue, education policy has also come to serve as “an instrument through

which change is mapped onto existing policies, programmes, or organizations, and onto the

demands made by particular interest groups.” 14

In the Canadian context, Walter Werner argues that curriculum uncertainty is the result of numerous “technical, ethical, political, and experiential factors.” 15 Curriculum development, he

claims, involves a value component and may require the application of power if consensus can

not be reached. According to Werner, power is “the ability of a group or individual to influence

others, or more directly, to make decisions that resolve the struggle over value differences.” 16

Curriculum implementation is also unpredictable because of site-specific institutional factors

including teacher beliefs, parental expectations, student diversity, and political debates. Werner

suggests that any “consensus [regarding curriculum policy] be examined in order to determine

“whose values and interests are actually served.” 17 Taken together, the work of policy scholars indicates that a case study of policy-making in education may be analyzed to elicit underlying values, consequences, and implications of policy.

14 Sandra Taylor et al., Educational Policy and the Politics of Change (London: RoutledgeFalmer, 1997), 3, 5.

15 Walter Werner, “Curriculum and Uncertainty,” in Social Change and Education in Canada (2 nd edition), eds. R. Ghosh and D. Ray (Toronto: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1991), 105.

16 Werner, “Curriculum and Uncertainty,”107.

17 Werner, “Curriculum and Uncertainty,”112, 113.

Several scholars have examined education policy development and implementation in a specific social and political context. Their studies reveal the political process of policy-making and implications for diverse students in different contexts. Some scholars also raise questions about the limitations of institutional change. In her historical overview of the production and treatment of difference in Ontario schools, Helen Harper argues that the identity of the state, defined by values and beliefs, has significant implications for the identity of the student. Harper examines five responses to difference including cultural suppression through assimilation of non- dominant cultures, segregation, denying difference, celebrating diversity through multiculturalism, and critiquing difference through educational initiatives such as anti-racism education. Education policy often reproduces inequity, Harper observes, because it most often serves to reflect the values of the dominant group in different historical time periods. 18

Harper’s commentary applies to the kirpan case study. An analysis of the kirpan case clearly demonstrates that social pressures influence policy making. In order to protect staff and students in a culture of increasing school violence, the Peel Board developed a Discipline Policy prohibiting all weapons. At the time of that policy’s initial development, the Board had not anticipated the extent of demographic change in the Peel community or the impact of diversity for the schools of the Peel Board. As Canada admitted increasing numbers of immigrants from non-Christian cultures, including many Sikhs, the school system was pressed not just to accommodate students of non-Christian background but also to deal with the implications of religious difference. This was not always easy. The Peel Board had not considered, let alone taken into account, the spiritual meaning of the kirpan for Sikhs and its implications for

18 H. Harper, “Difference and Diversity in Ontario Schooling,” Canadian Journal of Education 22 (1997), 202.

education policy. In the end, the Peel Board’s response to kirpans became a contested issue

between the Board and the Sikh minority.

In his study of Ontario education policy from 1950 to 1995, Robert Gidney discusses the provincial government’s response to issues of diversity and social change in schools. 19 Gidney’s study is revealing as a social and political background to the Peel Board’s kirpan matter because it describes events in Ontario in the time period which spans the Peel kirpan case. One focus of

Gidney’s study is an exploration of educational governance with respect to “the relative role of province and locality in providing direction for the schools.” 20 One significant change for

schools in urban Ontario was the arrival of visible minority immigrants. After 1960, said Gidney,

Ontario schools were pressed to accommodate increasing numbers of immigrant students

arriving in the Greater Toronto Area from non-ethno European cultures. In the 1980s the

provincial Liberal government addressed equity including racism, gender discrimination, and

heritage language instruction. When voted into power, the New Democratic Party also made

equity issues a priority. In the 1990s, for example, the New Democratic government mandated

that each school board establish an anti-racism and ethnocultural policy. In 1995, with the defeat

of the New Democratic government, the Harris Progressive Conservative government shifted

policy priorities away from equity to job creation, economic recovery, tax reduction, and

eliminating excessive layers of bureaucracy. In Gidney’s words, the Progressive Conservative

government was “quick to jettison a decade’s worth of equity initiatives.” 21 But equity would not

be denied. By the late-twentieth century, Gidney argues, there was renewed demand for “equity

19 R. D. Gidney, From Hope to Harris: the reshaping of Ontario's schools (Toronto: University of Toronto Press Inc., 1992), 179.

20 Gidney, From Hope to Harris, 8.

21 Gidney, From Hope to Harris, 234, 237.

10 of access and equality in outcomes.” 22 Public opinion, especially in immigrant-heavy urban areas, held that schools had a moral and social obligation to address the consequences of societal change. If Gidney’s work does not detail specific incidents of social or religious dispute such as the Peel Board’s kirpan issue, it affords a social and political overview useful in examining the kirpan dispute.

Focusing on issues of equity in education, Tim McCaskell raises questions about the possibilities and limits of institutional change in his case study of the Toronto Board of

Education. Writing from the perspective of an insider, he points out that the evolution of equity policy in the Board was not a gradual or uniform process. It was, rather, an often disjointed response to a series of internal and external crises. He argues that the adoption of equity policy remains “a dramatic example of how popular mobilization in conjunction with progressive forces inside an institution-in combination with legal imperatives-could force a conservative bureaucracy to bend to community demands.” 23 As he notes, as increasing numbers of non-white

immigrants arrived in Ontario in the 1980s, educators were pressed to accommodate the new

diversity in the schools. According to McCaskell, educators responded to that demographic

change, in part, by weighing the merits of traditional, multicultural, and anti-racist education.

According to McCaskell, a growing body of judicial decisions under the Charter of

Rights and Freedoms signaled public concern in addressing racism. By the mid-1990s with the

Charter in place, he notes, equity activists were increasingly relying on legal arguments and the

Charter to address equity in schools. Quoting a former Toronto Board trustee and lawyer,

22 Gidney, From Hope to Harris, 182

23 Tim McCaskell, Race to Equity: Disrupting Educational Inequality (Toronto: Between the Lines, 2005), 272.

McCaskell points out that people who did not use the law to effect change “were left behind.” 24

The kirpan issue is a case in point. Kirpan advocates successfully used the Charter as an

instrument or forum to pursue demands for policy change with respect to the wearing of kirpans

on Peel Board property.

McCaskell’s study of the Toronto Board provides a basis of comparison with the

neighbouring Peel Board of Education. The kirpan case and the development of equity policy in

Peel can also be understood as a response to crises inside and outside the Peel Board. While

McCaskell questions the possibilities and limits of institutional change, a study of the kirpan

issue demonstrates that equity disputes in schools and society are ongoing. These types of

disputes are never easily resolved in a diverse and changing society because these disputes

migrate to new ground. Even as the Peel Board put the kirpan issue behind it, for example, other

issues related to diversity have emerged and posed further challenges for the Peel Board.

In their study of education policy development in the United States in the 1980s and

1990s, Catherine Cornbleth and Dexter Waugh argue that curriculum development is an exercise

of power that has an impact on individual and collective identity. The authors quote Joyce King’s

analysis of race and power:

Disagreements about education and curriculum transformation among liberals, progressives and conservatives–that appear to be about what should be included in the literary canon or taught in the school curriculum–are as much about the society’s failure to resolve the problems of racial hierarchy and cultural hegemony in a purported democracy. 25

24 McCaskell, Race to Equity, 281, 204.

25 Catherine Cornbleth and Dexter Waugh, The Great Speckled Bird (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995), 185.

The authors also describe the struggle between a dominant “neo-nativist” group and non- dominant groups in New York and California during the 1980s and 1990s. The debate centred on the representation of national identity and multiculturalism in the history curriculum. On one side, the dominant group favoured an additive approach to the representation of diversity. That approach would presumably minimize an examination of racial and ethnic conflict. On the other side, some ‘marginalized’ groups contested their exclusion from existing history textbooks.

The authors frame their account with a description of two interrelated movements: one movement involved the redefinition of the United States to encompass an increasingly diverse population; the other involved the struggle for knowledge control in academic communities.26

Cornbleth and Waugh conclude that curriculum development is a highly contested process,

groups have differential access to power, and fear underlies issues of diversity. The authors argue

that the primary lesson of their study involved a paradox in that policy makers and liberal

scholars gave “lip service” to equity in education, while their actions minimized change. They

attribute this “braking effect” to underlying fears that “racial-ethnic separatism awaits just

around the corner.” 27 This study is revealing of the multiple factors and underlying values that

influence education policy-making. At one level, the kirpan dispute can be understood as a

straightforward issue of school safety. At another level, an analysis of the kirpan case reveals

unresolved issues of equity and diversity in Canada and the implications of larger policy debates

in the public schools.

Scholars have argued that education policy reflects values within a particular era and

must be understood as a feature of institutional history given life by current institutional realities.

26 Cornbleth and Waugh, The Great Speckled Bird, 5, 15, 6, vii, 4.

27 Cornbleth and Waugh, The Great Speckled Bird, 188.

In her case study of one Ontario school board and English as a Second Language programming, for example, Nina Bascia uses the metaphor of policy as archeological layers to illustrate that

“teaching and learning take place in institutions permeated by history; a sort of archaeological dig where layers of past policy may continue to exert some influence.” 28 Using this model she examines ESL programming in Ontario during the 1990s. She finds contradictions. On one hand, she states, schools are open to new policy ideas. On the other hand, internal discord shapes the experiences of students and teachers. Bascia notes three major implications for the education of immigrant students. First, decision makers and educators need be aware of options and systemic influences in order to understand the constraints and possibilities of policy implementation.

Second, policy can be “confounded by individual and collective experience and values.” 29 To

pronounce policy is not to implement policy. Implementation can be site specific. Policy, for

example, interacts with institutional realities, and programming must be worked out by

individual teachers in specific schools. Third, past policy has a “drag” effect. Policies do not turn

on a dime. Consequently, past policy continues to shape new policy initiatives. Bascia concludes

that supporting immigrant students requires persistence in recognizing and creating

implementation opportunities at policy and practical levels.

The kirpan case study reveals the complexity of policy-making, the continuing impact of

past policy, and the need to analyze site-specific factors which impact policy implementation. In

the case of the Peel Board of Education and its response to religious diversity, it is necessary to

review the history of violence in Peel which led to the development of policy banning all

weapons. That policy was not easily set aside in the name of religious accommodation. Public

28 Bascia, “Pendulum Swings,” 249.

29 Bascia, “Pendulum Swings,” 263.

14 unease over diversity also coloured public response to the Peel kirpan case. Some extreme reactions appeared to be tinged with racism; others by concerns about the limits of accommodation. Public response even indicated that some citizens feared Sikhs as potential terrorists. Allowing Sikhs to wear kirpans, some asserted, would create an unsafe environment in

Peel Board schools. 30 While neighbouring school boards accommodated kirpans without issue, the Peel Board resisted. In the end the Ontario Human Rights Commission was not only adjudicating between the Peel Board of Education and Sikh kirpan advocates, but also those who denied the changes brought on by diversity and those who welcomed it. Taken together, this body of work indicates that education policy development and implementation is a contested terrain. An analysis of policy issues in education, such as the kirpan case, forces an examination of underlying changes in society, and the response of people and institutions to those changes.

Balancing Competing Rights: Multiculturalism and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

In order to explore the kirpan case, it is necessary to examine the impact of the political

context and the interaction of education policy and other public policy. If, as Harbhajan Singh

Pandori claims, the Sikhs would not have won the kirpan case without reference to the Canadian

Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is necessary to review the Charter’s evolution and

implications for individual rights. 31 In their discussion of human rights legislation, Brian Howe and David Johnson argue that Ontario was at the forefront of establishing human rights

30 Peel Board of Education Superintendent C.W. Bridge recalled visiting a Sikh gurdwara in Malton. In the basement of the temple, he noticed one section “devoted to photographs of heroes of Khalistan with AK 47s.” Bridge formed the impression these Sikhs were a “very militant group.” Some group members, he said, had been suspects in the Air India bombing. Many Malton residents lost family members as a result of the tragedy. Interview with C.W. Bridge, Brampton, October 5, 2004.

31 Interview with Harbhajan Singh Pandori, Mississauga, December 28, 2006.

15 protections, in large part because of pressure from activist groups and structural changes including immigration, urbanization, and the expanded entry of women into the paid workforce.

The authors contend that the Second World War and postwar events such as Canada’s participation in the establishment of the United Nations and as a signatory of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights , lent weight to demands for human rights legislation in Canada. In

1961 the Ontario Human Rights Commission was established to administer the Human Rights

Code. Howe and Johnson also argue that the Charter of Rights has now “emboldened judges not only to use the Charter to strike down legislation that contradicted rights but. . . to provide a broad and liberal interpretation of [other] human rights legislation.” 32 Significant to the events

described in this thesis, Howe and Johnson note that human rights legislation was embedded in

Canadian public discourse by the 1980s. They also note that the discourse of public policy has

changed from “the language of public interest, collective responsibility, and the common good”

to a language of individual rights, interests, and entitlements. 33

Several authors have also questioned the purpose and effectiveness of multiculturalism

policy as a tool for furthering diversity. In his critique of immigration policy in Canada, writer

Daniel Stoffman argues that Canada may be diverse but it is not “multicultural.” According to

Stoffman, multiculturalism is divisive because cultural differences can be irreconcilable.

Residents of Korea, for example, can visit specialty restaurants that serve dog. It would be

unthinkable, however, to eat dog in a Canadian restaurant. From the perspective of a Korean

resident of Canada, the practice of serving cow, chicken, and lamb in restaurants while

32 R. Brian Howe and David Johnson, Restraining Equality: Human Rights Commissions in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000), 36.

33 Howe and Johnson, Restraining Equality, 151.

16 prohibiting dog may seem illogical. 34 The place of religious symbols is another case in point.

Scholars have argued that religious symbols are not easily discarded by members of a faith tradition. Lawyer and media commentator, Satwinder Gosal, writing in Sikhs in Ontario, observes that:

Multicultural policies have repeatedly been animated by the objective of celebrating differences rather than appreciating them. Thus politicians will attend and encourage song and dance performances in their attempt to appease their ethnocultural constituency. They are less active, however when these constituents demand support in, for example, the claim to wear a turban or kirpan. 35

Gosal suggests that creative encounters provide superficial appeasement value in a multicultural society. By contrast, religious differences are far less appreciated. Accordingly, unfamiliar foods and costumes are perceived differently, and more positively, than religious symbols. The reason for these differences in perceptions, Gosal concludes, is that each religion makes a claim to absolute truth; a claim that may prove irrevocably divisive in relations between the dominant group and religious minorities or between minority religious groups for that matter. Similarly,

Stuart Schoenfeld argues that it is difficult to accommodate multiculturalism and religious difference in a multi-ethnic, multi-racial and multi-religious society because each religion makes a claim to the proprietorial truth rather than shared truth. Cultural diversity can be brought into schools using a framework based on civic ideals. Religion can not. Schoenfeld asks: “Can absolute truths be taught without teaching hostility, on the one hand, or insincerity, on the other?” 36

34 Daniel Stoffman, Who Gets In (Toronto: Macfarlane Walter & Ross, 2002), 119, 120.

35 Satwinder. S. Gosal, “The Quest for Justice: Enforcing the Right to Wear the 5 K’s,” in Sikhs in Ontario (Ontario Council of Sikhs), 132, 252.

36 Stuart Schoenfeld, “Transnational religion, religious schools, and the dilemma of public

According to Janice Gross Stein, the relationship between individual and collective rights has been difficult to pin down in the Canadian context. 37 She argues that the first phase of

multiculturalism focused on group rights and encouraged Canadians of various cultures to “be

themselves.” 38 More recently, Canadians entered a second phase of multiculturalism in which a

culture of individual rights challenges cultural and religious practices that appear to infringe on

Canadians’ conceptions of equality. Gross Stein contends that Canadians have a unique

commitment to multiculturalism but that commitment is being tested in an era of declining job

opportunities for immigrants, concerns related to terrorism, and a global resurgence of religious

orthodoxy. In practice, Gross Stein suggests: “Multiculturalism is being tested by a global

resurgence of religious orthodoxy in part because Canadians are uncertain about what limits, if

any, there are to embedding diverse religious and cultural traditions within the Canadian

context.” 39 She argues that soft multiculturalism celebrates “song, dance, poetry, literature,

language and food.” The harder questions of multiculturalism involve willful separation and the

imagined other. She asks: “How far can religious and cultural stereotyping go before it becomes

incitement to hatred?” In her view, Canadian judges have “interpreted legislation to strike a

delicate balance between freedom of expression and the avoidance of racially, culturally and

religiously motivated hate.” 40 Gross Stein also points out that these issues are still unresolved

and raise questions about the role of the state in balancing the collective good and the balance of

funding for Jewish education: the case of Ontario,” Jewish Political Studies Review 11 (3-4), 129.

37 Janice Gross Stein, “Searching for Equality,” in Uneasy Partners: Multiculturalism and Rights in Canada (Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2007), 1-22.

38 Gross Stein, “Searching for Equality,”1.

39 Gross Stein, “Searching for Equality,”4.

40 Gross Stein, “Searching for Equality,”7.

18 religious particularism–veiling one’s face while testifying in court. While not without controversy, Gross Stein insists, the conversation about balancing competing rights is essential to charting a viable multicultural and multifaith future.

Religious Diversity in Schools

Several scholars have argued that balancing competing rights in education poses a challenge in a multicultural society. This is certainly true in the case of wearing of religious symbols in public schools. Alison Renteln notes that ethnic minorities face a difficult predicament when forced to choose between the religious and secular. Renteln discusses the1994

California case of Cheema v. Thomson , No. 94-16097, 1994 W.L. 477725 (9 th Cir. Sep.2, 1994)

which involved three Sikh children who wore kirpans to school. When the children refused to

remove their kirpans, they were banned from school during a litigation process. Commenting on

the dagger-like appearance of the kirpan, Renteln maintains that “an era of devastating school

violence and heightened awareness of terrorist attacks in the United States has left individuals. . .

acutely sensitive to anything that resembles a weapon.” 41

Freedom of religion is regarded a right in a liberal democracy, she asserts, but the courts have ruled that it is religious beliefs that are protected and not religious actions. The crux of the problem, Renteln argues, is that outsiders to a religious faith do not necessarily appreciate the importance of religious symbols. What is more, religious symbols accentuate differences between dominant groups and religious minorities, and may cause discomfort in a society with a political ideology of cultural assimilation. As Renteln put it, “visual religious symbols apparently

41 Alison Dundes Renteln, “Visual Religious Symbols and the Law,” American Behavioral Scientist 47, No. 12 (2004), 1579.

19 symbolize inadequate political devotion.” 42 As a result, Renteln concludes, religious freedom of

action is tenuous in the United States and other pluralist democracies.

Many scholars have also argued that schools are a microcosm of society. Some have

suggested that religious expression in public schools is linked to a nation’s political and legal

structures and to mechanisms available to individuals who wish to contest issues of human

rights. According to Dickinson and Dolmage, for example, Ontario’s education system reflects

the ongoing tension between linguistic and religious dualism as contained in the Constitution Act of 1867, and notions of egalitarianism and multiculturalism in sections 15 and 27 of the

Charter .43 A number of Ontario’s educational policies, they argue, are consistent with the notion

of cultural pluralism as presented in multiculturalism policy and “aspire to non-discrimination,

sensitivity, exclusiveness, appreciation and ethnic pride.” 44 Nations with a history of pluralism

such as England and Canada, some argue, have been more receptive to the inclusion of religious

symbols and religious expression in public schools than nations with a more assimilationist

ideology such as France. The Peel Board’s kirpan case provides a context for understanding the

issue of religious symbols and the freedom of religious expression in Canadian schools.

Sarah Wayland has said that “public schools provide a microcosm of how states grapple

with the challenges posed by the immigration of diverse nationalities, races and, especially

religions.” 45 In a comparative study of Canada and France, she examines national differences in

42 Renteln, “Visual Religious Symbols and the Law,”1590.

43 Greg M. Dickinson and W. Rod Dolmage, “Visual Religious Symbols and the Law,” Canadian Journal of Education, 21, 4 (1996), 378.

44 Dickinson and Dolmage, “Visual Religious Symbols and the Law,”381.

45 S. Wayland, "Religious expression in public schools: kirpans in Canada, hijab in France," Ethnic and Racial Studies 20 (3) (1997), 545.

20 the integration of immigrants and mechanisms for resolving issues of human rights. Wayland concludes that Canada and France incorporate immigrants differently. Canada is a pluralist state with a policy of multiculturalism. France has a policy of cultural assimilation. Canada and

France also have different mechanisms for addressing human rights complaints. Sikhs in Canada contesting the kirpan case have been able to turn to the courts or other judicial mechanisms and make their interests known to the government while Muslims in France are less able to use the legal system to influence the government directly and, as a result, resorted to street protest.

Wayland concluded that a vocal, activist minority group in Canada may criticize the state. If their grievances resonate with the prevailing political and legal culture, their chances of easing grievances are greater than in France.

Similarly, Basil Singh argues that minority rights in liberal societies are affected by procedures and ideologies in those societies. In a comparative study of England and France, he examines legal disputes involving religious and cultural issues. One case involved a Sikh student in England who wore a turban to school. The school’s headmaster deemed that the turban contravened the school’s dress code. The House of Lords found that Sikhs constituted an ethnic group and held that it was discriminatory to demand that a Sikh student comply with the school dress code. In a second case, three students provoked a national debate in France by wearing the hijab to school. That debate centred around questions of religious neutrality, the meaning of being French, and the limits of tolerance in the French liberal tradition. The matter was referred to the Council of State where it was resolved that the hijab might be worn under certain provisos.

A case by case approach was recommended based on strict government guidelines. Singh points out that England and France are both liberal democratic states with multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious populations, but that those states differ in “attitudes towards immigration and

21 national and communal identity.” 46 Singh concludes that England’s legal and educational institutional frameworks protect cultural pluralism while France’s institutions favour cultural assimilation.

David Seljak argues that debates about religious accommodation in education raise questions of fundamental values with regard to the “rights and freedoms of individuals, families, and communities, state power, [and] the nature of democracy, as well as the very definition of nationality and freedom.” Seljak questions the logic of removing religious education from public schools in an increasingly global world. For one thing, he has observed, religiously illiterate students do not understand diverse cultures or the impact of religious principles for adherents of a religious faith group. Second, some people regard secular public schools as inhospitable to

Christians and non-Christians alike. The state’s claim to support multiculturalism lacks credibility, Seljak insists, when religious education is not part of the school curriculum. 47

Shaheen Shariff contends that a policy vacuum exists in education as Canadian schools

continue to become increasingly diverse, and individuals turn to the courts and the Charter of

Rights and Freedoms to defend religious and ethnic particularism. According to Shariff,

Canadian schools “grapple with the notion of secularism in a democracy” as they determine

which religious and cultural artifacts will be permitted. 48 With reference to the 2006 Multani kirpan case in Quebec ( Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys (2006) 1 S.C.R.

46 Basil R. Singh, “Responses of Liberal Democratic Societies to Claims from Ethnic Minorities to Community Rights,” Educational Studies 25, No.2 (1999), 195.

47 David Seljak, “Education, Multiculturalism, and Religion,” in Religion and Ethnicity in Canada , eds. P. Bramadat and D. Seljak (Toronto: Pearson Education Canada, Inc., 2005), 178, 179.

48 Shaheen Shariff, “Balancing Competing Rights: A Stakeholder Model for Democratic Schools,” Canadian Journal of Education, 29, 2 (2006), 478.

256), Shariff concludes that the balancing of competing rights will never be neat and simple. He notes that the Supreme Court of Canada held that the act of banning kirpans in schools “did not advance the fundamental principles of Canadian democracy” and would instead have a deleterious effect. 49 Accordingly, Shariff suggests that schools need an action model to address

issues of competing rights and avoid making arbitrary decisions in hope of diffusing tensions.

Taken together, the literature indicates that it is difficult to balance competing rights in

education, particularly competing rights that involve the expression of religious beliefs. Debates

about religious rights echo other public policy debates in the Canadian context including

immigration, the relative role of the courts and legislature in addressing the balance of competing

rights, and the meaning of democracy. A case study of the kirpan case affords an opportunity to

explore how policy debates have been played out in the Peel Board of Education and how these

debates reflected wider policy debates in Canada.

Contributions

As the literature makes clear, if religious freedom is guaranteed in Canada, religious

practice poses challenges to Canada’s human rights legacy. This study addresses, according to

historian Robert Gidney, a largely unexplored area in the literature. In analyzing the educational

impact of social, political and economic change in Ontario from 1950 to 2000, Gidney urges that

distinctive Ontario regions, including its large urban communities, require their own historians. 50

This study attempts to fill that research void. The Toronto District School Board, neighbouring

49 Shariff, “Balancing Competing Rights,” 489.

50 Gidney, From Hope to Harris , 3.

Peel to the east, has been the subject of much scholarly research. 51 In contrast, the Peel District

School Board has received scant research attention.52 Yet the Region of Peel is distinctive and its

school system merits study. The Peel Board is among Canada’s largest and fastest growing

school boards, serving students and staff from a vast diversity of origins and faiths. What is also

significant is the rapidity of demographic change in Peel during the past few decades. This was

initially met with a slow and, some might argue, indifferent response from the school board. That

lethargy is even more remarkable because between 1981 and 2000 the population of Peel

doubled in large part due to immigration, much of it from the developing world. If the Peel

Board at first seemed somewhat oblivious to demographic change, in 1990 diversity hit the Peel

Board head-on in the kirpan case. In the aftermath of the kirpan case, a now more diversity-

aware Peel Board developed two comprehensive equity documents to address multicultural and

issues of human rights and diversity in the Peel public schools. The first document, Manifesting

Encouraging and Respectful Environments (MERE), was developed in response to concerns about racism and sexual harassment in schools. As noted in the preface to MERE, the document

51 See, for example, S. Ramcharan, “Special problems of immigrant children in the Toronto school system,” in Education of Immigrant Students: Issues and Answers, ed. Wolfgang, (Toronto: The Ontario Institute of Studies in Education, 1975), 95-106; D. M. Fumia, “Competing For a Piece of the Pie: Equity Seeking and the Toronto District School Board in the 1990s,” (Ph.D. diss., OISE/UofT, 1999); T. McCaskell, Race to Equity (Toronto: Between the Lines, 2005); Luigi G. Pennacchio, “Toronto’s Public Schools and the Assimilation of Foreign Students, 1900-1920," The Journal of Educational Thought , vol.20, no.1, April 1986; Shaheen Azmi, “Muslim educational institutions in Toronto, Canada,” Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs , 21(No. 2), 2001, 259-272; Helen Jefferson Lenskyj, “Going Too Far? Sexual Orientation(s) in the Sex Education Curriculum,” in Sociology of Education in Canada, ed. Lorna Erwin and David MacLennan (Toronto: Copp Clark Longman Ltd., 1994).

52 In her Master of Arts thesis submitted to the University of Toronto in 1994, Tricia Young has noted that she originally intended to write a case study of the Peel Board’s antiracism policy. She submitted a research request but was advised by the Board that her research requirements could not be accommodated. In her study she concludes that the Peel Board’s 1988 policy of multiculturalism played “lip service” to diversity without follow through. Tricia Young, “Anti-Racism and Ethnocultural Equity Policies in Ontario Schools: An Historical Examination,” (MA. diss., OISE/UofT, 1994), 98.

24 includes a discussion of “power, the underlying dynamic that fuels all isms. . .[and] a comprehensive guide for evaluating the level of equity in one’s classroom.”53 The second

document, The Future We Want , was written to provide a teaching context for MERE and

launched in 2000. As noted in The Future We Want :

. . . the [Peel] Board confirms and upholds the principles enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Ontario Human Rights Code . It is committed to removing institutional barriers, eliminating both systemic and individual forms of harassment and discrimination, and ensuring that the needs of all students and staff are addressed. 54

Research Methodology

The data for this study were drawn from primary and secondary sources. Primary sources specific to the Peel kirpan case include documents from the Peel District School Board, the Peel

Board’s lawyers, the Archives of Ontario, Library and Archives Canada, the Region of Peel

Archives, and court documents. When available, personal documents and memoirs were also reviewed. In addition to the manuscript record, every effort was made to interview relevant players in the kirpan story and those involved in the development of equity policy in the Peel

Board. Informants include teachers, administrators, trustees, other Peel Board employees, and members of community organizations. Interviews were conducted between January 2004 and

December 2007. Informants were asked to discuss their involvement with the kirpan issue and, where relevant, the development of the Peel Board’s equity documents. Most interviews were approximately one hour in length and took place at a location convenient to the informant. Notes were taken throughout each interview. With permission, most interviews were taped and later

53 Peel District School Board, Manifesting Encouraging and Respectful Environments, August 2000, Preface V.

54 Peel District School Board, The Future We Want, building an inclusive curriculum , August 2000, 5.

25 transcribed. Real names are used in the thesis only with written permission from an informant.

When anonymity was requested, names and identifying details are withheld. These interviews afforded a diverse perspective of views about equity, diversity, and policy-making in the Peel

Board.

The Peel District School Board’s documents include a selection of minutes of school board meetings, reports, and policy documents addressing demographic change and the treatment of diversity by the Board. The Peel Board also allowed examination of the records of its legal advisors. Equally important are documents related to policy discussion as regards violence in the schools, the Board’s legal position on the kirpan and, more recently, Board equity and multicultural initiatives. With regard to the kirpan case, papers of Peel’s legal counsel were particularly revealing.

Ontario Archives’ Human Rights Commission files dealing with Pandori v. Peel Board of Education (Pandori v. Peel Board of Education (1990), 12 C.H.R.R. D/364, aff’d (1991), 3.

O.R. (3rd) 53) were examined. Those files include minutes of meetings (Commission meetings, and Peel Board of Education meetings), copies of correspondence (Commission, Peel Board, and other institutions), Human Rights Commission forms such as Record of Intake, Intake

Questionnaire, handwritten notes, briefing notes, interview notes, press articles, and Peel Board procedures.

Also reviewed for this study were the Rabbi Plaut Papers housed in the Library and

Archives Canada. These papers include newspaper articles, radio transcripts, correspondence specifically related to the Pandori Human Rights Commission hearing, other administrative records such as hearings such as those of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, judicial decisions, and notes detailing administrative arrangements such as table placements, schedules,

26 and billing information. These papers are complemented by Rabbi Plaut’s autobiographical discussion of his role in the Ontario Human Rights Commission with regard to the kirpan case in particular.

In addition, District Court of Ontario documents were reviewed pertaining to another kirpan-related case involving the Peel Board. Also examined were the Supreme Court of Ontario

Divisional Court documents relating to Pandori v. OHRC , and the Peel Board of Education’s

Notice of Appeal of the Human Rights Commission Board of Inquiry decision, and exhibits.

Transcripts and documents from Divisional Court were reviewed including key court forms, correspondence, and exhibits.

Finally, the local, regional, and national press was explored for items relevant to the kirpan case. Taken together, the research data afford a broad picture of the kirpan case and its implications for the development of equity policy in the Peel Board.

Chapter 2: Immigration: An Incredible Explosion

Canada is a dream, a dream of equality, a dream of liberty, a dream in which the right to be different is guaranteed in the basic law, in which the rights of Canadians as Canadians because they belong to this country, are the same everywhere, whether they are men or women, native or from mother countries, or whether they are immigrants full of hope who have just arrived dreaming of liberty and justice. 1

Rich as the literature is for exploring issues of cultural conflict and policy in public schools, nothing tests the schools so much as lived experience. 2 What happened in the Region of

Peel is a case in point. By the end of the twentieth century, Peel had been transformed from a monochromatic, rural community into a suburban municipality with a multiracial, multicultural, multilingual, and multi-faith population. In the past, the majority of Peel’s residents shared a common language, religion and ethno-European heritage, and Peel’s public schools reflected the dominant British tradition, English language, and Protestant Christian faith of the community. 3

1 In 1981, MP Serge Joyal introduced the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the House of Commons. Quoted in James W. St. G. Walker, “Race,” Rights and the Law in the Supreme Court of Canada. Historical Case Studies (The Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History and Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1997), 4.

2 For a discussion of various aspects of educational policy see: W. Werner, “Curriculum and Uncertainty, in Social Change and Education in Canada (2 nd edition), eds. R. Ghosh and D. Ray (Toronto: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1991); C. Cornbleth and D. Waugh, The Great Speckled Bird (New York: St. Martin's Press Inc., 1995); T. McCaskell, Race to Equity (Toronto: Between the Lines, 2005); S. J. Ball, “Orthodoxy and Alternative,” in The Micro-Politics of the School (London: Methuen, 1987); W. Clune, “Three views of curriculum policy in the school context: The school as policy mediator, policy critic, and policy constructor,” in The contexts of teaching in secondary schools: Teachers' realities, eds. M. McLaughlin, J. Talbert and N. Bascia (New York: Teachers College Press, 1990), 256-270; and B. Levin and J. A. Riffel, “Changing schools in a changing world,” in The sharp edge of educational change: Teaching, leading and the realities of reform , eds. N. Bascia and A. Hargreaves (London: The Falmer Press, 2000), 178-194.

3 David Gagan noted that in 1852, about half of Peel County’s residents reported place of birth as England, Ireland, Scotland or the USA. Almost half reported place of birth as Upper Canada or Other

27 28

Since 1981 immigration has turned Peel into an increasingly diverse immigrant community. As the Region of Peel experienced demographic change, its Board of Education wrestled with the implications of diversity in the schools. 4 In 1987 the chairperson of the Peel Board reported that

an “incredible explosion” in population was straining the resources of a school board unused to

accommodating children of so many different racial, linguistic, religious, and cultural traditions. 5

By 1988 the Peel Board had over 90,000 students from “a myriad of social, cultural, racial and

economic backgrounds.” 6 Initially unprepared to deal with children from a variety of origins, the schools became points of friction. 7 The issue of the kirpan case in the Peel Board of Education is a telling example of that friction.

British North American provinces. Only 2 percent reported Other as place of birth. The religious affiliation most commonly reported was Church of England at about 30 percent and Roman Catholic at about 10 percent. Other Christian denominations accounted for about 50 percent. Other and Not Given accounted for about 4 percent. By 1870, a comparative study of school children reporting father’s place of birth indicates about 75 percent of school children had a father born in England and affiliated with the Church of England. For a discussion of Peel’s social history and demography between 1845 and 1875, see David Gagan, Hopeful Travellers: Families, Land, and Social Change in Mid-Victorian Peel County, Canada West (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981), 82, 38. For a discussion of Peel’s settlement history, see Peel Planning Department, Settlement History of Peel , Region of Peel Archives, January 1977.

4 The Peel Board’s Program Committee report discusses staffing for ESL/ ESD and recommends different levels of ESL/ ESD programming for students arriving in Peel. The report also recommends that two Reception Centres for ESL/ESD students be set up for September 1981. Peel Board of Education, Program Committee, Item 6: English as a Second Language or Dialect (ESL-D), 484.

5 Peel Board of Education, Annual Organizational Meeting of the Board, “Speech, McKee,” Appendix I, December 7, 1987, 2.

6 Peel Board of Education, Supplementary Program Committee “Peel Board’s Presentation to the Select Committee (October 5, 1988),” Appendix I, September 6, 1988, 3.

7 For a history of Canadian education from 1800 to 1914, the social context of education policy, and implications for culturally diverse students see Paul Axelrod, The Promise of Schooling (Toronto: University of Toronto Press Inc., 1997), 69-87. Luigi Pennacchio argues that Canadian schools assimilated foreign students by stressing “four cornerstones of British-Canadian citizenship: imperial patriotism, Protestantism, the English language, and cleanliness.” See Luigi G. Pennacchio, “Toronto’s Public Schools and the Assimilation of Foreign Students, 1900-1920," The Journal of Educational Thought , vol.20, no.1, April 1986, 39.

Immigration in the Region of Peel

Immigration remade Peel. The Regional Municipality of Peel, located just west and northwest of Toronto, is a 1,223 square kilometre block of land in southern Ontario, stretching from the north shore of Lake Ontario to Orangeville and the southern boundary of Dufferin

County (see Figure 1). Prior to 1867 Peel County was governed as part of a unit that included the

Counties of Peel, York, and Ontario. In 1867 Peel County became a separate governmental entity with Brampton as the county seat. Over the next eighty years, Peel was sustained by an economy built on agriculture and milling. During those years, a period of relative prosperity, Peel’s population growth was minimal. By 1950, fewer than 45,000 people resided in Peel County. In the 1960s Peel entered a period of sustained growth. For families and for industry, the area offered the advantages of affordable housing, well-serviced land, proximity to the larger job market of Toronto, and access to nearby American markets. 8 Attracted by those advantages, population spilled westward out of Toronto and its surrounding municipalities into Peel County.

In the mid 1960s, the provincial Conservative government commissioned several studies to evaluate the options for municipal reorganization. 9 After extensive debates, the Regional

Municipality Act received royal assent in June 1973 creating the Regional Municipality of Peel.

It was anticipated that the Municipality of Peel would provide the necessary infrastructure for

continuing growth in the communities of Mississauga, Brampton, and Caledon. 10

8 Bob Cooper, County to Keystone. Reflections of Peel 1974-1999 (Regional Municipality of Peel, 2000), Preface, 13; and The Corporation of the Town of Brampton and the Brampton Centennial Committee, Brampton’s 100 th Anniversary as an Incorporated Town 1873-1973 , 11, 21.

9 Helga V. Loverseed, Brampton. An Illustrated History (Burlington, Ontario: Windsor Publications Canada Ltd., 1987), 167-168, 183.

10 Cooper, County to Keystone , 19-20.

Figure 1. Region of Peel.

According to Peter Li, the demography of Canada changed dramatically between 1971 and 1991 with the arrival of a growing segment of immigrants from non-European countries of origin. 11 The presence of visible minorities, said Li, particularly in Canada’s urban centres, gave

“a new demographic and political reality to multiculturalism in Canada.” 12 The increasing

diversity of the Canadian population is evident when comparing place of birth options listed in

the Canada census in 1981 with those offered in 2001. In 1981 Statistics Canada published the

following six categories for reporting place of birth outside of Canada: UK, Other Europe, USA,

Other Americas, Asia, and Other. By 2001 Statistics Canada published over fifty categories for

reporting place of birth. 13 Li noted that the most important factor contributing to demographic

change in Canada has been the removal of racial and national barriers from the 1967 immigration

regulations, which permitted the entry of immigrants from Asia, Africa, and other non-traditional

source countries. 14 Many residents took pride in Canada’s being a magnet for immigrants from

around the world. Others were less pleased.

11 Peter Li, Cultural Diversity in Canada: The Social Construction of Racial Differences (Department of Justice Canada, Strategic Issues Series rp02-8e, 2000), 7 and 9. See also R. D'Costa, “Canadian Immigration Policy: A Chronological Review with Particular Reference to Discrimination.” Paper presented at Conference on Canada 2000: Race Relations and Public Policy, Carleton University, Ottawa. For a detailed discussion of immigration in the period from 1963 to 1976 see N. Kelley and M. Trebilcock, The Making of the Mosaic. A History of Canadian Immigration Policy (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989), 346-381.

12 Peter Li, Cultural Diversity in Canada , 9.

13 Region of Peel, Peel Data Centre, Statistics Canada, 1981, 1986, 1991, 1996, 2001 Census. While immigration data was collected on an individual country basis, it was published as aggregate or pooled data. As demand for “country-specific” data increased, Statistics Canada responded by publishing more “country-specific” information. The 1981 Census Dictionary states that “it should be noted that data are not published for all countries as the number of immigrants to Canada from many countries has been very small. These unpublished data are available on special request, subject to confidentiality restraints.” Statistics Canada, 1981 Census Dictionary, Catalogue 99-901, 40. Accessed March 20, 2010. http://prod.library.utoronto.ca:8090/datalib/codebooks/c/cc81/dict81.pdf .

14 Peter Li, Cultural Diversity in Canada , 5.

In 1989 Canada’s national news magazine, Maclean’s , reported on the growing discontent among Canadians during the 1980s. “The [Canadian] mosaic is under siege,” declared

Maclean’s with reference to what the magazine identified as an angry public “racial backlash”

against visible minorities. The magazine may have overstated the problem but few observers

would have denied that the new ethnocultural diversity of the immigrant population was causing

strains. The rapidity of change was also telling. In 1957 most immigrants to Canada came from

Europe and the United States. Three decades later, the majority of immigrants entering Canada

came from Asia, the Caribbean, and other locations in developing countries. Some Canadians,

uneasy with the new immigration, urged the federal government to recruit more white

immigrants from Europe. One disgruntled citizen declared that Canada was being buried in

“Third World cultures.” The Canadian multicultural ideal of unity in diversity had fallen short,

reported Maclean’s . Yet, citing a slide in the Canadian five year birthrate, demographers argued

that Canada needed still more immigrants to prop up economic prosperity and provide social

support for an aging population. 15 The federal government faced a dilemma: how should it reconcile the need for immigration with what some saw as smoldering intolerance in pockets of the mainstream Canadian population? 16

In as much as schools reflect their communities, dramatic demographic change in Peel,

beginning in 1981, brought a much more diverse population into Peel schools. Between 1981 and

2000 Peel’s population doubled, with the largest part of the increase, directly and indirectly, due

15 Kopvillem, “An Angry Racial Backlash,” 14, 16. For an alternate view see J. H. Thompson and M. Weinfeld, “Entry and exit: Canadian immigration policy in context,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, vol. 538, 1995 (Being and Becoming Canada), 185-198.

16 For a discussion of race, law, and public policy in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, see James W. St. G. Walker, “Race,” Rights and the Law in the Supreme Court of Canada. Historical Case Studies (The Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History and Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1997), 12-32.

33 to immigration. 17 Each successive census from 1981 to 2001 documents the growth in Peel’s

total population and the corresponding disproportionate growth in Peel’s immigrant proportion.

In 1981 Peel’s population was less than half a million. While one third of Peel’s residents were

born outside of Canada, 70 percent of those immigrants, came from Britain, the United States,

and Europe. Even with that immigration, the majority of Peel’s residents in 1981 remained

white, Christian, and European. 18 After 1981 the total Peel population and the immigrant

proportion grew steadily. Between 1981 and 1986 Peel’s total population increased by 20 percent

to half a million. Between 1986 and 1991 there was another increase of 24 percent. Between

1991 and 2001 the population increased by 35 per cent. In comparison, the immigrant proportion

increased by 60 per cent, or nearly twice as quickly. By 2001 Peel’s total population approached

one million. Half of Peel’s residents reported their place of birth as being outside of Canada. 19

Not only did the immigrant population grow in number, it shifted from those of European heritage to those from non-European origin. Many of those recent arrivals were South Asians and of Indian background. In an examination of the number of Indian immigrants to Peel, it is important to note that the category India did not exist as an option for recording place of birth in the census until 1991. One assumes that there was not a sufficient number of Indians in Canada prior to 1991 to warrant a distinct category. Rather, in both 1981 and 1986, India was subsumed within the category Asia. In 1981 the census recorded 20,000 people born in Asia, or a

17 Paula DeCoito, A Social Profile of the Visible Minority Population in Peel Region. (The Social Planning Council of Peel, 2000), 21.

18 Region of Peel Planning Department., Peel Data Centre, Statistics Canada, 1981 Census, Place of Birth and Period of Immigration of Peel Residents, 1981 .

19 In 1981 the total Peel population was 490,731. In 1986 the total Peel population was 589,515. In 1991 the total Peel population was 732,798. From 1991 to 1996 the increase was 16 percent. Taken together, Peel’s total population increased by 49 percent between 1981 and 1991 while the immigrant proportion increased by 60 percent. In 2001 the total Peel population was 988,948.

34 proportion of 5 percent of the total Peel population. In 1986 the census recorded 30, 000 Asians, or just under 10 per cent of the municipal population. For the 1991 census, the single category

Asia was divided into the categories India and Other Asia. That census indicated that there were

25,000 people who had been born in India or less than 5 percent. By 1996 there were nearly

40,000 Indians in Peel or 5 per cent. By 2001 the numbers rose to 60,000 Indians in Peel or 10 percent of the total Peel population. 20 Taken together the data shows that between 1981 and 2001 the number of Indians in Peel had more than tripled. To put it in other terms, the proportion of

Indians doubled in the Regional Municipality of Peel between 1991 and 2001.

Peel: Three Distinct Communities

Even as immigration remade Peel, the three urban communities that made up the

Regional Municipality of Peel were not homogenous. In contrast to Mississauga and Brampton, with their proximity to Pearson International Airport and the large urban centre of Toronto, the more rural community of Caledon was located further north from Lake Ontario and northwest of

Toronto. It is likely that the most recent immigrants settled closer to the airport, a major immigrant employer, and close to an established Indian ethnocultural community in Toronto,

Mississauga, or Brampton. Thus, the City of Brampton, the City of Mississauga, and the Town of

Caledon remained three distinct communities within the Region of Peel. A comparative study of those communities between 1981 and 2001 shows that Mississauga and Brampton grew more quickly and recorded a greater number and proportion of Asian and Indian immigrants than did the more rural and less diverse town of Caledon. The contrast between Caledon and the other

20 In 1981 there were 22,795 immigrants from Asia in Peel. In 1991 there were 71,875 immigrants from Asia. In 1991 there were 24,220 immigrants from India and 47,655 immigrants from Other Asia. In 1996 there were 39,910 immigrants from India. In 2001 there were 64,460 immigrants from India in Peel.

35 two communities had significant implications for the public school system. With considerably fewer Indians in Caledon, there was no written record of cultural conflicts involving Indians and kirpans. Not so in Mississauga and, more particularly, in Brampton.

Town of Caledon

By 1981 the total population of Caledon was just over 25,000. Of that number, only 150 people recorded Asia as their place of birth or less than 0.6 percent. By 1986 Caledon’s population had grown to about 30,000. As Caledon’s total population grew, the number of people reporting Asia as place of birth fell to 135 persons or less than 0.5 percent. In 1991

Caledon’s total population rose again to 35,000. That year, when Statistics Canada replaced the single category Asia with India and Other Asia, a total of 100 people in Caledon reported India as their Place of Birth or less than 0.3 percent. Taken together, the Asian population of Caledon in 1991 remained a very small proportion of the total population. In 1996, Caledon’s total population was almost 40,000 persons. Included among that number were 200 Indians or 0.5 percent. By 2001 Caledon’s population approached 50,000. The Indian population had grown to

300 or just 0.6 percent of the total Caledon population. 21 In comparison, approximately 80 percent of Caledon residents were identified in the census as non-immigrants. The greatest proportion of immigrants in Caledon came from the United Kingdom and Italy.

21 In 1981 the total population of Caledon was 26,645 including 160 Asian immigrants. In 1986 the total population was 29,470. In 1991 the total population was 34,965 including 105 immigrants from India and 190 immigrants from Other Asia. In 1991 there were 295 immigrants or 0.8 percent of the total population from India and Other Asia. In 1996 the total population was 39,893. In 1996 there were 190 immigrants from India. In 2001 the total population of Caledon was 50,595 including 255 immigrants from India. 40,355 Caledon residents were identified as non-immigrants. 2,345 Caledon residents or about one quarter came from United Kingdom and 2,455 or about one quarter came from Italy.

City of Mississauga

Of the three Peel communities, Mississauga has always had the largest population. In

1981 Mississauga’s population was close to 300,000 persons. The Asian population was less than 20,000, or about 5 percent of the total population. By 1986 the total population and the number and proportion of Asians in Mississauga had increased. Mississauga’s total population was close to 400,000, while the Asian population was about 25,000 or 7 percent. In 1991

Mississauga’s total population was almost half a million. At that point, Statistics Canada replaced the single category Asia with the categories of India and Other Asia. The total Indian population was about 15,000, or less than 5 percent of the total population. By 1996

Mississauga’s population exceeded half a million. Of that number, Indians accounted for 25,000 persons or nearly 5 percent of the total. By 2001 Mississauga’s total population exceeded half a million. The Indian number consisted of about 30,000, or slightly more than 5 percent of

Mississauga’s total population. 22 By comparison, just over half the Mississauga population identified itself as non-immigrants. Of the immigrant population just over 10 percent came from

India and that was the largest immigrant group. The second largest immigrant group came from

Poland at about 8 percent. About 6 percent each were from the United Kingdom and the

Philippines.

22 In 1981 the total population of Mississauga was 315,056. In 1981 there were 17,175 immigrants from Asia comprising 5.5 percent of the total population. In 1986 the total population was 372,280. In 1986 there were 24,990 immigrants from Asia comprising 6.7 percent of the total population. In 1991 the total population was 463,388. In 1991 there were 15,150 immigrants from India comprising 3.2 percent of the total population. In 1996 the total population was 544,382. In 2001 the total population was 612,925. The non-immigrant population was 319,865. Of the immigrant population, 33,420 immigrants came from India, forming the largest immigrant group. The second largest immigrant group, 24,570 persons came from Poland. 18,125 immigrants came from the UK and 18,625 immigrants came from the Philippines.

City of Brampton

Although Brampton had fewer residents than Mississauga, the proportion of Asians and

Indians in the community was greater. In 1981 Brampton’s total population was about 150,000.

Its Asian population was about 5,000 or less than 5 percent. In 1986 Brampton’s total population was close to 200,000. The Asian population also increased slightly with 8,000 people reporting

Asia as place of birth or 5 percent. By 1991 Brampton’s total population had increased to

200,000. The Indian population, first recorded separately in the 1991 census, was less than

10,000 persons or 5 percent. By 1996 Brampton’s total population grew to 300,000 persons.

Similarly, the Indian population grew to 15,000, or more than 5 percent. Between 1981 and 2001

Brampton’s population had doubled. Included in Brampton’s population were 30,000 Indians, a proportion that was close to 10 percent of the total population and 24 percent of the immigrant population. 23 By comparison about 60 percent of Brampton’s total population identified

themselves as non-immigrants. Of the immigrant population, Indians accounted for the largest

group at 24 percent, immigrants from the United Kingdom accounted for 10 percent, and

Jamaican immigrants accounted for 8 percent.

Taken together, the census data demonstrates that Brampton and Mississauga counted a

greater number of Indians than Caledon, and Brampton was proportionately home to more than

twice as many Indians as Mississauga. It is evident that the proportion of immigrants in

23 In 1981 the total population of Brampton was 149,030. In 1981 there were 5,460 immigrants from Asia comprising 3.7 percent of the total population. In 1986 the total population was 187,765. In 1986 there were 8,410 immigrants from Asia comprising 4.5 percent of the total population. In 1991 the total population was 234,445. In 1991 there were 18,560 immigrants from Asia comprising 7.9 percent of the total population. In 1991 there were 8,960 immigrants from India comprising 3.8 percent of the total population and 9,600 immigrants from Other Asia comprising 4.1 percent of the total population. In 1996 the total population was 268,251. In 1996 there were 15,850 immigrants from India comprising 5.9 percent of the total population. In 2001 there were 30,785 immigrants from India comprising 9.5 percent of the total population of Brampton. 193,220 Brampton residents were non-immigrants. Of the immigrant population, there were 30,785 Indians, 12,510 immigrants from UK and 10,785 immigrants from Jamaica.

Mississauga and Brampton was increasingly at a rate closer to that of Toronto, long Canada’s major immigration receiving center. 24 That was a dramatic shift from Brampton’s past, and it had far-reaching implications for schools. 25

History of Brampton.

The City of Brampton, “The Flowertown of Canada,” seemed an unlikely setting for the

violence and ethnic strife in the schools that would occur in the later twentieth century. Located

north of Mississauga and northwest of Toronto, the town of Brampton was incorporated in 1873.

According to one local historian, the town had a middle-class population, many of British origin.

Symbols of the town’s British Protestant heritage included Edwardian and Victorian mansions

and the many “spired, turreted and well-attended Protestant churches.” 26 The center of an agricultural region throughout the first half of the twentieth century, Brampton was renowned for its commercial greenhouses. One local business, Dale Estate Limited, was internationally acclaimed for growing chrysanthemums, carnations, roses, and orchids As the cost of heating the greenhouses increased, and expanding nearby manufacturing industries paid employees union wages, the floral industry began to falter. Disaster struck when a fire broke out in the greenhouses and caused extensive damage. Gradually, the land beneath the greenhouses, more

24 For a discussion of immigration patterns in Toronto, see: J. G. Reitz and J. Lum, “Immigration and diversity in a changing Canadian city: Social bases of inter-group relations in Toronto,” unpublished paper (Toronto: University of Toronto, 2000); See also: J. Mercer, “Canadian cities and their immigrants: New Realities,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences , vol. 538, 1995 (Being and Becoming Canada), 169-184.

25 By 1991 the immigrant-population proportions of York and North York had risen to 50 percent. Outside Toronto, in the “905" region, Vaughan and Markham had immigrant-population proportions of 40 percent or more. Mississauga, Brampton and Richmond Hill each had immigrant-population proportions of more than 30 percent. The statistics indicate that a large proportion of immigrants settled in the suburbs with implications for the schools. For a comparative study of immigrant-population proportions in the GTA, see Randall White, Ontario Since 1985 (Toronto: eastendbooks, 1998), 76.

26 Dale O’Hara, Acres of Glass (Toronto: eastendbooks, 2007), 94.

39 valuable than the flowers it grew, was sold for commercial development and housing. 27 By 1960, wrote one local historian, the old and staid town of Brampton had ceased to exist:

Immigrants from around the world, in particular Portugal, The Netherlands, Germany and the British Isles arrived and altered Brampton’s racial mix. The confines of the once static, staid and solidly British town were bursting at the seams with the population exploding to 24,363 in 1961, almost double that of ten years previously. 28

In other words, with the arrival of European immigrants, Brampton was a larger and more

diverse community. Although the newcomers represented a break from Brampton’s white,

Anglo-Saxon Protestant roots, it is likely that they understood themselves as “white” in

comparison with Asian, Indian, and African immigrants who arrived in greater numbers after

1981. The new immigrants were non-white and, in many cases, non-Christian. 29

To accommodate its growth, Brampton annexed large swaths of abutting land during the

1960s. 30 At the same time, the planned community of Bramalea, located adjacent to Brampton’s eastern border, also expanded. Built to accommodate 90,000 people, Bramalea was expected to cope with the overflow population of neighbouring Toronto. 31 Population growth strained

municipal services like hydro, water, and sewage. Building on the foundations of the

27 Brampton, Inspired Capacity (Shelburne, Ontario: Charles Owen and Company Inc. 2003), 55- 57.

28 O’Hara, Acres of Glass , 120.

29 See Backhouse for a discussion of the delineation of racial categories, the concept of ‘race,’ and the artificiality of racial distinctions. Constance Backhouse, Colour-Coded. A Legal History of Racism in Canada 1900-1950 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999), 5-15.

30 The Corporation of the Town of Brampton and the Brampton Centennial Committee, Brampton’s 100 th Anniversary as an Incorporated Town 1873 - 1973 (Charters Publishing Company Limited, 1973), 185.

31 O’Hara , Acres of Glass , 114.

40 aeronautical industry in and around the airport, Brampton felt the impact of continuous residential, industrial, and commercial development.

Even as Brampton boomed, a small town atmosphere continued to prevail in a community with a predominantly European ethnocultural background. In 1975 the annual Flower

Festival was lauded in the local press as a celebration of Brampton’s floral heritage and Anglo

Saxon traditions. The Festival included a Festival Parade, “Trooping of the Colours,” by the

Lorne Scots, and Highland Games. With reference to the Highland Games, one reporter asked:

“Who with the name of Campbell would miss such an event?” 32 The same might also be said

about the local Flower Festival. In a promotional publication marking Brampton’s hundredth

anniversary, the Director of Communications for Sheridan College described the community as

“a stable Southern Ontario town” with the distinctive features of a small town such as a town

clock, a Victorian band stand, and a cupola over the county building. With a nod to the signs of

racial and ethnic diversity in the community, he praised the “dark-skinned, modest Portuguese

with their beautiful children; the fair-complexioned Dutch with their diligence, downright

honesty, high Christian morality and quickness to adapt as Canadians; the scattering of lovely

Italians,[and] the cultural and colourful Filipinos.” 33 While the area was attracting a trickle of

immigrants, the Peel Board superintendent of operations recalled that “Brampton [of the 1970s]

was white, basically.” He added, “That was probably never totally true of Bramalea and I don’t

32 “City Still Reeling From Tragic Shock,” The Daily Times , May 31, 1975, 4.

33 Brampton’s 100 th Anniversary as an Incorporated Town 1873 - 1973 , 259.

41 know about Brampton, but no, it wasn’t multicultural the way we are now.” 34 But, ready or not,

change was in the wind.

Murder at Brampton Centennial Secondary School

From the time he came to Peel in 1960 until his retirement three decades later, William

Springle, principal of Brampton Centennial Secondary School, saw Brampton change from a

small rural community into a large “cosmopolitan” city. When he first arrived, he found teaching

in Peel was a radically different experience than teaching in Toronto. His first Peel school,

Central Peel Secondary School, served students bussed from the rural communities of Bolton,

Malton, and Cooksville. 35

In 1969 Springle left Central Peel to become principal at Brampton Centennial Secondary

School. 36 In 1975 Brampton Centennial was a large school of 1,800 students, in a quiet, residential neighbourhood. Many students and their families lived comfortably in suburban ranch-style homes, some of which were equipped with backyard swimming pools. Many residents worked as airline pilots, engineers, managers, and in other white collar occupations.

One particularly well-known resident was the Ontario premier and former minister of education,

William Davis, whose fifteen year old daughter attended the school. 37 Typical teen social

activities included school dances, movies, visits to McDonald’s, and excursions to the local

shopping mall. 38 As for criminal activity, infractions included marijuana use, underage drinking,

34 Interview with David Weldon, Mississauga, February 25, 2007.

35 One student and one supply teacher wore their kirpans to Central Peel Secondary School.

36 Interview with William Springle, Brampton, March 21, 2007.

37 “Stunned Students Flee From Rifle Fire,” The Daily Times , May 29, 1975, 11.

38 “Mike didn’t stand out in Brampton crowd,” The Globe and Mail , June 21, 1975, 4.

42 and pranks such as stealing the school’s flag. According to the principal, the school was quiet for its size. As the academic year drew to a close, student activities were dominated by track and field competitions, examination study, and graduation preparations. 39

As if to signal that the pastoral image of Peel was history, the once peaceful and largely

agricultural community was rocked by violence. No matter the time, violence is always feared

and Peel experienced that violence even as a largely rural board. For years to come, many Peel

residents remembered how suddenly weapons brought tragedy to the Peel community. Memory

of that tragedy ran deep. Its impact was scarring. On Wednesday May 28, 1975, there was a

murder at Brampton Centennial Secondary School. A sixteen year old student, Michael

Slobodian killed his English teacher and a fellow student, and wounded thirteen others before

turning the gun on himself. In a note found later in his bedroom, Michael wrote:

To whom it may concern:

My life is now gone to pot. I am going to eliminate certain people from this world. These people are Mrs. Wright, Mr. Bronson and any other sucker who gets in my way. I am then going to kill myself so as not to be imprisoned. I am not insane but just strictly fed up of life. I am not getting myself anywhere and it is my fault. I love my parents and my family and I know that they love me.

Michael Peter Slobodian 40

On the morning of May 28, unaware of horrific events that lay in wait, Mrs. Slobodian

received a telephone call from her son’s English teacher. The teacher reported that Michael had

been skipping English classes. Indeed, by the time of the teacher’s call, Michael had reportedly

forged thirty-five parent notes excusing his absences from various classes at school. When he

39 Interview with William Springle, Brampton, March 21, 2007.

40 Arnie Hakala, “Coroner chokes up over scene of ‘horror’,” The Toronto Star , 1975, A1.

43 arrived home, his mother told him about the call. After promising to resolve the matter that afternoon, Michael went into his bedroom, wrapped two rifles in a green blanket, and packed the bundle into his guitar case. One weapon was a .444-calibre Marlin with rapid fire capacity; the other was a .22-calibre rifle with automatic reload. Bidding his mother good-bye, he returned to school, guitar case in hand.

When he arrived at school, Michael headed to the boys’ washroom on the first floor. As he loaded the guns in one of the cubicles, he was surprised by two students entering the washroom. Weapons at the ready, Michael walked out of the cubicle and gunned down sixteen year old John Slinger. The other student ran but he could not outrun a bullet. Hit from behind, he suffered a severe chest wound, two holes in his diaphragm, a bleeding abdomen, a bruised liver, and a torn esophagus. Michael then seriously wounded a third victim who chanced into the washroom. Leaving the washroom soaked in blood, Michael headed out to the hall, firing as he went. One bullet passed through a steel door near the cafeteria, wounding four girls. Another bullet struck a leg, breaking the bone of a seventeen year old girl who was in the vicinity of the home economics room. Next, Michael proceeded to the art room where he found his English teacher working with two students. He took aim and shot her. The bullet passed through her body, damaging her heart and other organs. According to one press report, “There was no way of saving her life.” 41 One of the students in the room suffered a large wound to his leg. Finally, retracing his steps down the hall, Michael pointed the .444 gun at his head and killed himself.

Ambulance crews called to the school took wounded students to the intensive care unit of Peel

Memorial Hospital. Several students with lesser injuries were released a few days later.

41 “Everything was normal...until he began firing rifles,” The Brampton Guardian , June 26, 1975, 10.

Hearing of the shooting at the school, Michael’s father and sister went to investigate, unaware that Michael was involved. Michael’s mother remained at home. Then, in her words, “ I got this God-awful feeling to go to the school.” 42 She set off for the school. When the family returned home, Michael’s shocked parents went to his room. There they discovered his note.

The murders traumatized the community. 43 When asked if Michael had any reason to kill

his fellow student, John Slinger, the principal replied, “No. He just happened to be in the

washroom at the wrong time.” Equally bizarre was the shooting of the English teacher, described

by the principal as a wonderful first-year teacher. What is surprising, the principal said, is that

the English teacher was Michael’s confidante, a teacher he was said to like and respect. For the

principal, the shootings were a “great shock.” 44 According to one Peel Board superintendent, it was unbelievable that “those kinds of things would happen here, especially in Flowertown.” 45

For the press, the Brampton Centennial Secondary School shootings were a sensational and unprecedented event. It was the first tragedy of its kind in Canada. 46 For the community and the Peel Board it was a defining moment; one that would be branded into the public memory for years to come. 47 One Peel Board superintendent remembered where he was, what he was doing,

42 “Everything was normal...until he began firing rifles,” The Brampton Guardian , June 26, 1975, 10.

43 “Stunned Students Flee From Rifle Fire,” The Daily Times , May 29, 1975, 11.

44 Interview with William Springle, Brampton, March 21, 2007.

45 Interview with David Weldon, Mississauga, February 25, 2007.

46 Michelle Henry, “Gunshots still echo for survivor. Thirty years later, Brampton shooting evokes victim’s fear,” April 20, 2007. Accessed July 16, 2007. http://www.thestar.com ,

47 The shooting remains part of Brampton Centennial Secondary School’s folklore. One former student, a graduate of the class of 2003, recalls her shock at hearing rumours of the shooting as a grade nine student. According to the rumours, there was a room downstairs, beside the mechanics room, that

45 being told to close window blinds, and not to let anybody leave the room. 48 Even after three decades, another superintendent recalls the moment she heard the news. As a new teacher in a

Mississauga school, she remembers that her principal ran from the staff room, jumped into his car, and headed to the Brampton school to offer assistance. In those days, she said, there were no lock-down protocols or operational procedures to address an emergency of such magnitude. 49

One former student, and victim of a ricocheting bullet, relives the pain each time she hears of a

similar shooting. In thirty-two years, she has never again set foot in her alma mater. 50

Amidst the shock, the community rallied in support of the school. When the ambulances arrived, some teachers served as stretcher bearers while others calmed distraught students. 51

Inside the school there was a lot of blood, with injured students lying on the floors and in offices.

The local hospital initiated its disaster plan. According to the administrator, there was a tremendous response from doctors and surgeons who worked well into the night in all nine hospital operating theatres. 52 When informed of the shooting, Premier Davis rushed from the

Legislature to the Brampton school. He emerged from the school in tears. Later, he issued an

official statement: was locked at all times. No one ever entered. It was assumed that the Brampton Centennial “gunman” had shot himself inside. For those students of her generation, the shooting served as a badge of honour. In the era of hip hop in the 1990s, local youth often engaged in verbal competitions about which school was “more ghetto.” For the students of Brampton Centennial, the shooting became “our up,” a source of pride that distinguished the school amongst other Brampton schools and proved their “street cred” in the terms of gangster rap. Interview with Jennifer O’Neill, Brampton, Ontario, August 5, 2007.

48 Interview with David Weldon, Mississauga, February 25, 2007.

49 Interview with Bridget Harrison, Mississauga, July 22, 2004.

50 Michelle Henry, “Gunshots still echo for survivor. Thirty years later, Brampton shooting evokes victim’s fear,” April 20, 2007. Accessed July 16, 2007. www.thestar.com .

51 “Blood all over,” The Toronto Star , May 29, 1975, A2.

52 “Surgeons And Hospital Staff Praised For Wednesday’s Work,” The Daily Times , May 29, 1975, 11.

The events of Wednesday at the Centennial Secondary School have been shocking to all of us, I know. Whether directly affected or not, we all share the sense of tragedy that arises from the deaths and the injuries and a grave sense of wonder and concerns as to why something like this should happen in our community. 53

Davis vowed that “his government would do everything to retain the traditional values of life in

Ontario.” 54

Surely, one of the most poignant stories from the shooting involved the selfless actions of

Pat Slinger, a mature student at Brampton Centennial and the mother of slain student John

Slinger. At 11:40 am. she was walking to her car when several students ran past her. Sensing trouble, Slinger returned to the school to investigate. When she entered the building, she found the corridor splattered with blood. At first, she had the impression that some students had played with the accident simulators. She knew she was wrong when she saw a headless body lying in a pool of blood. Nearby lay two guns and some spent shell casings. 55 Unaware that her own son

was dying in the washroom from gunshot wounds, Slinger rushed to assist other victims.

For days afterwards the community mourned. Flags flew at half mast, students wore

black armbands, and the school remained closed. 56 Hundreds of people attended the funerals of

John Slinger and Michael Slobodian. Among the mourners were civic and community officials including the premier, Brampton’s member of Parliament, and the chairperson of the Peel

53 “Shocked Davis leaves school in tears,” The Toronto Star , May 29, 1975, 43.

54 “Gun registration won’t halt tragedies-Clement,” The Toronto Sun , May 30, 1975, 5.

55 “Mother Helps With Injured While Unaware Son Is Dying,” The Daily Times , May 29, 1975, 1.

56 “Police Seeking Motive For School Slayings,” The Daily Times , May 30, 1975, 1.

Board. 57 The presiding minister at the funeral of John Slinger assured the congregation that their

shock and suffering touched the entire nation. 58

In the aftermath of the shootings, debates about gun control and violence in schools dominated the pages of the local, provincial, and national press. A traumatized Peel community sought rational explanations for inexplicable events. Debate centred around one key issue–was a single, disturbed student the problem or were guns the problem? In the end, many observers agreed that an individual’s behaviour may not be predictable but at least it was possible to outlaw weapons.

Debate soon focused on the benefits and disadvantages of gun control. Proponents called

for increased restrictions and strict enforcement of weapons legislation. One member of the

Provincial Parliament called for “the most stringent gun control laws on the continent.” 59

Another gun control advocate proposed that all guns in the province be registered and kept in a

central depot except when needed for a legitimate purpose such as hunting. On the other side of

the debate, some commentators argued that stricter restrictions would neither inhibit a violent

person, nor heal a disturbed mind. Proponents of that view insisted that perpetrators of violence

were at fault, not guns. Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. As The Toronto Sun put it,

there is no defence against a disturbed mind. 60 If guns were not at hand, disturbed individuals

had other weapons from which to choose. According to the Ontario Police Commission, if guns

57 “Hundreds Mourn At Youths’ Funerals,” The Daily Times , May 31, 1975, 1.

58 “Hundreds at Brampton funerals of slayer, 16, and his victim,” The Toronto Star , June 2, 1975, A3, 31.

59 “The world’s reaction,” The Daily Times , May 31, 1975, 4.

60 “No defence,” The Toronto Sun , May 30, 1975, 10.

48 were not available, butcher knives or even hands were readily available as potential weapons. 61

According to the predictions of the attorney general, the only result of tight gun regulations

would be a greater accumulation of paper. 62

A second debate probed the links between violence in the media and acts of violence in society. That debate examined if and how depictions of violence had an impact on vulnerable individuals. According to the local press, consumers of popular culture were enthralled with media images of violence. One report stated:

We are the people who gawk at murder and violence every day on television. We are the people who place murder and violence on an almighty pedestal. We are the people who select violent TV shows and patronize the murder-filled movies. 63

Conversely, the chief of Psychiatric Services at Peel Memorial Hospital gave little credence to the “media images” theory. Conceding that violent images might aggravate an existing psychological condition, he expressed doubt that a healthy person was at risk. Rather than act out a violent media story line, the doctor suggested, Michael Slobodian may have suffered from an acute psychiatric illness. 64

Letters to the editor continued the debate. One writer speculated that society had a

“Victorian attitude” to aggression, similar to the repression of sexuality discussed in Sigmund

Freud’s works. That writer wondered whether repressed aggression might cause a vulnerable

61 “Police want freedom to search for guns,” The Toronto Star , June 26, 1975, A3.

62 “Clement won’t approve gun registration idea,” The Globe and Mail , May 30, 1975, 4.

63 “The answer lies within,” The Brampton Guardian , June 5, 1975, 4.

64 “Teacher’s Call Didn’t Trigger Killer,” The Daily Times , May 30, 1975, 1.

49 individual to explode. 65 Another letter-writer claimed that violence in Canada was the result of

lax United States gun control migrating north. 66 The chairperson of the Peel Board concurred. In his opinion, nomadic American gun culture had finally arrived in Peel. 67

A third debate centred on whether Michael’s acts of violence were the result of physical illness or psychological pressures. Based on the information contained in his forged notes, some believed that Michael was seriously ill. 68 Others wondered if an ill-fated science fair project by

Michael triggered the shooting and the source of his distress. It seems Michael proposed an

experiment that was prohibited by science fair regulations. In a similar vein, a guidance

counsellor wondered if Michael had put too much pressure on himself to succeed or had weak

coping mechanisms. Perhaps it was just hidden. Inside, he was breaking under pressure. That

theory was supported by the evidence of an essay discovered in Michael’s bedroom after his

death. In the essay, Michael explored “Death of a Salesman” character, Willy Loman. Unable to

live up to his own expectations, Michael argued, the Willy Loman character killed himself.

Was Michael’s emotional problem anything more than typical teenage angst? Not

according to his mother. She described her son as a beautiful and sensitive boy. All those who

knew him, she said, saw nothing wrong. 69 In a report to the school board, one superintendent

described Michael as a quiet, aloof boy with one or two close friends. He found no evidence of

65 Letter to the editor, “Healthy expression for aggressive feelings,” The Toronto Star , June 2, 1975, C5.

66 Letter to the editor, “Must outlaw possession of any gun, citizen says,” The Toronto Star , June 2, 1975, C5.

67 Peel Board of Education, Annual Organizational Meeting - Minutes, January 6, 1976, 1.

68 “The life and death of Mike Slobodian,” The Globe and Mail , June 21, 1975, 4.

69 “Everything was normal...until he began firing rifles,” The Brampton Guardian , June 26, 1975, 10.

50 unusual behaviour. 70 When asked whether Michael had come to his attention for any reason, the

Brampton Centennial principal replied, “Never.” On the contrary, he reported that Michael

“blended in” with the other students. 71 In the end, neither Michael’s note nor other evidence

offered any explanation for his behaviour.

If there was no way to predict that Michael would erupt so violently, was there any way

to predict or defend against those kinds of tragedies? In the aftermath of the events in Peel,

school safety was the primary concern. Many voices demanded action on two key issues. One

challenge was to identify students with psychological problems. The second was to control guns

and other weapons. The former was a dubious exercise; the latter required tough enforcement by

the province and the federal government. If there was no sure way to predict that Michael, or any

other student, would act so violently, it might be possible to make weapons more difficult to

obtain.

Michael’s physics teacher, marked for death by Michael’s note, insisted on mandatory

psychological testing for students. 72 More common were calls for tough gun control. Brampton

students and the local radio station circulated a petition with demands for tougher gun laws. 73

The mother of the slain teacher declared that the federal government should have implemented stricter gun laws years earlier. 74 The parents of the slain student appeared on CITY-TV to make

70 “Michael Slobodian: Average in almost every way,” The Globe and Mail , May 30, 1975, 4.

71 Interview with William Springle, Brampton, March 21, 2007.

72 “A possible clue to a deranged act,” The Toronto Sun , May 20, 1975, 5.

73 “Clement won’t approve gun registration idea,” The Globe and Mail , May 30, 1975, 4.

74 “Brampton teacher buried in N.B.,” The Toronto Star , May 31, 1975, A3.

51 an appeal for gun restrictions and mandatory registration of weapons. 75 In the wake of a similar

shooting in Ottawa, the father predicted still more tragedies so long as guns remained

accessible. 76

Public officials also awaited results of official inquiries. The first was an inquest, described as a form of legal-medical inquiry, conducted by the chief coroner of Ontario. 77 The coroner drew attention to the issue of gun control, the lack of school counseling services, and the lack of communication among school staff. 78 After reviewing the evidence, the coroner’s jury made eight recommendations. Seven of those recommendations targeted gun control while the eighth one called for improvements in the tracking of student absences. 79 However, the principal warned that accuracy in the tracking of student attendance was almost impossible when each teacher had 180 students, and each student followed an individual timetable. 80 And what would

that information offer school officials? Two forensic psychiatrists, specialists in adolescent

behaviour, concluded that no one could have predicted Michael’s acts of violence. 81 The

75 “Ottawa Tragedy shows need for gun controls: Slingers,” The Brampton Guardian , October 30, 1975, 35.

76 “Parents of slain boy fight for gun controls,” The Toronto Star , November 1, 1975, B5.

77 “Shooting Inquest Opens Monday,” The Daily Times , June 21, 1975, 1.

78 “Cotnam raps Allmand for not sending rep,” The Brampton Guardian , June 26, 1975, 41.

79 “License sale of some guns jury proposes,” The Toronto Star , June 26, 1975, A4.

80 Interview with William Springle, Brampton, March 21, 2007.

81 “Michael confided in teacher he shot, inquest told,” The Toronto Star , June 25, 1975, A4.

52 principal agreed, even with Michael’s attendance record in hand, “There was no way we could have foreseen or prepared for the shooting that occurred.” 82

If, in the end, it was agreed that it was not possible for schools to presage which students might prove violent, then the best protection for the schools was to ban the tools of violence. In

June 1975 the Peel Board resolved to support the Brampton Centennial Student Council in its demands for gun control legislation. 83 On the Board’s behalf, the director wrote a letter to the minister of justice and the attorney general of Canada. Two months later, a non-committal response arrived in the form of a mimeographed letter. 84 Disappointed by the federal

government’s lukewarm reaction, the Peel Board began the process of developing Discipline

Policy No.48, which prohibited weapons in schools operated by the Peel Board. If the 1975

Slobodian incident made Brampton a focus for discussions of school safety, few observers then

would have imagined that demographic change in Peel would transform discussions of school

safety and weapons into debates about religious freedom and human rights violations in

Canada. 85

82 Interview with William Springle, Brampton, March 21, 2007.

83 Peel Board of Education, Regular Meeting of the Board - Minutes, June 17, 1975, 625.

84 Peel Board of Education, Regular Meeting of the Board - Minutes, August 26, 1975, 702.

85 In a letter to Mr. Hundal regarding the wearing of kirpans in schools, the chairperson of the Peel Board discussed the Brampton Centennial shootings as an example of violence in the Peel schools. C. Parrish stated, “We have no guarantee that non-Sikh students will never remove the Kirpan from its rightful wearer and commit a violent act on a fellow student or teacher.”. KC. Letter to Mr. Sulakhan Singh Hundal from Carolyn Parish, Chairman, Peel Board of Education, January 11, 1989 . On the first anniversary of the Brampton Centennial Secondary School shooting, administrator C.W. Bridge learned that another student intended to repeat the shooting at Central Peel Secondary School. He alerted the police who picked up the student and removed his rifle. According to Bridge, “The kirpan issue had nothing to do with religion or ESL. It had to do with the question: Is a kirpan a weapon in the context of the Board’s policy of zero tolerance for carrying weapons in schools?” Interview with C.W. Bridge, Brampton, October 5, 2004.

The Peel Board of Education

There are no simple, one-dimensional answers in education, said William Kent, chair of

the Peel Board in his inaugural speech of December 1980. The Board’s objective in the coming

decade, he insisted, was to prepare responsible citizens who were adaptable to change. 86

According to Don Lawson, superintendent of human resources, the goal of the Peel Board’s

senior administrators was also to ensure safety in the schools. 87 In order to meet that objective, a program was developed to increase awareness about societal issues reflected in the schools and how to help people contend with such issues. In consultation with a deputy crown counsel and

Peel Regional Police, school board administrators created a program called “Legal Issues,” intended to address violence in schools. According to Lawson, principals and school superintendents had a great deal of autonomy in dealing with school situations. Matters that came to the attention of the Peel Board’s regional superintendents were more serious violations of aggressive assault, harassment, and bullying. 88

What was the organizational structure of the Peel Board in the 1980s? One

superintendent stated that the Board was a large corporation run by an elected Board of Trustees

who assumed responsibility for a managing a multi-million dollar budget. The Board had a

political division, represented by the elected trustees, and an administrative division represented

86 Peel Board of Education, Inaugural Meeting of the Board, Remarks by William Kent, Chairman of the Peel Board of Education, Minutes Appendix I, December 1, 1980.

87 Interview with Don Lawson, Georgetown, March 12, 2007.

88 In 1980 the Peel Board had approved corporal punishment as an acceptable means of student discipline. Edna Toth led a delegation to the Board arguing against the use of corporal punishment and reprimanded the Peel Board’s Discipline Policy Committee for not contacting child care agencies, religious, and ethnic groups for input. The strap was a weapon, she insisted, and not a tool for encouraging the development of self-discipline in students. Peel Board of Education, Regular Meeting of the Board, Item 9: Delegation - Mrs. Edna Toth, January 8, 1980.

54 by the executive superintendents. Some commentators noted occasional friction between the administrative and political divisions of the Board. One trustee argued that it was the trustees’ job to make policy and the director’s job to operate the system. On some occasions, she said, the line between the two functions was blurred. 89 Nonetheless, as the superintendent of operations

David Weldon put it, “for us [administration] it was really easy–we’re the hired help and when push came to shove we got reminded quite clearly.” Granted, said Weldon, most items coming before the Board had general administrative support:

We didn’t all agree with what each of us were recommending. But we weren’t going to go and say, “Oh we think this is terrible.” You did your best to make it work for the system and that meant you had to have a difference of opinion or the good stuff would never happen. But no, in the end, it’s only the trustees that vote.

According to Weldon, the political and administrative divisions of the Board worked together

despite their inevitable disagreements. Was there internal consistency within the Board’s

divisions? “In a perfect world,” said the superintendent of operations, “everybody works

together. In the real world, everybody’s got pretty strong views individually and collectively.” 90

With respect to the Board’s trustees, one superintendent believed it was necessary to educate elected school officials about school matters. Why? According to her, school trustees did not always come to elected office with administrative skill sets or hands-on experience with the school system. As a result, she insisted, the trustees were sometimes the “last” to understand matters that came before the Board. And without their understanding and support, she declared,

89 Interview with Ruth Thompson, Mississauga, August 25, 2004.

90 Interview with David Weldon, Mississauga, February 28, 2007.

“You’ll never get anything through that they won’t vote for. Never!” 91 For her part, Trustee

Carolyn Parrish argued that the Peel Board’s administration “didn’t want us meddling in the schools too much because ‘who knew where we all came from’?” While Parrish herself was a former teacher, many trustees, she argued, did not have any particular qualifications for running a school system. Of course, it is also possible that some trustees might have cared little about the schools. Perhaps some school trustees were more concerned about using the schools as a stepping stone to higher political office. 92

Social change brought discomfort for some Peel staff in the 1980s. An examination of the political culture of the Peel Board’s administrative division in the 1980s reveals a conservative, predominantly white organization with a Protestant religious heritage and an administrative staff that was mostly male. Some commentators noted that the fixed nature of gender relations of the early 1980s created problems for ambitious women seeking to advance in the traditionally male- dominated culture of the Peel Board. 93 One early female administrator found that, for a woman,

being first “carries with it a tremendous weight.” For one thing, when it came to staff conduct,

she noticed that a double standard existed for men and women. For women, the range of

acceptable behaviour was much more narrowly defined in terms of sexual activity outside of

91 Interview with Bridget Harrison, Mississauga, July 22, 2004.

92 Interview with C. Parrish, Mississauga, March 7, 2007.

93 See Myra Sadker, David Sadker, with Charol Shakeshaft, “Sex, Sexism, and the Preparation of Educators,” Peabody Journal of Education , vol. 64 (Summer 1987), 213-224; Nina Bascia and Beth Young, “Women’s Carriers Beyond the Classroom: Changing Roles in a Changing World,” Curriculum Inquiry , vol. 31, no. 3 (Fall 2001), 271-302; and Nina Bascia, “Women Teachers, Union Affiliations, and the Future of North American Teacher,” Teaching and Teacher Education , vol. 14, no.5 (July 1998), 551- 563. For his part, the director of the Peel Board argued that boys were the victims of gender discrimination from kindergarten to secondary school. When there is a perception of discrimination against girls, he opined, “our ‘new sensitivity’ immediately responds with corrective action, and, failing that, the Human Rights Commission becomes involved.” Peel Board of Education, Annual Organizational Meeting of the Board, Annual Report to the Peel Board of Education, Director’s Report (Appendix II), December 7, 1987.

56 marriage, the public use of profanity, and the consumption of alcohol at social functions. For another thing, she claimed that while some men might believe they had been promoted solely because of their talents and abilities, without facing competition from women or minority group members, that is a self-serving assumption. 94

Comfortable in that traditional white male world, pressure for change was not always

welcomed by Peel’s male decision-makers. The lone woman member of the Secondary School

Headmasters’ Association observed there was even “an ongoing, meeting-by-meeting battle

about whether they [male administrators] would change the name of their association from

headmasters to principals.” 95 The male term “headmaster” was viscerally important to some members who pleaded that the association should retain its name at least until they retired.

According to one Board chair, the gender imbalance in the Board was the not the “consequence of an evil plot.” Nonetheless, he acknowledged that, prior to the 1980s, few females were school administrators and none was a superintendent. 96

Another area of controversy for the Peel Board of Education during the 1980s was religion. As Canada’s population became more diverse, Protestant practices in the public schools

94 In their study of gender and teaching, Nina Bascia and Beth Young noted that some women educators felt they had been passed over for advancement by men whom they perceived as less competent. See Bascia and Young, 280. In their discussion of sexuality and teaching, Myra Sadker, David Sadker, and Charol Shakeshaft argued that gender expectations are based on a stereotype suggesting a sexual outcome when men and women work together. For a discussion on beliefs of about sexuality and administration, see Myra Sadker, David Sadker, with Charol Shakeshaft, “ Sex, Sexism, and the Preparation of Educators, ” 219, 220.

95 Interview with Bridget Harrison, Mississauga, July 22, 2004.

96 Peel Board of Education, Inaugural Meeting of the Board, Notes for Comments-William Kent, December 6, 1982, 10. In their study of women’s careers in education, Nina Bascia and Beth Young noted that women who fit the model of the “nurturing, feminine, collaborative and selfless woman educator” were more likely to be rewarded than “bad girls” who expressed dissatisfaction. The authors also noted that some women pursued administration in response to their subordinate status in the system. See Nina Bascia and Beth Young, “Women’s Carriers Beyond the Classroom,” 276, 277.

57 were being challenged across Ontario. The Protestant heritage permeating the Peel Board had long been reflected by its practices at both the board and school levels. For example, the Board’s

Annual Organizational Meeting in 1976 began with a reading from the Bible, followed by a blessing and recitation of the Lord’s Prayer. 97 What is more, for a number of years the Board had

permitted the Gideon Society to distribute Bibles to students in Peel schools. A French language

version of the Bible was also available for students. 98 One former Peel student recalled:

A Gideon Bible was given to me in a Peel primary school, a sixth grade assignment in 1963-4 required us to memorize the names of the books of the Bible in order and a seventh grade teacher taught us to sing the United Church version of the Lord’s Prayer every school day morning. We also had weekly classes in religious instruction run by the local Anglican minister. 99

All of those examples of religious instruction in the Peel Board demonstrate the dominant role of

Protestantism in Peel public schools a generation ago and the persistence of the Christian heritage of public schooling in Ontario. 100 It was unlikely that most Peel residents would have

97 See Peel Board of Education, Annual Organizational Meeting- Minutes, January 6, 1976, 1.

98 In her delegation to the Peel Board, Mrs. D. Bodian stated that her son had received a copy of the Gideon’s Bible in French while attending a Peel school. Peel Board of Education, Regular Meeting of the Board - Minutes, Item 8: Delegations - Mrs. D. Bodiam re French Immersion Program, March 24, 1981, 470.

99 Blaine Baker, Personal Communication, Toronto, May 15, 2008.

100 In his study of Ontario education from 1876 to 1976, Robert Stamp contended that Canadian schools served the purposes of mainstream society. Ontario’s British Canadian heritage was evident in Empire Day celebrations, religious exercises and English literature. According to Stamp, authorized textbooks in schools were “agents of inculcation” for British norms. The Ontario School Geography , for example, described Caucasians as ‘the most active, enterprising and intelligent race in the world’. See R. M. Stamp, The Schools of Ontario, 1876-1976 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982), 92. For a discussion of reasons for change, see P. Bramadat, “Beyond Christian Canada: Religion and Ethnicity in a Multicultural Society,” in Religion and Ethnicity in Canada, eds. P. Bramadat and D. Seljak (Toronto: Pearson Education Canada, Inc., 2005), 1-29.

58 welcomed an object as unfamiliar and menacing as a Sikh kirpan into their child’s school. Nor would they have seen the need to accommodate a diversity which might be viewed as radical.

During the 1980s, while the Board struggled to provide students with English as a second language instruction, the topic of imposed religious practices came up for debate. 101 On

September 23, 1988 the Ontario Court of Appeal struck down ss. 28 (1) of Regulation 262

(Zylberberg v. Sudbury Board of Education , 1988 Canlii 189). Arguably both Ministry and Peel

Board of Education policies regarding the Lord’s Prayer were passed in response to the

Zylberberg decision. According to a provincial government ruling, “the compulsory reciting of

the Lord’s Prayer interferes with the freedom of religion and conscience guaranteed under the

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” 102 A Policy/Program Memorandum issued under the authority of the deputy minister of education stated that “one religion must not be given a position of primacy” in Ontario’s public schools. In other words, neither the Lord’s Prayer nor

Christianity would continue to have a place of primacy in the Peel Board. 103 Even if the Lord’s

Prayer was not explicitly banned, no single religious tradition could take precedence in the public schools, including Christianity. While the national anthem was mandatory, the inclusion of other content in opening and closing exercises in public schools was optional and was obliged to reflect Ontario’s multicultural traditions. According to the Policy/Program Memorandum, the objectives of that ruling were “patriotic and educational.” To put it another way, the purposes

101 Peel Board of Education, Regular Meeting of the Board, Minutes, 1988-11-22, Item 7.

102 Peel Board of Education, Regular Meeting of the Board, Minutes, 1988-10-11, 569.

103 Peel Board of Education, Regular Meeting of the Board, Minutes, 1988-11-08, Item 23.

59 transcended any particular faith and culture and “reinforce democratic rights and responsibilities.” 104

The new provincial regulations restricting the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer in schools galvanized the Peel community. For public schools, the policy amendment meant that the Lord’s

Prayer might comprise just one of several readings drawn from various multicultural religious traditions or secular sources. Some people connected the recital of the Lord’s Prayer to the singing of Canada’s national anthem . One commentator did not want to deny non-Protestant

people the right to their own beliefs and traditions. However, she argued, Protestant values of

love and respect for God, country, and family must be reinforced at school. As for non-Christian

students, she explained, they were free to leave the classroom during the recitation of the prayer.

The removal of the Lord’s Prayer made some people feel that they had been robbed of

“something sacred,” insisted another commentator. 105

As the pressure from the community mounted, it was resolved that the Peel Board should ask the Ministry of Education to appeal the decision regarding opening or closing exercises in public schools. 106 When the minister of education decided not to appeal the judicial ruling that

struck down the primacy of the Lord’s Prayer, the Peel Board continued to pursue that matter,

delivering a Notice of Motion to the Supreme Court of Ontario and “thus restoring to the

104 Ontario Ministry of Education, Policy/Program Memorandum No. 108, Opening or Closing Exercises in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools. Date of Issue: January 12, 1989, Accessed March 13, 2010. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/extra/eng/ppm/108.html .

105 Peel Board of Education, Regular Meeting of the Board, Minutes, 1988-10-11, Item 13, Delegation: Mrs. J. Kohls and Mrs. D. Dullege re Religious Education in the Schools, 569.

106 Peel Board of Education, Regular Meeting of the Board, Minutes, 1988-10-11, 570, 571.

60 students of Ontario this distinctive, this tradition, this significant aspect of our history, our heritage and indeed of our national identity as Canadians.” 107

In 1989 after the Ministry’s decision to ban the exclusive use of the Lord’s Prayer in

schools during opening exercises was final, the Peel Board’s Program Committee held a public

meeting to hear verbal presentations and consider the opinions expressed in written submissions.

The chairperson indicated that 125 elementary schools and seventeen secondary schools had

been surveyed about their current practices with regard to opening exercises. The most common

practice was the singing of “O Canada” or the singing of “O Canada” followed by a moment of

silence. The majority of delegations voiced firm opposition to the option of using multi-faith

readings as part of the opening exercises like the Toronto Board of Education. “There is a vast

difference between learning about other cultures and religious beliefs and participating in their

practices,” argued one person. A religious leader of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada also

objected to the “implication that all religions are equal.” Another delegation suggested that

immigrants should not impose their religion on other people. A representative of the Kennedy

Road Tabernacle insisted “it would be totally offensive to have multi-faith readings [in Peel

schools] and to have prayers offered to a multiplicity of Gods.” The majority of delegations

favoured a moment of silence rather than multi-faith readings which would expose students to

107 Peel Board of Education, Regular Meeting of the Board - Minutes, 1988-11-22, 1988, 700. For a discussion of the issue of prayer and religion in the schools and the campaign to have compulsory religious instruction removed from the Ontario public schools, see Martin S. Sable, “Keeping the Faith: The Jewish Response to Compulsory Religious Education in Ontario’s Public Schools. 1944-1990” (Ed.D. diss., OISE/UofT, 1999).

61 non-Christian faiths. The Program Committee heard the delegations and would reflect on the matter. 108

Among the Peel Board’s trustees, not everyone was concerned about the Lord’s Prayer issue. One trustee did not care one way or another whether the prayer was recited at Board meetings but argued, “It wasn’t up to me to remove it.” For that trustee, discussing alternatives to the recital of the Lord’s Prayer was a “no-win” situation. Unimpressed by counter proposals for a minute of silence or the recitations of “nice little sayings,” she would have preferred that the whole issue, a political hot potato, be made to disappear. In a private meeting with the chairperson, she suggested that the Board’s next agenda simply omit the Lord’s Prayer issue as an agenda item. Perhaps no one would notice and, she suggested, further controversy could be avoided. If the prayer issue was addressed, she cautioned, there would be a lot of time wasted on a matter on which the courts had already ruled. The chair agreed. The prayer issue was quietly dropped from the agenda. Nobody noticed or chose to notice. The prayer issue was left to school principals. At the school level, the trustee observed, principals were the best judges of their communities. They were quietly given discretion in handling religiously sensitive issues in their schools. A Malton school with a large South Asian immigrant population might decide against celebrating Christmas, while a Port Credit school might wish to continue reciting the Lord’s

Prayer. 109

108 Peel Board of Education, Public Meeting of the Program Committee, 1989-03-30.

109 Interview with Ruth Thompson, Mississauga, August 25, 2004.

Peel Board Chairperson Janet McDougald grew up in Port Credit and settled there to raise her family. She described Port Credit as an “older settled area” with. . . no new growth. She stated that new immigrants settled in areas with new housing developments. Interview with Janet McDougald, Mississauga, August 23, 2004.

In all those matters, the Board tread cautiously for fear of public criticism. Not even

school principals felt immune from public scrutiny. And when it came to parental response, even

if the Board had a “model” formal evaluation process, it was the “telephone test” to which Board

members and principals were most attuned. If the Board received telephone calls of complaint,

recalled Director of Education John Fraser, then the school’s principal was “suspect.” As a

result, he admitted, principals were often cautious about taking any action that would draw

negative response of any kind. “How well we are liked, ”Fraser contended “is the measure that

has an undue influence on many upper level, system decisions. It tends to colour our thinking in

matters of program, school construction and a range of services such as busing, lunchrooms,

etc.” 110 Similarly, the Peel Board did not encourage critical comments by its staff or community

organizations with links to the schools. One superintendent stated:

When you want to bring bad news up in the system you will pay for that. And that has nothing to do with gender and nothing to do particularly with race or ethnicity or language or anything. Anybody who is going to try and bring up bad news in the system will pay for it. 111

In 1987 an innovative youth worker encountered resistance from the Peel Board that

resulted in his decision to leave a job with the Malton Community Council. His job mandate was

to address issues of racism and sexism in the community, including Peel schools. When he

invited Peel Board staff to a conference on equity entitled “Youth and the Future,” he felt he (and

the conference) got “the brush-off.” One Peel Board equity worker was, he thought, particularly

unsupportive and patronizing in her manner. Asked for her support, she told him a story about

110 Peel Board of Education, Annual Organizational Meeting, Annual Report to the Peel Board of Education, Appendix II, 1987-12-7, 2.

111 Interview with Bridget Harrison, Mississauga, July 22, 2004.

63 making a choice between hiring a white teacher and a black teacher. She hired the white teacher because she assumed that a black teacher would have difficulty adjusting to a white school. Even more disturbing were calls that the youth worker received from educators, some “verging on hate calls.” One caller protested that “this [conference] is the kind of thing that causes racism.”

Clearly, some Peel staff preferred to ignore issues of race and ethnocultural difference in the community and the schools.

What of the conference? In spite of a cool response from Board officials, the youth worker considered it a great success. It brought together 200 participants, all involved in anti- racist and feminist work. Included among the participants were several prominent anti-racism advocates including one Peel Board trustee who was known to favour an anti-racism policy for the schools. In retrospect, perhaps the conference was too successful at focusing attention on racial issues. No sooner had the conference ended than the youth worker was cautioned by his employers to focus on youth counseling and not racism. Unhappy with the newly restricted mandate, he left his position. In his opinion, he was pushed out of the Malton Community

Council because of funding conflicts amongst community groups and accusations that the Youth

Council was “too political,” certainly too political for the local school board that saw little point challenging the racial status quo. 112

But change could not be denied. With social upheaval in the community, the Peel Board

felt pressure on all sides. With many competing societal demands, how should priorities be

established? In October 1988, one superintendent presented a report to the Board, written for the

Ministry of Education. The report questioned the role of education amidst competing demands of

business, industry, communities, parents, and the press. The Peel Board, she pointed out, faced a

112 Interview with Chet Singh, Toronto, March 1, 2004.

64 situation of unprecedented student growth and declining financial support from the province.

Given that the public school system was held to be a cementing social institution, the public expected schools to educate students and address societal problems ranging from drug abuse to unemployment. But even as it struggled to teach “the basics,” how could it possibly keep abreast of prevailing political and social demands and pressures? 113

One enormous challenge for the Peel Board was to provide sufficient English as a second

language instruction for the many students who arrived in Peel schools after 1981 without

English. 114 According to one Peel superintendent, the Peel Board well understood the need for

English as a second language. In some situations, she stated, there were more than fifteen

cultures and language groups in one single class and no shared English language facility. ESL

became a priority. One observer pointed out that “some Peel staff [were] dedicated to nothing

more than developing resource materials and strategies to assist classroom teachers and

principals and resource teachers to work with these huge groups of ESL children and their

families.” 115

Zubeda Vahed, a Peel Board teacher and equity worker, was involved in the struggle to develop and implement an appropriate program of instruction for ESL students. According to

Vahed, “the slew of kids coming in posed a huge problem.” She realized that the Board lacked

113 Peel Board of Education, Supplementary Program Committee, “Peel Board’s Presentation to the Select Committee (October 5, 1988),” Appendix I, 1988-09-6, 9 -17.

114 For a discussion of educational policy and English as a Second Language in Ontario schools, see N. Bascia, “Pendulum swings and archeological layers: Educational policy and the case of ESL”, in The erosion of democracy in education: From critique to possibilities , eds. J. Portelli and P. Solomon (Calgary: Detselig, 2001), 245-268.

115 Interview with Anonymous, Toronto, August 11, 2004. See Nina Bascia and Noreen Jacka, “Falling In and Filling In: ESL Teaching Careers in Changing Times,” Journal of Educational Change , 2 (2001), p. 325-346.

65 the experience to accommodate the large numbers of ESL students coming to Peel schools. 116 An

Indian heritage immigrant from South Africa of the Muslim faith, Vahed was attuned to

immigrant student needs. Working with a few like-minded colleagues, Vahed was instrumental

in the development and implementation of the Peel Board’s ESL initiatives. At first, she battled

against ESL students being placed together with Special Education students. Not only were the

Special Education classes overloaded with ESL students, but the two groups of students also had

distinct educational needs. According to Vahed, ESL students required an experiential approach

to language but when she taught using that methodology, she found that some of her co-workers

did not appreciate her ideas. Some teachers assumed that she was “just playing around” and

taking field trips. Perhaps fortuitously, Vahed’s principal was supportive and valued her teaching

methodology. When the Board advertised for an ESL resource teacher, he pressed her to apply

for the position:

You have the immigrant experience, you are multilingual, you understand multi- faith issues, you understand what it means to come in and break in. You have been able to bring in parents into the school who were terrified of coming in here. If you can’t do this work then anybody else they get won’t be able to do it. 117

Successful in her application, Vahed assumed her new position as an ESL resource teacher. She soon concluded that the need for ESL in Peel schools was overwhelming. At one time, her class list included seventy-three students in four different schools. In three of those schools, Vahed

116 Superintendent Bridge later recalled that special education carried “lots of money” and was formalized in a process. In addition, trustees were aware of special education appeals. One the other hand, English as a Second Language had no advocate at the Board table and no formal committee. Bridge was lobbied by ESL advocates Zubeda Vahed and Donna Bailey to provide ESL support because “kids who really couldn’t speak English were being put through the special ed sausage machine.” Interview with C.W. Bridge, Brampton, October 5, 2004.

117 Interview with Zubeda Vahed, Mississauga, June 11, 2004.

66 taught in a corridor for lack of an alternative teaching space. In one school, she felt blessed to have the use of the nurse’s office for a makeshift ESL classroom. Vahed went on to play a key role as an equity worker in the Peel Board and the Ministry of Education, where she worked in the areas of multiculturalism, anti-racism, and equity initiatives. Said Vahed, “A large part of my life has been starting, mothering if you wish, each of the programs, and moving issues of policy, program, procedure, conflict,[and] professional development [forward].” 118

A second significant challenge for the Peel Board was accommodating multicultural

diversity in a public school system long dominated by students and teachers of British, Protestant

heritage. One administrator enjoyed the changes. In the past, Bridget Harrison recalled, most

Peel students went home on a typical weekend, attended hockey practice, and watched Ed

Sullivan on Sunday night television. But by the 1980s, more Peel students went home to

different worlds. While she valued the multicultural diversity of her student population, she did

not deny that there were occasional tensions. She stated:

You had to be very cautious of the day the Golden Temple was destroyed, be out there in the halls looking at your Hindu and Sikh kids, and saying, “How are we doing today folks? And they’d say, “ It’s ok Miss, this is Canada. We’ll be fine today.” And I’m saying, ‘Thank you very much.’ 119

Not all Peel residents appreciated the multicultural diversity of their community. Schools reflecting the community and the growing diversity in Peel schools came as a rude shock to some

118 Vahed held the following positions: multiculturalism and race relations in the Programs Department, equity officer in the Operations Department and Human Resources Department in a similar role looking at issues of equity. In 1994 she moved to the Ministry of Education and Training as an education officer in the Access and Equity Division before returning to Peel in the School Services and Equity Office. Interview with Zubeda Vahed, Mississauga, June 11, 2004.

119 Interview with Bridget Harrison, Mississauga, July 22, 2004.

67 longtime residents. Simply stated, symbols of multicultural and religious diversity irritated and frightened some Peel residents–including parents and students. Avoiding multicultural controversy in schools was not always possible. When a principal’s letter informed parents that

Applewood Heights Secondary School would make allowances for Muslim students who fasted at Ramadan, some constituents questioned the logic of public schools accommodating the needs of religious minorities. 120 Why can’t they be like us? One Peel Board trustee realized that some

of her constituents resented any accommodation of the new diversity in the schools. In

November 1988, one delegation to the Peel Board alleged that his secondary school had treated

its students unequally. The student stated that he had been suspended for wearing a cowboy hat

inside the building. When he asked why, the school staff informed him that headgear was

“distracting, unhealthy and unsanitary.” 121 If Sikhs were permitted to wear turbans in school, he argued, then other students should likewise be permitted to wear baseball caps, cowboy hats, and other headgear. 122 In response, the superintendent of operations informed the student that each school had the right to enforce its own dress code.123

If headgear and religious fasting raised questions for some people, then Sikh students and teachers wearing kirpans in school provoked outrage. And what was a kirpan? Ceremonial dagger? Religious symbol? A kirpan was viewed by many unknowledgeable observers as a

120 Interview with Ruth Thompson, Mississauga, August 25, 2004.

121 Peel Board of Education, Regular Meeting of the Board, Minutes, 1988-11-08, 688.

122 For a discussion about the stereotyping of Sikhs, see for example C. K. Mahmood, “Sikhs in Canada: Identity and Commitment,” in Religion and Ethnicity in Canada , eds. P. Bramadat and D. Seljak (Toronto: Pearson Education Canada, Inc., 2005), 52-86. For a discussion of turban cases, see S.S. Gosal, “The Quest for Justice: Enforcing the Right to Wear the 5Ks”, in Sikhs in Ontario , eds. J. Bali and M.S. Bal (Ontario Council of Sikhs, Toronto, 1993), 130-172.

123 Peel Board of Education, Regular Meeting of the Board, Minutes, 1988-11-22, 702.

68 knife. The 1975 high school tragedy at Brampton Centennial had unexpected and eventually controversial consequences for the Peel Board as the Sikh community in Brampton grew larger.

Khalsa Sikh students and, as it happened, Khalsa Sikh staff entered Peel classrooms wearing kirpans. All the elements for a clash were there. Simply stated, the Board’s disciplinary policy forbad all weapons. 124 But was a kirpan a weapon? Did an object have to be manufactured to be a weapon before it was classed as a weapon? What about a baseball bat? A baseball bat is not manufactured to be a weapon but it has been used as a weapon. Of course, nobody would deny that a gun is weapon. So too is a dagger. Guns and daggers are manufactured to be weapons. But, again, what about a kirpan? A kirpan is not manufactured to be a weapon even though it has the appearance of a dagger. It is an article of the Sikh religious faith. In other words, is it the form of an object or the intended use of an object or the intent of the carrier that makes an object a weapon? If it is the form of an object that makes it a weapon, then those students with dagger- like kirpans violated the Peel Board’s discipline policy prohibiting weapons in the schools and thereby risked expulsion. Reflecting back on the Brampton Centennial shootings, one superintendent stated:

Although this Board is sometimes characterized as being a bit of a redneck Board by going after the kirpan thing, one has to put that in a context of understanding that we had serious weapons issues–serious weapons issues that had resulted in the deaths of staff and students. 125

124 Interview with David Weldon, Mississauga, February 25, 2007.

125 According to Bridget Harrison, the Peel Board’s “no weapons” policy was occasionally applied “in an absolutely nonsensical way.” For example, small children were suspended for bringing plastic knives to school to spread Cheeze Whiz on crackers. Interview with Bridget Harrison, Mississauga, July 22, 2004.

“Then,” mused the superintendent, “who would have ever dreamed that we would have Khalsa

Sikh students coming into our schools, and Khalsa Sikh teachers coming into our schools, who wished to wear the kirpan?” But, ready or not, Khalsa Sikh students and Khalsa Sikh students did arrive in Peel schools carrying kirpans. In the wake of the Brampton Centennial tragedy and the

Peel Board’s weapons policy, past and present collided in the kirpan case.

Chapter 3: The Kirpan: Religious Article or Knife?

Religion tends to give a franchise to the past and, in this sense, will always reflect both the cultural and counter-cultural in the society in which it lives. That it gives a franchise to the past does not remove its responsibility to engage with the present. 1

The kirpan issue began calmly for the Peel Board. The principal of Ridgewood Public

School in Mississauga was advised that Paramvir Singh, a grade four student and recent Sikh immigrant from India, carried a knife to school. The knife turned out to be a kirpan. After speaking to the student’s family, and learning about their religious faith, the principal allowed

Paramvir to wear his kirpan at school. 2

Meanwhile, the Board was in the process of investigating a kirpan incident at another

school in Brampton. As a result of that investigation, in May 1988, the principal of Ridgewood

Public School was informed by his superiors that Board policy mandated that a kirpan not

exceed three and one half inches in length. When Paramvir arrived at school wearing a larger

kirpan, rather than enforce the three and one half inch restriction, the principal moved Paramvir

out of the classroom and personally supervised his work near the school’s office. The principal

hoped that compromise would be acceptable to his Board and to Paramvir’s family.

1 Janice Gross Stein, “Searching for Equality,” in Uneasy Partners: Multiculturalism and Rights in Canada (Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2007), 17.

2 Peel Board Operations Officer Norm Gollert, an administrator who helped draft the Board’s kirpan policy, testified before the Human Rights Commission Board of Inquiry that he had been involved in the kirpan issue from the time a principal contacted him about a student wearing a “dagger.” For his part, Gollert knew the significance of the kirpan as a result of his background reading about the Sikh faith. As a result, he warned the principal to address the kirpan issue with “sensibility and responsibility.” JoAnn Smith-Gibson, “Kirpan unsheathed on the witness stand,” The Mississauga News , 6 April 1990, 3.

70 71

Paramvir worked near the principal’s office without issue. Then, on June 17,1988,

Paramvir had a run-in with two other students. While Paramvir and a friend walked home from school, two older boys approached Paramvir in an apparently threatening fashion. Frightened,

Paramvir clasped the handle of his kirpan shouting, “This is the way we punch in India.” 3

Alarmed, the two older boys fled and later reported the incident to the principal. When the

principal conducted an investigation, the boys pointed accusing fingers at each other. After

further investigation, the boys accused of bullying Paramvir admitted that they called him and

his friend, “Fucking Pakis.” Likely hoping to defuse the situation, the boys admitted it was

wrong to punch Paramvir and call him names. One of the boys also admitted shooting a piece of

paper at Paramvir’s turban in a prior incident. In turn, Paramvir acknowledged that he was wrong

to touch his “knife” in an attempt to scare the bullies. 4

The kirpan issue was not so easily set aside. In the fall of 1988, Paramvir and his family had moved to Malton, a Mississauga community northwest of Toronto. Paramvir attended grade five at Brandon Gate Public School. From his first day at school, Paramvir was segregated from other students because he wore a kirpan. He completed his school work in the school library, ate lunch in the school’s office, and went outside for recess alone–after other students had returned to class. Friendless and frustrated, Paramvir fell behind academically.

In January 1989, the Peel Board notified Paramvir’s family that its new discipline policy had taken effect. Paramvir had to choose between wearing his kirpan and going to school.

3 Ontario Human Rights Commission, Decision #90-008 . In the Matter of the Ontario Human Rights Code S.O. 1981, c. 53, as amended, between Complainants Harbhaian Singh Pandori and the Ontario Human Rights Commission and Respondent The Peel Board of Education before W. Gunther Plaut, Chair, Board of Inquiry, 30.

4 KC. “A Behavioural Incident, Ridgewood Public School, Mississauga, 1988 06 22.

Paramvir’s family saw no option. Their son’s faith came first. They choose the kirpan. As a result, Paramvir spent the next three months studying at home under the supervision of his parents who were forced to re-arrange their work shifts to provide necessary supervision for him.

It was not until April 1989 that Paramvir returned to the classroom. In April, Paramvir’s family moved to Etobicoke, immediately west of Toronto. Going to school in Etobicoke was a completely different experience. The Etobicoke Board of Education demonstrated greater openness to the religious concerns of Paramvir and his family. At school, Paramvir wore his kirpan to all classes including gym. Paramvir, who had fallen behind academically in Peel in the months he studied at home, made up for lost time. He resumed his grade five studies in

Etobicoke that fall and completed his grade five program by Christmas. His report card indicated that Paramvir made excellent progress with six A’s and three B’s. Teacher comments commended his positive attitude and class participation. Before and after school Paramvir spent his time in prayer and visited the Sikh Temple with his father. During the day he attended school, completed homework, and delivered newspapers. In his spare time, he often played floor hockey and street hockey. 5 In short, Paramvir, wearing the kirpan, seemed a “traditional” Canadian

child.

Meanwhile, a second kirpan issue was unfolding in another Peel school in Brampton.

This time it would lead to the Ontario Human Rights Commission and a Board of Inquiry

(Pandori v. Peel Board of Education (1990), 12 C.H.R.R. D/364, aff’d (1991), 3. O.R. (3d) 531),

with dramatic consequences for the Peel Board. On Monday April 18, 1988, Sukhdev Hundal, a

seventeen year old student at Central Peel Secondary School, was observed wearing his kirpan at

5 Nomi Morris, “Boy treated like slave for wearing kirpan Sikh student finds freedom at new school,” The Toronto Star, February 12, 1990, A2.

73 school. 6 Vice-principal Tony Pontes was directed to investigate why Sukhdev wore a “sword” to school and to assess any possible risk. Why was Vice-principal Pontes chosen to investigate?

“Fortunately or unfortunately, he recalled, his [Sukhdev’s] alphabet was the alphabet that I was assigned to.” 7 In those days, he said, many [in the Peel Board] were “quite ignorant of the Sikh faith, and its traditions, and its requirements.” He added, “What we saw was not a religious item.

What we saw was a knife. What we saw was a weapon. What we saw was a risk to other children and potentially to Sukhdev himself.” School officials were not concerned that Sukhdev intended to use the kirpan. They feared that the kirpan might be used by another student or that Sukhdev might be backed into a corner and somehow use the kirpan without intent. At all times, said

Pontes, school staff remained very respectful, and supported Sukhdev’s education while addressing safety concerns.

Reflecting on the Hundal incident two decades later, Pontes wondered how much the media images of South Asian and Middle Eastern cultures, with stereotypical characters such as

Sinbad waving a knife, were in the backs of some minds. 8 In fact, from the mid 1980s, it was not

unusual for the Canadian media to portray Sikhs as extremists who imported their “homeland

conflicts” to Canada. As one columnist in The Kingston Whig-Standard pointed out, after the

tragic bombing of an Air India plane in 1985, the word “Sikh” was imprinted on the public mind

6 District Court of Ontario (Brampton), Court File # 7685/88, Sukhdev Singh Hundal and the Peel Board of Education, hereafter DCO. Peel Board of Education (Meadowvale Office), Letter to Trustee, Re. Suspension of Sukhdev Hundal, May 9, 1988.

7 Pontes was likely referring to the school practice of assigning students to vice-principals alphabetically. A secondary school with two vice-principals, for example, would divide the student list in half according to the alphabet.

8 Interview with Tony Pontes, Brampton, January 29, 2007.

74 as synonymous with dangerous radicals. 9 According to that columnist, the media conveyed the message that “people with turbans can be violent terrorists.” That message, he felt, grew partly out of fear, and partly out of racism. 10 In 1986 The Gazette covered a Quebec trial involving two

Sikh men accused of participating in a bombing conspiracy. Commenting on their attire, the

reporter noted that the accused wore the “brightly-coloured turbans and scarves of the traditional

Sikh dress.” 11 Intentional or not, the discussion of the traditional Sikh garb implied a connection between Sikhism and terrorism.

In 1986, The Toronto Star reported on a heated neighbourhood dispute involving two

South Asian religious communities. At issue was the building of a Sikh temple in a Scarborough neighbourhood that already had a Hindu temple. Perhaps local residents felt there was no room for another “immigrant” temple in the same area. But some neighbours also worried that any

Sikh temple would be a hotbed of radicalism. With the building of a Sikh temple, some argued,

Sikhs and Hindus would bring their “homeland conflicts” into the Scarborough community. One local resident saw the temple as a “dark cloud” and “source of terror.” Another predicted that the temple would transform the Scarborough neighbourhood into a religious “war zone.” “This is not

India, South America, Africa,” another woman insisted. One local resident sent municipal council members a brown bag filled with newspaper clippings with information about reported

9 Denise Balkissoon, “History Major: Sturla Gunnarsson tells the true story of a great Canadian tragedy. Finally,” Toronto Life , July 2008, 21,22.

10 Henry Schachter, “Some thoughts on Tamil Refugees, Sikh ‘Terrorists,’ and Air India’s Crash,” The Whig Standard , August 22, 1986, 1. A film on the 1985 Air India bombing was shown a Toronto film festival in 2008. The film’s director contended that Canadians did little to solve the 1985 mass murder, in part, because the victims were visible minorities. Said the director, “If those people had been blond-haired and blue-eyed, the bombing would have transformed Canadian society.” See Denise Balkissoon, “History Major: Sturla Gunnarsson tells the true story of a great Canadian tragedy. Finally,” Toronto Life , July 2008, 21-22.

11 “2 Sikhs guilty of conspiring to bomb plane,” The Gazette , December 24, 1986, A1.

Sikh-Hindu clashes in Canada. The resident announced, “I feel like a mouse about to be tossed into a pit of snakes.” During the council meeting, Sikhs reportedly sat silently, listening to the abusive remarks. 12

In 1986 Lorne Waldman, a lawyer specializing in immigration, refugee, and human rights law, castigated the media for fueling the racist backlash against Sikhs. According to Waldman, the media had uncritically accepted the Canadian government’s view that 174 Sikhs who illegally put ashore from a boat in the Maritimes were bogus refugees. In doing so, he argued, the media had been overly complacent by allowing the government to use the incident for short-term political gain. It was later ruled that the Sikhs had legitimate refugee claims, but the damage to the Sikhs had already been done. 13 In those and similar cases, the media exposed the Canadian readership to stereotypical portrayals of Sikhs as violent and deceitful foreigners who could not be trusted.

As Ontario’s demographic composition changed, especially in urban areas, school boards were pressed to accommodate diversity. In March 1986, shortly before kirpans came to the attention of the Peel Board, the province addressed the impact of diversity in education. The

Ontario Ministry of Education hosted a conference on race and ethnocultural relations in the schools. Among the attendees were 800 educators, students, and community members representing school boards across the province. The minister of education urged participants to assess the contemporary reality of race relations in Ontario schools. To move the process forward, he announced that a provincial advisory committee would be formed to help school

12 Royson James, “Sikh temple approved despite residents’ fears,” The Toronto Star , November 11, 1986, E7.

13 Lorne Waldman, “After 2-year wait, Sikh ‘boat people’ taste vindication,” The Toronto Star , December 27, 1989, A31.

76 boards develop race relations policy. The committee’s draft guidelines stated that school boards had a key role to play in assuring the equality of opportunity through education. Key steps in reaching that goal included challenging discrimination by acknowledging diversity in race, ethnicity, culture, language, gender, and religion in the province’s schools. 14 In short, the

Ministry of Education encouraged Ontario school boards to meet the needs of all students by accommodating diversity–a lofty goal which sometimes conflicted with classroom reality. For the Peel Board of Education, policy was one thing. The Conference was hardly over before the

Board had to address the challenge represented by Sukhdev Hundal.

For the Peel Board, accommodating diversity came to a head when Sikh students and

Sikh teachers came to Peel schools wearing kirpans. Sukhdev Hundal, a religiously observant

Sikh student, was a case in point. What did the Sikhism mean to Sukhdev Hundal? From the time of his baptism as a Khalsa Sikh in March 1988, Sukhdev Hundal felt religiously bound to wear a kirpan to fulfill one of the five religious obligations of a Khalsa Sikh. The obligations included:

Kesh-the hair cannot be cut; Kirpan- a “sword,” originally three feet long but today nine to ten inches, must be worn at all times; Kachh, or shorts must be worn as undergarments at all times; Kara, or bracelet, must be worn at all times; and Khanga, or comb, must be worn in the hair at all times. 15

While his vice-principal had no wish to interfere with Sukhdev’s religious observance or to force him out of school, the school’s administration was required to enforce the Peel Board’s

14 Archives of Ontario, RG 76-5-1, OHRC Pandori/Peel Board, hereafter AO. Mike Miller. Province of Ontario, Report of the Provincial Advisory Committee on Race Relations, “The Development of a Policy on Race and Ethnocultural Equity,” September 1987.

15 DCO. Defendant’s Motion Record, Motion Re: Jurisdiction, tab 2, Statement of Claim, May 13, 1988, Decision, 3.

77 disciplinary policy banning weapons and the kirpan was regarded as a weapon. 16 To Sukhdev,

however, the kirpan was not a weapon. It was a symbol of religious faith. 17 Not wanting to be

accused of religious bigotry, the school’s vice-principal contacted the Board’s Operations

Department for clarification of the kirpan’s status. He was informed that the kirpan was indeed

considered a weapon within the meaning of Board’s weapons policy. 18 Hoping to avoid forcing

Sukhdev out of school, negotiations ensued between the Board’s multiculturalism consultant, a

member of the Canadian Sikh Society, and a member of the International Sikh Youth

Federation. 19 The kirpan discussions ended without resolution, opening the door to litigation should Hundal be suspended. 20 The discussions did, however, focus attention on diversity issues

in Peel schools. According to the Board’s multiculturalism consultant, “[the kirpan issue]was the

16 DCO. Defendant’s Motion Record, Exhibit “A2", Operating Procedures, Weapons In School, tab 3; Affidavit of John A. Fraser sworn May 17, 1988, tab 1.

17 For a discussion of the transmission of Sikh ethnicity, see: A. W. Helweg, “Transmitting and Regenerating Culture: The Sikh Case,” in Sikh Identity: Continuity and Change , eds. P. Singh and N. G. Barrier (New Delhi: Ajay Kumar for Manohar Publishers & Distributors, 1999), 299-314; M. A. Gibson, Accommodation without Assimilation. Sikh Immigrants in an American High School (London: Cornell University Press, 1988); and K. E. Nayar, The Sikh Diaspora in Vancouver: Three Generations Amid Tradition, Modernity, and Multiculturalism (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004).

18 KC. Peel Board of Education (Meadowvale Office), Letter to Trustee, Re. Suspension of Sukhdev Hundal, May 9, 1988.

19 The ISYF report stated that “the Kirpan is a ceremonial dagger/sword (varying from 9 inches to 3 feet in length) carried by all baptized Sikhs.” The use of the Kirpan is allowed only in the defence of the faith or in extreme circumstances such as when a genocide is committed against defenseless people. The Kirpan is only unsheathed during specific religious ceremonies. AO. Peel School Board, Students Wearing Kirpans. The Kirpan of the Sikhs , short brief prepared for: Mr. Pontes, by The International Sikh Youth Federation (Toronto Branch).

20 DCO. Defendant’s Factum, paragraph 3, 2.

78 hugest impetus for the Peel Board to take the work [of multiculturalism, anti-racism, and equity] seriously.” 21

The Hundal case was not the first kirpan case to come before the Canadian judicial system. A decision had previously been made about kirpans in schools in an Alberta case. 22 In

1985 Hundal’s litigation guardian had sought the right to wear a kirpan in Alberta schools, which also saw the kirpan as a weapon. The litigation guardian applied to the Alberta courts for an interim injunction to prevent his suspension from school following his baptism as a Khalsa Sikh.

He was challenged in court by the Alberta Trustees Association.

In preparation for the case, the Trustees Association conducted a survey of kirpan policies in school boards across Canada. 23 The results revealed that few school boards had Sikhs

in attendance and, while many Canadian school boards had weapons policies, none had a kirpan

policy. Winnipeg School Division No.1 indicated that Sikhs were in attendance at their schools

but “NONE,” they emphasized, wore a kirpan. In Toronto and surrounding municipalities, no

school board had a kirpan policy. The director of the Carleton Board, in suburban Ottawa,

recalled that religious symbols had been an issue for the Board in the past. Previously, the

Carleton Board was advised that prohibiting yarmulkes in the schools might be considered

discriminatory unless all religious symbols were similarly banned, including the wearing of

Christian crosses. In British Columbia, the Surrey and Richmond School Districts reported

21 Interview with Zubeda Vahed, Mississauga, June 11, 2004.

22 Tuli v. St. Albert Protestant Board of Education (1985), 8 C.H.R.R. D/3736, at D/3745.

For a comparative discussion of Sikh issues in different countries and a discussion of Sikh emigration, see D. S. Tatla, “Sikhs in Multicultural Societies,” International Journal on Multicultural Societies 5 (2), (2003), 177-192.

23 AO. Peel School Board, Students Wearing Kirpans. Her Majesty The Queen v. Gurprasad Dhamrait, Reason for Sentence, District Court of Ontario, May 7, 1985.

79 having Sikhs with kirpans in attendance at their schools, but each case was treated on an individual basis.24 In Richmond, no kirpan issues had been reported.

What was the resolution in the Alberta kirpan case? The judge granted an interim injunction preventing the suspension of the litigation guardian for wearing his kirpan to school.

From the judge’s perspective, the kirpan was an excellent tool for educating Canadians about the

Sikh faith. However, there were qualifications. The judge asked that the kirpan be blunted and encased in a sheath for wearing to school. 25

On April 18, 1988 the first of two meetings took place between Sukhdev, his supporters in the Sikh community, and Peel Board staff. The stated purpose of the meeting was to clarify the Board’s weapons policy. Sukhdev’s vice-principal, addressing the meeting, allowed that he had no concern that Sukhdev would unsheathe the kirpan at school. However, he was concerned that the kirpan, as a weapon, posed a potential risk to staff and students, including Sukhdev. As a compromise, he offered to store the kirpan in his office during the school day. For Sukhdev, the suggested compromise was unacceptable. When the meeting ended without resolution of the issue, a second meeting was scheduled for May 2, and was to include the Peel superintendent of schools.

24 DCO. Plaintiff’s Motion Record (May 16, 1988) , Exhibit 8 - Letters from various school boards addressed to Judith C. Anderson - The Winnipeg School Division #1, (June 4, 1985), School District 36 Surrey, (May 7, 1985), The Carleton Board of Education, (May 17, 1985).

25 The International Sikh Youth Federation sent Vice-Principal Pontes a memorandum regarding legal precedents for kirpan cases. The memorandum refers to Pritam Singh v. WCB (regarding wearing the Kirpan in a WCB hospital) and the case of Suneet Singh v. St. Albert Separate School Board District # 6 (regarding the wearing of a kirpan in school). The Federation noted that “both cases affirm a baptized Sikh’s right to the wearing of the Kirpan.” AO. Peel School Board, Students Wearing Kirpans. The Kirpan of the Sikhs , short brief prepared for: Mr. Pontes, by The International Sikh Youth Federation (Toronto Branch).

Meanwhile, the Peel Board, like the Alberta Trustees Association, began investigating

kirpan policies in other jurisdictions. The search revealed that the Middlesex Board of Education,

the Metropolitan Toronto Police, and the Peel Regional Police Force all permitted the wearing of

replica kirpans, approximately two to three inches in length. 26 Press reports indicated that some other Toronto area boards had arrived at a similar resolution regarding kirpan issues in those jurisdictions. In Etobicoke, one Sikh family met with the Board, the student “modified” his request, and an agreement was reached that he wear “a smaller version of the dagger.” The North

York and Scarborough Boards intended to address kirpan issues on a case by case basis. A spokesman for the Toronto Board stated that it did not have any policy “permitting or not permitting Sikhs to do anything,” and a ban on weapons may be a legal matter “out of the hands of individual boards.” When asked about a directive in the Education Act prohibiting the display of religious emblems in public schools except during religious studies, a Ministry of Education spokesman said he did not know if the regulation applied to Sikh daggers but agreed to look into it. 27

While the Board did its research, as a compromise allowing Sukhdev to remain in school, he was assigned to do his school work in his school’s office, under the vice-principal’s supervision. Every day Sukhdev came “directly to the office, only to the office, [and] could only leave with permission and with supervision.” Gradually, he began to chafe at the restrictions.

Who could blame him? Certainly not the vice-principal. He recalled:

He was a young Sikh boy who, from his cultural perspective and faith perspective, was not doing anything that was out of the ordinary. He was certainly

26 DCO. Defendant’s Affidavit (May 17, 1988), paragraph 16.

27 “Peel Board won’t review weapons ban,” The Toronto Star , May 31, 1988, W1.

not anticipating any issues of violence. From his perspective, he slowly lost patience, as did his parents, in terms of working with me to continue his education in a mutual agreement. 28

Matters came to a head when Sukhdev’s parents “respectfully” informed the vice-principal that they could no longer comply with the compromise. If Sukhdev was in school, they argued, he should be in a classroom with other students. When Sukhdev, instead of going to the vice- principal’s office, returned to his class wearing his kirpan he was suspended for “persistent opposition to authority.” 29 However, Sukhdev disputed the reason given by the Peel Board for

his suspension:

The actual reason for my suspension was that I did not remain in the vice- principal’s office, away from class, when ordered to do so and the reason I was ordered to stay in his office is because I was wearing the kirpan. In other words, if I wore the kirpan I could not attend class but if I did not wear the kirpan I could attend class. 30

On May 2, the scheduled second meeting took place between Sukhdev, his supporters, and his litigation guardian on one side and Peel Board representatives, including the superintendent and the Peel Board’s lawyer, on the other side. 31 According to Sukhdev, he was

being denied an education by the Peel Board because of his religious beliefs and practices.

28 Interview with Tony Pontes, Brampton, January 29, 2007.

29 KC. Peel Board of Education (Meadowvale Office), Letter to Trustee, Re. Suspension of Sukhdev Hundal, May 9, 1988, 5.

30 DCO. Plaintiff’s Motion Record, Affidavit of Sukhdev Singh Hundal (May 13, 1988) , paragraph 16, 4.

31 Sukhdev Hundal was accompanied by his litigation guardian, Suneet Singh Tuli. Sukhdev said that he needed a guardian because his father did not speak English well. After asking around the temple for help, Sukhdev was referred to Singh because he had been involved in a similar case in Alberta. KC. District Court of Ontario, File # 7685/88. Cross-Examination of Sukhdev Singh Hundal, examined by Mr. Goldsmith, 54, 55.

According to the Peel Board, the kirpan was a weapon prohibited by Board policy. If Sukhdev refused to stop wearing his kirpan at school, said the superintendent, he would have to pursue his education elsewhere. The Board’s lawyer outlined several alternatives for Sukhdev. He could appeal the suspension, he could seek a judicial resolution, or he could take the case to the Human

Rights Commission. At the conclusion of the meeting, Sukhdev’s litigation guardian informed those in attendance that Sukhdev would continue wearing his kirpan to school. If suspended, they would make an appeal to the “highest courts” and the Human Rights Commission. 32

On May 4, following the period of suspension, Sukhdev returned to school, still wearing his kirpan. Rather than checking in at the office, standard protocol for suspended students at

Central Peel Secondary School, Sukhdev proceeded directly to class. Again, school authorities suspended him for “persistent opposition to authority.”

On May 10 Sukhdev appealed his suspension to the Board of Trustees. Appearing before the Board, he requested an adjournment of two weeks and permission to wear his kirpan at school in the meantime. The Board informed Sukhdev that he was free to return to school, but without his kirpan.33 At the meeting, several Sikh representatives sought permission to counsel the Board about Sikhism hoping it would encourage a change in policy. They were not alone in doing so. As one Board spokesperson stated: “We had some phone calls from people when this whole silly business started, asking if they could address the board on the issue.” 34 The Peel

Board agreed to hear the presentation on the Sikh faith during its next Board meeting on May 24.

32 KC. Peel Board of Education (Meadowvale Office), Letter to Trustee, Re. Suspension of Sukhdev Hundal, May 9, 1988, 4.

33 DCO. Defendant’s Factum (June 10, 1988), paragraph 8, 3.

34 Tracy Tyler, “Peel Board won’t review weapons ban,” The Toronto Star , May 31, 1988, W1.

However, on May 24, no Sikh delegation appeared. Instead, on May 13, the Peel Board was served with a Statement of Claim by Sukhdev. Sukhdev asked that the Board be prohibited from preventing his attendance at school because he wore a kirpan. He requested an interlocutory order under s. 24 (1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada, special damages of $25,

000, costs, and further relief as deemed just by the court. Sukhdev claimed that the Peel Board had breached the Charter of Rights and Freedoms , by denying his freedom of conscience and religion, and by abrogating the rights guaranteed by s. 50 of the Education Act . The Board, in turn, raised several points of contention:

What is in dispute is the form of the physical object which is required to be worn in order to meet the requirement to wear a kirpan, whether the kirpan may ever be removed, and the severity of the sanction, if any imposed on baptized Sikhs who breach the requirement to wear a kirpan. Exemptions from the requirement to wear a kirpan may be sought, but there is no evidence that SSH ever sought such an exemption.35

For one thing, the Board had serious concerns about safety and the consequences for Sikh students who refused to comply with the established parameters. For another, the Peel Board denied that its weapons policy infringed the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or that Sukhdev was deprived of his freedom of conscience and religion. The Board particularly denied that a kirpan of nine or ten inches had to be worn to school. If any right to freedom of religion and conscience was infringed, the Board insisted, then it was a reasonable infringement.36 With the

Brampton Centennial tragedy still fresh in memory, the superintendent of operations made it clear that, when it came to weapons in schools, the Board had no choice but to consider the administrative recommendations regarding student expulsion:

35 DCO. Defendant’s Factum (June 10, 1988), 2, 4, 5.

36 KC. Defendant’s Motion Record, Motion RE: Jurisdiction, Statement of Defence (June 7, 1988), paragraphs 20, 21; 4.

We really had a moral commitment to parents, that their children be as safe as possible and if someone did something with a knife, for instance, or a gun–we had them all–that was threatening or hurt someone with it, we would have the psychology people spend time [with them]. We’d do all kinds of things like that. But in the end we would recommend to the Board that they be expelled. So Peel not only had an awareness of weapons, a heightened awareness, but they also acted on it in that way too. 37

In other words, the Peel Board was determined do everything in its power to ensure that a school tragedy, such as the Brampton Centennial shooting in 1975, would not be repeated in Peel schools.

District Court of Ontario

In May 1988, the case between the plaintiff, Sukhdev Singh Hundal, by his litigation guardian, and the Peel Board of Education came before the District Court of Ontario. At issue was the suspension of Sukhdev Hundal for his persistent opposition to authority. In his Notice of

Motion, Hundal alleged that the real reason for his suspension was his refusal to remain isolated in the school office while wearing his kirpan. Hundal claimed that he was forced to choose between his religious obligations as a baptized Sikh and his education. He alleged that the actions of the Peel Board were discriminatory and singled him out. As he pointed out, the Board had no specific policy governing the wearing of kirpans. 38 Hundal’s Notice of Motion requested

an injunction. He asked that the Peel Board be prohibited from banning him from attending

school because he wore a kirpan. In addition, the injunction sought “such further and other relief

37 Interview with David Weldon, Mississauga, February 25, 2007.

38 KC. Defendant’s Motion Record, Motion Re: Jurisdiction, Statement of Claim (May 13, 1988), paragraph 14, 5.

85 as may seem just.” 39 The other relief was reported variously in the The Globe and Mail as payments in the amounts of $25,000 and $75,000. 40 Hundal’s litigation guardian, an official with the International Sikh Federation of Sri Amritsar India, stated in an accompanying affidavit that the Peel Board was discriminating against Hundal on the basis of religious bias:

We believe that it is the inherent right of every student to practice his religion in a normal school environment. No student can be discriminated against for the practice of his religion, thus Sukhdev should not be treated differently on the basis that he is a Sikh. 41

For its part, the Peel Board stated that weapons were forbidden and that the kirpan was a weapon. The director and secretary of the Peel Board of Education indicated that Peel staff had made enquiries of other Boards of Education in Ontario and learned that none “knowingly permits the wearing of Kirpans to school.” 42 In addition, the Peel Board was challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear the request for an interlocutory motion.

Before deciding whether to grant the injunction, Justice J.A. Goodearle stated that he would allow the Peel Board to cross-examine Hundal about his claim that he must wear the kirpan at all times. 43 According to The Toronto Star, the judge also remarked that the affidavits filed for each side were “sorely in need of cross-examination” as their facts conflicted. 44 The

39 DCO. Plaintiff’s Motion Record, Notice of Motion (May 13, 1988), 2.

40 “Home study set for Sikh student,” The Globe and Mail , May 20, 1988, A14; “Sikh barred from court while wearing dagger,” The Globe and Mail , May 18, 1988, A15.

41 Gary Webb-Proctor, “Allow dagger at school, Sikh student asks judge,” The Globe and Mail , May 17, 1988, A16.

42 DCO. Defendant’s Affidavit (May 17, 1988), paragraph 14.

43 “Home study set for Sikh student,” The Globe and Mail, May 20, 1988, A14.

44 “Sikh student’s bid to wear knife stalled, must study at home,” The Toronto Star, May 20, 1988, A12.

86 judge ordered each side to file cross-examination papers by June 3. In the meantime, he ordered the Peel Board to provide home study assignments for Hundal. 45

The question about the nature of a weapon was central to the case. Was the kirpan a

weapon or a religious object or both? One witness, a Peel police officer, made reference to three

definitions of a weapon. According to the Criminal Code of Canada, he said, a weapon is

“something used or intended for use in causing death or injury to persons whether designed for such purpose or not or anything used or intended for use for threatening or intimidating any person.” Webster’s Dictionary defines a weapon as “an instrument of offensive or defensive

combat.” According to the Oxford Dictionary , a weapon is “designed or used or usable as an

instrument for inflicting bodily harm, e.g. gun, rifle, spear, stick, hammer, poker.” For the

officer, the intent of the person holding a particular object was the critical factor. In some

circumstances, he argued, even a coffee cup was a potential weapon.

Debates about weapons led to discussions of increasing weapons-related violence in Peel

schools. The director of education stated that twelve knife incidents in Peel schools had then

been reported in 1988. In addition, hundreds of fights took place in Peel schools each year.

Unfortunate as that was, those fights would be far more dangerous if students had access to

weapons. Thankfully, the director emphasized, weapons were not permitted in Peel schools and

kirpans, he insisted, were weapons. Under cross-examination, he confirmed that he had little

previous knowledge of kirpans. He did not know if kirpans were sharp or blunt, or if they could

inflict bodily harm. In his words, “I didn’t even know what they were called.” 46 But, he

45 “Home study set for Sikh student,” The Globe and Mail, May 20, 1988, A14.

46 KC. District Court of Ontario (Brampton), Court File # 7685/88, Sukhdev Singh Hundal and the Peel Board of Education, Cross-Examination (John Fraser), 11.

87 concluded, the Peel Board needed “a good, clear weapons policy” that everyone understood.

That, he believed, should include kirpans.

How common were kirpan incidents in Peel? According to the Peel police officer, kirpan

incidents were rare indeed. A detective with the Race Relations Bureau, who had been assisting

the Sikh community with religious festivals and special events in Peel for over a decade, testified

that he had encountered only one kirpan incident in fourteen years of service. The incident

involved a Sikh man and some youth engaging in sports activities outside of a Sikh temple in

Malton. While the reason for the altercation was not stated, the officer reported that the Sikh man

drew his kirpan and waved it at the youth in a threatening manner. Subsequently, a charge was

laid. 47

During the hearing, witnesses reported that the Toronto and Peel police forces had changed their dress code policies to accommodate their Sikh employees. In February 1986 the

Metropolitan Board of Police Commissioners passed a by-law permitting Sikh employees to wear replica kirpans. During the meeting, the mayor of Toronto acknowledged that Sikhs wearing turbans fought with the Allies in both World Wars. 48 According to the mayor, the

revised dress code provided the Toronto Police Force with the opportunity to reflect the diversity

of the community. Similarly, the Peel Regional Police Force revised its dress code to allow the

47 DCO. Cross-Examination (George Davies), 10,11; DCO. Cross-Examination of John A. Fraser, (May 17, 1988), 11, 43;

48 DCO. Cross-Examination in aid of a motion of Staff Sergeant Doug Reynolds, Exhibits, Copy of By-law No.73 (June 3, 1988).

88 wearing of small replica kirpans in accordance with the policies of the London [England]

Metropolitan Police Force and the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force. 49

Would Hundal and his supporters agree to wear replica kirpans? No, they said. There was no religious authority, they argued, for replacing a kirpan with a replica. According to Hundal’s litigation guardian, no Sikhs in Canada had the authority to issue written edicts on the tenets of

Sikhism. For the Peel Board, the lack of agreement amongst Sikhs on matters of religious observance was problematic. If Sikhs could not agree amongst themselves on the kirpan, and if no authoritative body governed the Sikh community, then with whom should the Peel Board consult? Additional testimony only heightened the confusion. The litigation guardian informed the court that few Sikhs chose to assume the obligations of baptism. However, once baptized, the new Khalsa Sikh faced ostracism and exclusion from the community if the prescribed rules and obligations were not followed. 50 In other words, a Khalsa Sikh did not remain a Khalsa Sikh if

the kirpan was not worn at all times. 51 When asked about written documentation, the litigation guardian indicated that one edict had been issued in 1913, mandating that a baptized Sikh must wear a one foot kirpan. However, he cautioned, Sikhs did not consider the edict mandatory because only one of the five governing thrones of Sikhs supported the ruling. According to the litigation guardian, it was generally accepted by those in the Sikh community that the size of kirpan endowed at the time of baptism was the acceptable size. When asked about replica

49 DCO. Defendant’s Motion Record, Exhibit “B”, Tab 8, Letter from Peel Regional Police to John A. Fraser dated June 6 th 1988, 8.

50 DCO. Cross Examination of Suneet Singh Tuli (May 27, 1988), 5, 25, 27.

51 DCO. Plaintiff’s Motion Record, Affidavit of Sukhdev Singh Hundal (May 13, 1988), paragraph 13, 4.

89 kirpans, he insisted that they were not permitted. As he put it, “A thing around the neck or on a chain is not a Kirpan; it might be a symbol of a Kirpan but it’s not a Kirpan itself.”

Kirpan discussions revealed disunity in the Sikh community regarding the tenets of the

Sikh faith.52 Contradictory information on Sikhism came from Peel student, Onkar Ghuman.

Previously, Ghuman attended school in British Columbia. After his baptism as a Khalsa Sikh in

British Columbia, he wore his kirpan to school. Soon afterwards he became aware that his

classmates had “wrong impressions” about those Sikhs who wore swords in school. As a result,

he sought permission from Sikh authorities to leave his kirpan at home. According to Ghuman,

permission was granted to him by a group of five Sikh gentlemen who assured him that the rules

[of Sikhism] were “not that strict.” When asked about kirpan size, Ghuman insisted that it was a

matter of personal conscience. As he put it, “No requirements. It’s up to you. You can wear a

two inch, four inch, six inch. Some people wear it twelve inches.” 53 Ghuman’s decision to leave the kirpan at home was, he said, respected by other Sikhs. He testified that he had not lost any friends in the Sikh community when he stopped wearing his kirpan to school.

The Toronto Star reported further evidence of disunity amongst Sikhs. One Sikh, a member of the Shromani Sikh Society, stated that Sikhs wore kirpans with “varying degrees of enthusiasm” after acknowledging their faith in late adolescence. According to the spokesperson,

“It’s not important to everybody. Just a couple of idiots.” He did not wear the kirpan while

52 For a comparative study of Sikh organizational issues and politics in Canada and Singapore see V. A. Dusenbery, “The poetics and politics of recognition: diasporan Sikhs in pluralist polities,” American Ethnologist , vol. 24, no. 4 (1997), 738-762.

53 DCO. Cross Examination of Suneet Singh Tuli, (May 27, 1988), 15, 16, 17; DCO. Cross Examination of Onkar Preet Singh Ghuman (June 6, 1988), 9, 13, 28.

90 attending school in Canada. Those Sikhs who insisted on wearing kirpans at school, he felt, were

“courting reaction.” 54

If Sikhs were inconsistent with respect to the kirpan, Hundal argued that the Peel Board was equally inconsistent. According to Hundal, other Peel students and Peel staff wore their kirpans to school with the full knowledge and permission of the Peel Board authorities. At his school he was taught by a Khalsa supply teacher wearing a kirpan. 55 Said Hundal, “I am also

aware that Mr. Harbhajan Singh Pandori teaches at my school from time to time and he at all

times wears his kirpan.” 56

For their part, some officials in the Peel Board raised doubts about Hundal’s motives in pursuing the kirpan matter. Was he as sincerely devoted to his Sikh faith and cultural heritage as he claimed? School records raised doubts. Some teachers reported that Sukhdev answered to the name, “Dave” in their classes. If Sukhdev was such a devout Sikh, why would he respond to a non-Sikh name? Also, Peel Board documents indicated that Sukhdev had been suspended from school on three occasions. On one occasion he threw some “stink bombs” in a school stairwell.

On another occasion he used profane and threatening language when speaking to a teacher. On a third occasion he refused to leave the gym after failing to produce the required admittance card. 57

54 “Peel Board won’t review weapons ban,” The Toronto Star , May 31, 1988, W1.

55 AO. 50-843-B. Ontario Human Rights Commission, Record of Intake, Harbhajan Singh Pandori, June 18, 1988.

56 DCO. Plaintiff’s Motion Record, Affidavit of Sukhdev Singh Hundal (May 13, 1988), paragraph 29, 8.

57 DCO. Cross Examination of Sukhdev Singh Hundal, (May 27, 1988), 11, 44.

Even allowing for youthful boisterousness, was this the behavioural profile of a religiously devout student? 58

Even as both sides contested the issue in the courts, attempts were made to resolve the kirpan issue through other means. The Commission was given to understand that a representative of the Race Relations Directorate advised the Hundal family of its right to file a claim under the

Ontario Human Rights Code . On May 17, the regional manager of the Ontario Human Rights

Commission called the director of the Peel Board to explore the possibility of the Board’s lifting

Hundal’s suspension. He concluded that the Peel Board intended to remain firm

“notwithstanding the possibility of a human rights or other court action.” In the end, the family

chose to pursue the court action instead because a similar case had been pursued successfully in

Edmonton. 59 The regional manager of the Human Rights Commission advised the family that the

door was still open if they wished to file a complaint later.

On June 7,1988, the Peel Board filed a Notice of Motion asking that the case be

dismissed. The Board argued that “the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the

action ( Courts of Justice Act, section 32 (2); Rule 21.01 (a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure).” 60

58 Hundal’s religious devotion was called into question in another incident. In 1990 the Assistant Director of J. A. Turner Night School in Brampton was informed by one of the night school teachers that she recognized the name of a student in her class, who had previously refused to comply with the kirpan policy. That student was Sukhdev Hundal. After confirming Hundal’s identity, the assistant director called Hundal aside and reviewed the Peel Board’s kirpan policy. Hundal politely advised the assistant director that he would not be wearing his kirpan to night school. KC. Letter to Mr. D.G. Weldon, superintendent of operations, Peel Board of Education, from John Hallett, assistant director, J.A. Turner Night School, Peel Board of Education, re Sukhdev Hundal, 1990 03 02.

59 It was not noted but it is likely that the Alberta legal case was the previously cited Tuli v. St. Albert Protestant Board of Education (1985), 8 C.H.R.R. D/3736, at D/3745. AO. 50-843-B, 2. Briefing Note RE Sukhdev Singh Hundal and Peel Board of Education, 3.

60 DCO. Defendant’s Motion Record, Motion Re: Jurisdiction, Notice of Motion (June 7, 1988), 1.

Three weeks later, Justice Goodearle handed down his decision. He agreed with the Peel Board and dismissed the action. He held that the remedies sought by the plaintiff were prerogative remedies, and that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to grant them. The judge concluded that the aim of admitting the student to school with a kirpan could only be achieved with a court order. He added that the plaintiff had abandoned his claim for general damages, leaving only the claim for special damages. He rejected that claim, and concluded by directing each side to pay its own costs. 61

For the moment, Sukhdev Hundal remained suspended and the Peel Board’s safety concerns had been vindicated. The superintendent of operations recalled that the Board probably expelled more students [in the 1970s and 1980s] than any other Board in the province. “Not only were we bigger,” he said, “but we took it [school safety] really, really seriously.” Referring to the

1975 school shooting that initiated the development of the Peel Board’s Discipline Policy, the superintendent of operations asked:

What do you say to the parents at Brampton Centennial? What do you say to other parents? How do you demonstrate that you’re serious about making school as safe as you possibly can? How do you give teachers and principals the confidence to go to work every morning? That you do care, that you do take it seriously, that their safety and their kid’s safety is as important as your own. So all of that was part of the milieu that the kirpan occurred in. 62

For its part, the International Sikh Youth Federation saw no connection between school

safety and the kirpan. The Federation maintained that kirpans were universally accepted in

Canada’s multicultural community and “any effort to put restrictions on this right are viewed as a

61 DCO. Reasons For Judgement (July 28, 1988).

62 Interview with David Weldon, Mississauga, February 25, 2007.

93 direct infringement on the rights of Canadian Sikhs.” 63 Pontes later recalled “even though

[Suhkdev’s] parents had not called school officials “ racist” there was that implication, that clearly the reason their son wasn’t in school was because [Peel Board] policies didn’t align with their religious practices.” 64 As Peel schools closed for the summer vacation, Hundal’s lawyer

noted that the Peel Board had “achieved its objective of stalling and delaying to try to remove the

urgency from the situation.” 65 But if Peel thought that the kirpan issue had been put to rest, it had another thing coming.

Why Don’t You Go Back to India?

In 1970 Harbhajan Singh Pandori immigrated to Canada from India. 66 Arriving in

Ontario, he recalls racism as a “huge problem–the Paki problem.” 67 On more than one occasion, he was taunted with, “Why don’t you go back to India?” On one occasion a co-worker said,

“You people are so dumb. You guys don’t eat beef. Why don’t you eat beef?” Pandori asked if

63 The Kirpan of the Sikhs , short brief prepared for Mr. Pontes, by The International Sikh Youth Federation (Toronto Branch).

64 Interview with Tony Pontes, Brampton, January 29, 2007.

65 Gary Webb-Proctor, “Judge rules dagger dispute should go to higher court,” The Globe and Mail , June 24, 1988, A15.

66 A. Khan has recorded that the 1960s and 1970s were the “heyday” for immigrants to Canada from India and Pakistan, because there was leniency in the admission of foreigners and a broad amalgam of occupational categories for independent migrants based on the allocation of points. After 1976 the points system was made more stringent for independent migrants as a result of the recession. In the 1980s the largest increase was the result of family reunification, accounting for 80 percent of all immigration from India and Pakistan. See A. Khan, “In the Maelstrom of Hope and Despair; The Prospects for South Asian Migration to Canada,” in The Silent Debate: Asian Immigration and Racism in Canada, eds. A. Laquian, E. Laquian and T. McGee (Vancouver: Institute of Asian Research, 1997), 99, 100.

67 For a discussion of Canadian-Sikh Ethnic and Race Relations, see N. Buchignani and D. M. Indra, “Key Issues in Canadian-Sikh Ethnic and Race Relations,” in The Sikh Diaspora: Migration and the Experience Beyond Punjab , eds. N. G. Barrier and V. A. Dusenbury (Delhi: Chanakya Publications, 1989), 141-184. For a discussion of racism, see K. J. Anderson, “The Idea of Chinatown: The Power of Place and Institutional Practice in the Making of a Racial Category,” in Immigration in Canada: historical perspectives , ed. G. Tulchinsky (Toronto: Copp Clark Longman Ltd., 1994), 223-248.

94 the co-worker planned to eat his pet dog or cat. Shocked by the seemingly outrageous suggestion, the man asked if Pandori was crazy. Pandori replied:

You just told me I am stupid and dumb, that in India we don’t eat a holy cow. But how about you? [For Canadians] it is a holy dog or holy cat. How about killing this milking cow? You understand now? Exactly. We don’t kill the milking cows in India. 68

According to Pandori, he was bombarded with questions about his Sikh faith “day and night.” People asked: “Where you come from? Why do you have a turban on? Why don’t you become a Canadian? 69 Why do you believe in this?” Pandori did not feel that those questions were asked out of simple curiosity. They were instead, he believes, asked to make him feel like an outsider, an unwelcome outsider. And as an outsider, it was hard to get by. Pandori needed to find work in Canada, send remittance money to parents and siblings abroad, and finance his own education. Sensing an anti-Sikh bias, he removed his turban and had the first hair cut of his life, in violation of his Sikh religious principles. For days afterwards, regretting the violation of his religious codes, he felt feverish, upset and depressed. 70

Still, work was not easily come by. A hair cut was not enough to satisfy his employers

that he was a ‘real’ Canadian. Neither were Pandori’s educational credentials, including a

68 Interview with Harbhajan Singh Pandori, Mississauga, December 28, 2006.

69 For a discussion of Canadian citizenship and ethnicity, see R. C. Brown, “Full Partnership in the Fortunes and in the Future of the Nation,” in Ethnicity and Citizenship: The Canadian Case , eds. J. Laponce and W. Safran (London: Frank Cass & Co. Ltd., 1996), 9-25.

70 For a discussion of turbans and Sikhism, see W. H McLeod, “The Turban: Symbol of Sikh Identity,” in Sikh Identity: Continuity and Change , eds. P. Singh and N. G. Barrier (New Delhi: Ajay Kumar for Manohar Publishers and Distributors, 1999), 57-67. Many scholars have argued that the turban is not an explicit requirement of the Sikh faith but is an element of Punjabi culture that has been absorbed into Sikhism. In effect, turbans have become “a de facto religious requirement.” P. Bramadat, “Beyond Christian Canada: Religion and Ethnicity in a Multicultural Society,” in, Religion and Ethnicity in Canada , eds. P. Bramadat and D. Seljak (Toronto: Pearson Education Canada, Inc., 2005), 19.

Masters degree from India, sufficient to prove professional competence in Canada. He needed to provide employers with Canadian credentials. As a result, Pandori applied for admission to the

Bachelor of Education program at the University of Toronto. After completing his teaching degree, he completed a computer programming program at Humber College. Armed with his new Canadian credentials, Pandori found employment in the computer industry and with the Peel

Board as an occasional supply teacher. Eventually, he married a Sikh woman from India, and in

1973 settled down first in Mississauga and then in Etobicoke.

Even though Pandori had violated Sikh ritual by removing his turban and cutting his hair, matters of spirituality and his Sikh faith were of the utmost importance to him. After finally establishing roots in Canada, he embraced Sikh ritual again and helped to build a “beautiful”

Sikh temple in his own Mississauga community. In those days, he said, most Sikh temples were located in factories and schools. He and others in his community dreamed of a building designed and constructed to be a temple. In 1985 that dream became a reality with the opening of the

Ontario Khalsa Darbar in Mississauga. The gurdwara serves as a community centre for local

Sikhs with services including an open kitchen, daily singing of the holy book, and Punjabi language lessons for children. Religious services in the temple are continuous, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Only the Golden Temple in Amritsar, India offers more extensive amenities, Pandori has noted with pride. Financing the Mississauga temple, according to Pandori, was never a problem. Said Pandori, “You simply bring people toward God, to religion, to faith . .

.[and] people will give you the money.” Through the 1980s and 1990s, he was twice elected as the Temple’s president. After serving as president, Pandori was elected Chairman of all Sikh

Temples in Ontario and Quebec.

Pandori and the Peel Board of Education

While Pandori might be a stalwart of the Mississauga Sikh community, he would prove

to be a thorn in the side of the local school board. Pandori came to the attention of the Peel Board

in 1988 when Sukhdev Hundal filed a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the Peel

Board from suspending him for wearing a kirpan to school. According to Hundal, other Sikh

students and staff wore kirpans in Peel schools with the full knowledge of their principals.

Hundal informed the court that Mr. Pandori, a supply teacher at his school in Brampton, wore a

kirpan at all times. 71 Hundal claimed that the Peel Board acted in a discriminatory manner by singling him out for punishment. 72

While Hundal’s application for an injunction was making its way through the court

Michael Miller, an administrative assistant to an elementary superintendent of schools in

Mississauga, contacted Pandori on behalf of the Peel Board. On May 19, Pandori received a

message on his telephone answering machine. The caller requested that Pandori call the school

board immediately on a matter of urgency. When Pandori returned the call the next day, he

reached Miller. 73 Miller was directed to ascertain whether Pandori wore a kirpan while teaching in Peel schools. 74 Pandori answered affirmatively. Miller asked him to refrain from wearing the

kirpan at school. Pandori declared that he would not comply. He would not remove his kirpan,

71 DCO. Plaintiff’s Motion Record, Affidavit of Sukhdex Singh Hundal (May 13, 1988), Tab2, paragraph 29, 8.

72 DCO. Defendant’s Motion Record, Motion RE: Jurisdiction, Statement of Claim (May 13, 1988), Tab 2, paragraph 14, 5.

73 AO. 50-843-B. OHRC, Record of Intake, Harbhajan Singh Pandori, June 18, 1988.

74 According to Miller, the position of Administrative Assistant was a training position offered by the Peel Board for potential administrators. Miller retired from the Peel District School Board as a superintendent of education. Interview with Michael Miller, Mississauga, February 25, 2007.

97 hide it, or pretend that he did not wear it. If Pandori refused to remove the kirpan, warned Miller, then he would no longer be teaching in Peel. In disbelief, Pandori requested a letter of verification. 75

Thinking back on the telephone call after two decades, Miller claims barely to remember the conversation with Pandori. He is not even sure why he made the call. Miller insisted that there was no logical or obvious reason that he was the one assigned to call Pandori. For one thing, Miller was an assistant to a superintendent of elementary schools in Mississauga. The secondary schools of Brampton were outside his purview. For another thing, Pandori was a supply teacher and the Peel Board’s supply teachers were supervised by the Human Resources

Department, not by administrative assistants. Why did Miller place the call? Miller speculated that there were two possibilities. On one hand, he wondered if he was the unwitting victim of a joke by someone in the Board’s senior administration. In Miller’s words, the Peel Board’s senior administrators had “big egos,” and enjoyed jokes. 76 He was a likely target for their jokes, Miller

contended, because of his previous position as president of the Ontario Secondary School

Teachers Federation. In that role, Miller negotiated with the Peel Board on behalf of its teachers.

On the other hand, perhaps senior administrators appreciated his expertise in staff matters. If the

Board anticipated legal problems with Pandori, Miller felt that he would be a credible witness on

75 AO. 50-843-B. OHRC, Record of Intake, Harbhajan Singh Pandori, June 18, 1988.

76 Peel Board Executive Superintendent Bridge later recalled, “Let me put it this way, in the 1980s you did not become a superintendent of schools in this [Peel] school district unless you had skin as thick as an elephant’s and you had an ego ten times bigger that your head. It was a very, very eclectic mix of people at the time [with] very, very strong personalities. . . So if you didn’t fit it, you didn’t survive.” Interview with C.W. Bridge, Brampton, October 5, 2004.

98 the Board’s behalf. Whether he was set up with an unpleasant task or was thought to be the best person to do the job, Miller placed the call. 77

After Miller’s telephone call, Pandori waited for Miller to send a letter of verification

stating that wearing the kirpan was grounds for dismissal. No letter came. Pandori left several

messages for Miller regarding the letter, but received no response. According to Pandori, each

time he tried to reach Miller, neither the administrative assistant nor his supervisory officer was

in the office. Neither did the Peel Board contact Pandori with further offers to supply teach.

Frustrated with the Board’s unresponsiveness and his apparent blackballing, on June 10, 1988, he

visited the Mississauga division of the Human Rights Commission. In the presence of a

Commission official, Pandori phoned Miller directly. Miller confirmed that he had advised all

Peel schools, by letter, not to call Pandori to supply teach. When Pandori again requested a letter

of explanation, Miller insisted that he did not have the authority to provide it. 78

A leader in the Sikh community, Pandori was concerned about the religious rights of all

Sikhs. He was especially concerned that Khalsa Sikh students had been “kicked out” of Peel schools because they wore kirpans. Pandori, however, agreed that there could be restrictions placed on the right to wear a kirpan. He was especially dismayed that some members of the Sikh community, themselves not Khalsa Sikhs, had advised students to wear kirpans measuring eighteen inches or longer. Said Pandori, “We don’t carry the big sword over here, we only carry the kirpan.” Pandori maintained that a kirpan worn to school should not measure eighteen inches

77 Interview with Michael Miller, Mississauga, February 25, 2007.

78 AO. 50-843-B; OHRC, Complaint, Pandori, June 24, 1988; AO. 50-843-B; OHRC, Record of Intake, Harbhajan Singh Pandori, June 18, 1988.

99 and more. “Being a teacher,” he said, “I knew that was not acceptable.” 79 A smaller kirpan allowed Sikhs to fulfill their religious obligation and should satisfy school authorities that the kirpan represented no danger. With the support of the Human Rights Commission, Pandori filed a complaint against the Peel Board in which he stated:

I am a Sikh as well as a Khalsa and I believe that the above named respondents have infringed my right to equal treatment with respect of employment without discrimination because of Creed in contravention of Sections 4(1) & 8 of the Human Rights Code, 1981, Statutes of Ontario, 1981, Chapter 53 as amended. 80

Summer 1988

Even as the kirpan issue raised concern, David Weldon was appointed superintendent of operations for the Peel Board. Weldon was made responsible for supervising the superintendents of schools, writing Peel Board policy and procedures, and solving problems in the Peel system that “got too big.” Previously, as superintendent of special units, Weldon oversaw the Board’s numerous special education programs. When he assumed his new responsibilities, he had little knowledge of the emerging kirpan issue. Weldon recalls, “I didn’t know what they [kirpans] were until I got the job.” He would learn soon enough. Said Weldon:

In this job you ended up talking to anybody that was in any way remotely connected to it to try and get your head as full of background in current dilemmas as possible–so that you didn’t drop any balls. Because you started on Monday morning and at 10 o’clock you were on. 81

When he began his new job, Weldon was immediately hit with the kirpan issue. Notwithstanding his lack of knowledge of Sikhism, Weldon played a key role as a participant in kirpan

79 Interview with Harbhajan Singh Pandori, Mississauga, December 28, 2006.

80 AO. 50-843-B. OHRC, Complaint, Pandori, June 24, 1988.

81 Interview with David Weldon, Mississauga, February 25, 2007.

100

discussions on behalf of the Peel Board. 82 In the summer of 1988, Weldon contended, everything in the Board seemed to be happening simultaneously–the Pandori human rights case, discussions about the Discipline Policy, and concerns about students wearing kirpans in Peel schools. In the middle of all that, he recalled, there was a stabbing in a Sikh temple involving a kirpan. 83

The stabbing and the ongoing dispute over kirpans in Peel schools set off alarms for the

Board. 84 If Weldon knew little about Sikhism, he did know the history of violence in Peel

schools. In 1975 when the Brampton Centennial shooting took place, Weldon taught at a nearby

Brampton school. As he put it, the school shooting was “a terrible, terrible incident by any

standard.” Even fifteen years later, said Weldon, the atmosphere in the schools was “highly

charged around weapons.” Had he simply allowed the wearing of kirpans in Peel schools, he

assumed that he would have created “a huge groundswell of worry and concern in the [Peel]

82 The Operations Department of the Peel Board of Education recorded three meetings between Peel Board senior officials and Sikh representatives prior to the development of Peel policy. On September 1, 1988 T. Sher Singh met with the director of education, Superintendent David Weldon, the Board’s lawyer, and other Board officials in the Churchville Room of the H. J. A. Brown Education Centre, the Peel Board’s central office. On September 20, 1988 members of the Sikh community met with Board officials and the race relations officer of the Peel Regional Police at the Dunrankin Field Office. On Tuesday November 1, 1988, T. Sher Singh and three members of the Macauliffe Institute met with David Weldon and Norm Gollert for kirpan discussions at Hotel Toronto. KC. Peel Board of Education, Operations Department, Meetings Prior to Development of Peel Policy, February 5, 1990.

83 On July 19, 1987 a Sikh priest, Jatinder Singh, stabbed a parishioner with a kirpan at the Sri Guru Singh Sabba temple in Toronto. The victim was in hospital for eleven days with a chest wound. The priest was found guilty of aggravated assault with a weapon. Toronto District Court Justice E. Wren stated that “The courts must enunciate to Canada and the Sikh community that the use of a kirpan will not be tolerated even when it’s used by someone of such a high stature in the community.” Not only did Singh commit an offense, said the judge, but he desecrated a sacred object. Wendy Darroch, “Sikh priest jailed for dagger attack,” The Toronto Star , February 27, 1990, A8.

84 In August 1976, the Board established an Operating Procedure prohibiting weapons. In 1979, the Peel Board’s Discipline Policy came into effect. Both the Operating Procedure and Discipline Policy were developed in response to the increasing violence in the schools. In 1987, the Board revised its Discipline Policy to include a specific prohibition against weapons. In the spring of 1988, the Board stated the kirpan was a weapon within the meaning of its Discipline Policy and prohibited. OHRC, Decision , 11.

101

system.” Once a secondary school principal, Weldon well understood why Peel principals would

be apprehensive about weapons in the schools. He was convinced that most secondary school

principals would question the logic of allowing Sikh students to carry “daggers” while non-Sikh

students with knives were being expelled, their knives confiscated. To provide some policy

direction for the Board before the schools re-opened in September, Weldon wrote an interim

directive prohibiting kirpans. “I know the good Rabbi [Plaut] had some harsh things to say about

it afterwards,” said Weldon, “but it was our best, given our understanding of Sikhism and

weapons and schools.” 85 Simply put, kirpans were knives, knives were weapons, and all weapons

were banned by the Peel Board.

The Peel Board of Education Conducts its Research on Kirpans

As it was implementing its interim policy in the summer and fall of 1988, and as

Pandori’s human rights complaint unfolded, the Peel Board held consultations on the Board’s

disciplinary policy and kirpans. 86 According to the superintendent of operations, Peel Board

officials entered into discussions with the feeling that some sort of compromise could be

reached. 87 During the investigation, however, Peel representatives were again made aware that

the Sikh community lacked internal consistency. Also, they realized, there was no single

authority to articulate a unified “Sikh” perspective.

85 Interview with David Weldon, Mississauga, February 25, 2007.

86 In a handwritten note, a representative from the Human Rights Commission stated that the Peel Board had already made up its mind in the spring, prior to its research. Item 4 states that the kirpan was a weapon according to the Board’s weapons policy. Item 6 states that the discussions took place in summer and fall. AO. OHRC Pandori/Peel Board, Dave Weldon. Facts.

87 Supreme Court of Ontario - Divisional Court - Harbhajan Singh Pandori and OHRC and the Peel Board of Education, hereafter SCO File #793/90. Board of Inquiry, March 26, 1990, Volume 4, Transcript, 46, 47.

102

The Sikh press reflected the disunity among Sikhs in Canada. According to one press

commentator, Sikhs were unwilling to work under a single national umbrella organization. 88

Others also acknowledged the divisions within the Sikh community. A Sikh newspaper editorialized:

At this stage there is no organization among Sikhs that can speak with authority (we are not talking of unanimity) in regard to any problem facing the Sikh community in Canada, be it the five K’s, wearing of the turban or other. There are factions scattered all over the landscape. They do not even speak to each other. At the same time they claim to represent 200,000 Sikhs of Canada. 89

On condition of anonymity, one Sikh “expert” wrote to the Peel Board’s lawyer in an effort to

unravel different Sikh understandings of the kirpan. The letter-writer said that rules governing

kirpans were “obscure at the edges.” 90 Many Sikhs would accept a replica kirpan, he said, “as opposed to the rigours of fundamentalism.” 91 Others would not do so. The expert validated the

Board’s concern about school safety. Even if some Sikh parents believed that their children would never unsheathe a kirpan, he said, students from other communities did not face similar

88 KC. “The Many Faces of Neo-Sikhism,” The Sikh News & Views , April 1989, 4.

89 KC. “Editorial: The Challenge,” The Sikh News & Views , January 1990, 2.

90 AO. OHRC Pandori/Peel Board. Letter to Mr. Keel, Keel’s Anonymous Expert, 1.

91 Scholar of Sikhism, W. H. McLeod argues that the term ‘fundamentalist’ has been transferred by the “loose usage of journalists” into an equivalent for ‘fanatical’ from its western context in association with Islamic movements and appropriated to the Sikh movement for Khalistan. According to McLeod, ‘fundamentalist’ has two meanings in the Sikh context. The first meaning refers to Sikhs who are governed by strict adherence to Sikh holy scripture. The second meaning, conferred by journalists and some scholars, refers to Sikh activists or militants fighting the government of India for Khalistan. The activists and militants may be considered traditional in that they revere their Gurus and uphold the use of the sword when necessary, and fanatical in that they are separatists. However, McLeod states, those Sikhs would rarely be considered true religious fundamentalists according to the first definition. McLeod concludes that the term ‘fundamentalist’ will likely have dual usage. W. H. McLeod, Exploring Sikhism: Aspects of Sikh Identity, Culture, and Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), Chapter 11, “Sikh Fundamentalism.”

103

restrictions. 92 The expert claimed that many Sikhs shared his views, but remained silent for fear

of reprisal from religious militants. He was not alone in expressing reservations about the

influence of Sikh fundamentalists:

Calling themselves the true believers of Sikhism, some of these faithful have gone back to the strait-laced puritanism of bygone times. Now that is all fine and dandy provided they let others exercise the same free will and not brutally impose their own values on others. 93

Given the disunity in the Sikh community, was there any kirpan compromise agreeable to all? Some Peel spokespersons accepted the idea that Sikhs be allowed to wear a symbolic replica kirpan to school, similar to the Christian cross. While the suggestion seemed feasible to Weldon, other Sikh spokespersons informed him that a kirpan was a kirpan. A replica was not a kirpan and Sikhs were obliged to wear a kirpan. Given this uncompromising position, Weldon was astonished to meet a seemingly observant Sikh family, newly arrived from the Punjab, who wore replica kirpans. 94 Obviously, that particular family found the replica kirpan acceptable. Perhaps

Pandori and his supporters might still do so as well. With the replica owner’s permission,

Weldon traced the replica kirpan on paper and obtained the man’s signature as verification. His

effort was to no avail. Pandori and his followers insisted that the replica was religiously

unacceptable. As far as they were concerned, “There isn’t such a thing. We don’t recognize such

92 “The Sikh Social and Educational Society” claims to be the sole Sikh publication that “dares to analyze the psychology of Sikh behaviour [and] venture where no Sikh media ever goes.” According to the editors of the newsletter, its most important function is “to observe, examine and analyze phenomena within the community.” KC. The Sikh News and Views , January 26, 1990, 1.

93 KC. “The Many Faces of Neo-Sikhism,” The Sikh News and Views , April 1989, 5.

94 According to Weldon, recent immigrants often came to the Peel Board’s central office for assistance in processing documents required for school registration.

104

a thing.” 95 As far as Weldon was concerned, the unfathomable divisions in the Sikh community proved “life is politics.”

Politics or not, once the issue of the kirpan was engaged, Weldon and other Peel representatives expanded their kirpan research. As he gradually grew more knowledgeable about

Sikhism and the Sikh community, including their internal divisions, he came to enjoy his contact with a Sikh group known as the Macauliffe Institute of Sikh Studies. 96 The group’s co-founder and spokesperson, T. Sher Singh, worked as a litigation attorney and volunteer advocate for minority rights. 97 From 1990 to 1993, Singh served as an Ontario Provincial Police commissioner. He also worked as a freelance journalist on issues of multiculturalism and inter- faith relations for The Toronto Star and other media. In 2002, Singh was invested as a member of

the Order of Canada. The governor general’s citation recognized his long record of public

service in “promoting harmony among people of different races and religions.” 98

95 Interview with David Weldon, Mississauga, February 25, 2007. Sikh delegations informed the Peel Board that replica kirpans did not exist. AO, 50-843-B. Peel Board - Observations (hand written notes December 19, 1988).

96 Born in Ireland, Max Macauliffe, joined the Indian Civil Service and was posted to the Punjab. In 1909, he published six volumes of The Sikh Religion , an “enduring work.” Macauliffe stated, ‘I bring from the East what is practically an unknown religion.’ For a biography of Macauliffe and discussion of his work, see W. H. McLeod, Exploring Sikhism: Aspects of Sikh Identity, Culture, and Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), Chapter 15, “Max Arthur Macauliffe, (September 29, 1837-March 15, 1913)”, 257-263.

97 T. Sher Singh co-founded the Macauliffe Institute for Sikh Studies, which he described as a “loose group”of individuals who provided resources on Sikhism to the community, primarily in Montreal and Toronto. According to Singh, the group “kept an independent mind.” and was well-respected in the Sikh community. Interview with T. Sher Singh, Guelph, May 1, 2007. See “The Kaur Foundation presents The Spinning Wheel Film Festival ,” Washington DC. A Celebration of Sikh Films, April 6, 7, 2007, 7.

98 Allan Woods, “Activist’s Order of Canada to be reviewed,” The Toronto Star, September 13, 2007, A 22.

105

Prior to his involvement with the Peel Board of Education, Singh helped the North York

Board amicably sort out another kirpan issue. According to Singh, the North York Board “set the

standard ”for addressing issues of religious diversity in public schools. 99 On the other hand, he felt that Peel was “in the grips of a last ditch effort on the part of the old traditional decision- makers. . . and has decided that its role is to save the world from incursions by the hordes coming in from different parts of the world.” 100 Singh stated:

I don’t see any reason for anybody on any side to dig in heels, particularly in matters of religion and spirituality and beliefs. These are areas which, by sheer definition, should be flexible and enlightened and malleable, not necessarily making compromises, or diluting any interests or beliefs, but in terms of working out things. 101

Whatever Sikhs agreed to in North York did not impress Pandori and his supporters.

According to the Federation of Sikh Societies of Canada, the North York model was “highly

flawed.” It compromised on the meaning of the kirpan and for the Federation, when it came to

the kirpan, there could be no compromise. Writing to the chairman of the Peel Board, the

president of the Federation advised the Board to study the parameters of the Sikh faith before

developing a kirpan policy like that of the North York Board, which, he felt, was hastily

99 In contrast with the Peel case, the North York Board’s trustees were not involved in ruling on the kirpan issue in that Board. A staff assistant to the North York Board’s superintendent stated that the kirpan issue involved procedure not policy. The chairman of the North York Board, previously unaware of the procedure, stated: “I don’t see what the big deal is.” KC. The Brampton Times Staff, “Peel board defers decision on daggers for Sikh students,” The Times , November 24, 1988.

100 Interview with T. Sher Singh, Guelph, May 1, 2007. One Peel Board trustee feared that allowing Sikhs to wear kirpans in Peel schools would open the floodgates. Perhaps hundreds of Sikhs would come to school with kirpans. With that precedent set, other ethnic groups would also bring their cultural artifacts to school. AO. 50-843-B, Peel Board - Observations (handwritten notes December 19, 1988), 143.

101 Interview with T. Sher Singh, Guelph, May 1, 2007.

106

developed, short-sighted, and religiously invalid. According to the religious understanding of the

Federation, the kirpan must be made of steel and must measure one foot in length. The shape, tip,

and sharpness of the blade were indeterminate. 102 The Federation explained the rules of Sikh baptism from its perspective:

No institution or person (of any religious, social/political or cultural standing), any where in the world is authorised, competent or acceptable in acting as a referee, umpire or watchdog to certify, accept/reject or vouch the baptisation of a Sikh. The word of the person who claims to be baptized is absolute and does not demand any further verification or corroboration. 103

For the Federation, the kirpan issue was a matter of national and international importance. A

final decision on kirpans, the president felt, might have had to have been “pronounced upon by

the highest judicial authority in the land.” Ultimately, his prediction would prove to be

prescient. 104

Writing to the superintendent of the North York Board on behalf of the Ontario Council of Sikhs, the secretary also declared aspects of North York’s kirpan policy to be faulty.

According to the Council “reference to any institution or person for certification is outrageous and inconsistent with Sikh practices and is indeed un-Sikh.” 105 In other words, a written record

102 The FSSC submitted a letter from Amritsar explaining the necessity for a large kirpan. “In 1913, the Sikhs lost their right to wear a sword. The ban was opposed and some Sikhs began wearing small swords to evade prosecution. A Hukamnama was issued from the Huzar Sahib Takht, a religious and political authority. The mandate was the Sikhs must wear a sword of not less than a foot in length.” AO. Letters - FSSC. to Peel. See Federation of Sikh Societies of Canada, Letter to the Chairman, Peel Board of Education, November 28, 1988, from Mohinder Singh Gosal.

103 AO. Peel School Board Students Wearing Kirpans. See Federation of Sikh Societies of Canada, Letter to the Chairman, Peel Board of Education, November 28, 1988, from Mohinder Singh Gosal.

104 See Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys (2006) S.C.R. 256 .

105 AO. OHRC Pandori/Peel Board North York. Letter to Roy Hardie, North York Board of Education, from Manohar S. Bal, Ontario Council of Sikhs, re. Kirpan in North York Schools, December

107

of baptism is not kept by Sikhs. As the Council understood it, the Macauliffe Institute made an

untenable agreement with the North York Board in accepting that condition. Other concerns

included the ‘program modification clause’ for Sikh students with kirpans and North York’s

assumed authority to grant or deny permission to Sikhs to wear a kirpan. In short, the North York

Board’s kirpan procedure was totally unacceptable to the Ontario Council of Sikhs.

Meanwhile in Peel, on September 1, 1988, T. Sher Singh met with Board officials to

discuss Sikhism and school safety. 106 In attendance at that meeting were the director of education, the associate director, the Board’s lawyer and its superintendent of operations. The purpose of the meeting was to explore the relationship between the kirpan, Peel schools and the

Board’s discipline policy. 107 Discussions between Singh and Peel Board representatives proceeded amicably. According to Singh, the Board’s concern about safety in the schools was understandable. The Board had every right to raise questions about kirpans, said Singh, and he endorsed the Board’s safety concerns “prima facie.” But did the wearing of the kirpan constitute a threat to school safety? Singh thought not. 108

On September 20, 1988, a second meeting took place at the Peel Board’s Dunrankin Field

Office in the Malton community of Mississauga. Among the attendees were Board officials, Sikh

community organization representatives, the fathers of Paramvir Singh and Sukhdev Hundal, and

the ethnic relations officer of the Peel Police. According to the superintendent of operations, the

8, 1988.

106 Superintendent of Operations Weldon testified that in August of 1988, a member of the Sikh community, T. Sher Singh called the offices of the Peel Board to offer his assistance in resolving the kirpan issue. SCO File #793/90. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, March 26, 1990, Volume 4, Transcript, 131- 132.

107 SCO File #793/90. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, March 26, 1990, Volume 4, Transcript, 36.

108 Interview with T. Sher Singh, Guelph, May 1, 2007.

108

Board, knowing Sikhs were themselves divided on the wearing of the kirpan, still hoped to

broaden its understanding of the tenets of the Sikh faith and arrive at a compromise acceptable to

all parties. 109 On November 1 a third meeting took place with T. Sher Singh, Peel Board officials

and members of the Macauliffe Institute, an organization dedicated to the study of the Sikh

religion. No consensus about the kirpan was reached in any of those meetings. 110

On one occasion, Singh recalls, he met with Peel Board officials at the H.J.A. Brown

Education Centre for dinner and discussion. According to Singh, liquor and wine were served with the meal. While dining, Singh noticed a series of cabinets along the wall, used for storing cutlery. After dinner, he walked over to a cabinet and pulled out a handful of steak knives.

Placing the knives on the table, Singh, who regarded himself a moderate on the kirpan question, asked why kirpans should be banned by Peel while knives were accessible to people consuming alcohol in a “dining hall” at the Board’s central office:

You sit here in this hall and you offer liquor. And you have no limitation to the amount of liquor that you serve to people. And I’m sure from time to time some people here drink themselves stupid, as they do anywhere else. And then you serve food and you give them steak knives. And nobody has ever said, “Wait a second, this is a safety issue and these things should be removed.”

What is more, Singh declared, a steak knife is “worse” than a kirpan. In addition, Singh drew attention to the common items found in every school such as geometry sets and compasses.

“Even if I was fighting for self-defense,” said Singh, “I would grab a pencil or pen, not to

109 SCO File #793/90. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, March 26, 1990, Volume 4, Transcript, 40, 41.

110 David Weldon testified that there were disagreements among Sikhs on stitching a kirpan to secure it under clothing so it could not be released, the method of verification that a Sikh was Khalsa, the appropriate size of the kirpan, and the wearing of a replica kirpan. SCO File #793/90. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, March 26, 1990, Volume 4, Transcript, 43-55.

109 mention the forks and knives all around.” Singh also demonstrated to the Peel group that a person needed as much as ten minutes to remove a kirpan from its sheath. With many potential weapons much more easily available in the schools, a violent person engaged in a struggle was not likely to unsheathe a kirpan.

Next, Singh turned to historical precedent. Was there even one incident, he asked, of a kirpan being misused in Canadian schools? Even if there were five such incidents, Singh argued, one needs to determine the degree of risk throughout “500 years of history, 100 years in Canada, or thirty years in Toronto.” 111 What of the disunity amongst the Sikhs? Which groups’ views had credibility? Singh assured Peel Board officials that he understood their discomfort in trying to sort out the religious authority and arguments of various Sikh groups. According to Singh, some

Sikh groups “are inarticulate, some are wild, and some have questionable bona fides.” “Give me a week,” he said, “and I will deal with them and come back with a united voice.” The Peel group nodded, said Singh. They seemed to agree. As Singh understood it, the consensus of the meeting was that he would return to the Peel Board after conferring with local Sikh groups, with an agreement on the kirpan endorsed by all. Then, said Singh, in violation of the agreement to give him a week, Peel simply pressed ahead with the policy amendment banning kirpans. An understanding on the part of one group of Peel officials to delay a week was obviously not binding on Peel Board officials and trustees. According to Weldon, Board officials had engaged in extensive public consultation and administrative consultation before recommending that the

Discipline Policy be modified. They pushed ahead leaving Singh hanging. 112

111 Interview with T. Sher Singh, Guelph, May 1, 2007.

112 SCO File #793/90. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, March 26, 1990, Volume 4, Transcript, 50.

110

December 12, 1988: The `Peel Board of Education Meeting

Whether the Board liked it or not, the Peel kirpan issue now involved others besides the

Board and Pandori. Prior to the Peel Board meeting of December 13, 1988, both the Human

Rights Commission and the minister of citizenship sent letters to the Board asking that it postpone making a final decision on kirpans, at least until January 12,1989. The minster of citizenship advised Peel that the Ministry of Citizenship was holding discussions with Sikhs and the Commission to seek a solution. Drawing attention to demographic change in Peel and across

Ontario, the minister advised that “the future of this province depends on our ability to respect and respond to the growing cultural diversity of all our communities.” 113 Other school boards such as the North York Board, he added, had found a way to accommodate Sikh religious requirements. Perhaps that example offered a road to resolution for Peel. The minister of citizenship requested a meeting with the Peel Board as soon as possible. 114

For its part, the Commission also urged Peel to postpone the implementation of any

kirpan policy. The commissioner informed the Peel Board that the Commission, the Ministry of

Education, school boards and Sikh groups were meeting to seek a solution to the wearing of

kirpans in Ontario schools. According to the commissioner, the Human Rights Commission had

two objectives. One was to develop a uniform kirpan policy for Ontario schools. The other was

to ensure that any kirpan policy was in compliance with the Education Act and the Ontario

Human Rights Code. While a formal complaint on the Peel kirpan issue had not then been filed,

113 AO. Peel School Board, Students Wearing Kirpans. Minister of Citizenship (Ontario), Letter to Ms. Carolyn Parrish, Chairman, Peel Region Board of Education, December 12, 1988.

114 AO. 50-843-B, 139. Peel Board - Observations (hand written notes December 19, 1988).

111

the commissioner hoped to make that unnecessary. He pointed out that the complaint process

was time-consuming and expensive compared to consultation and negotiation 115

Whichever way the Peel Board ultimately ruled on the kirpan issue, the kirpan issue was

on the Board’s agenda and Sikhs wanted to be heard. And, by all accounts, the December 13

Regular Meeting of the Board was a spectacle. As Weldon put it, “The kirpan thing was just

amazing. I mean there were busloads of people who came the to the board meeting. It was a

sideshow in the public session.” 116 Throughout the evening, two uniformed Peel police officers stood guard in the lobby in case violence erupted during the meeting. As she passed a group of

Sikhs, one trustee stated: “I hope somebody frisked these people.” 117

Board agenda officially called for a discussion of issues related to religion in the schools.

The most controversial item was a proposal to modify the Peel Board’s Discipline Policy in

order to designate the kirpan as a weapon. Weldon pointed out that different levels of policy

existed in different locations in the Peel system such as classroom policy, school policy, and

board policy:

None of our directions, or none of our procedures would be in violation of a board policy. In the kirpan case we really had to modify the Discipline Policy to reflect the change in circumstance. And that’s getting pretty specific for a policy to talk

115 AO. Peel School Board, Students Wearing Kirpans. Ontario Human Rights Commission, Letter to Ms. Carolyn Parrish, Chairman, Peel Board of Education, December 13, 1988.

116 Interview with David Weldon, Mississauga, February 25, 2007.

117 Allan Thompson, “Peel school board outlaws Sikh ceremonial daggers,” The Toronto Star , December 14, 1988, A7.

112

about something like a kirpan. But it was such a big political issue by then, that the Board had to be involved. 118

Also on the Board’s agenda that night was a Notice of Motion to launch an appeal in the

Supreme Court of Canada to reverse the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision to remove the

Lord’s Prayer from its place of primacy in Ontario schools. Clearly, Ontario was changing. 119 As

Sikhs arrived in Peel schools insisting on wearing kirpans, Ontario’s courts had a role in limiting

Christian prayer in the schools. No doubt, many long-time Peel residents found the changes unsettling. 120

As the Board meeting on December 13, 1988 began, the chairperson informed the trustees that there were three options to consider with respect to the modification of the

Discipline Policy. One option was to delay making a decision indefinitely. A second option was to approve the administrative recommendation of adding the kirpan to the weapons category. The third option was to approve the administrative recommendation during the meeting but delay its implementation until after the next regular meeting of the Board. The existing administrative regulation stated that a Sikh student was welcome to participate in all school activities if a

118 Interview with David Weldon, Mississauga, February 25, 2007.

119 According to R.M. Stamp, in 1966 the MacKay Committee recommended that requirements for religious instruction in public schools be reformed. Established in 1944, the requirements were no longer considered appropriate as greater numbers of religiously diverse pupils began attending Ontario public schools. School boards were reluctant to impose Christian indoctrination in a secular context. R. M. Stamp, The Schools of Ontario, 1876-1976 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982), 223.

120 One letter-writer responded to a comment made by the Reverend of a Presbyterian Church regarding the wearing of kirpans. Reportedly, the Reverend argued that allowing kirpans would result in a Sikh minority practicing its faith in the public schools while the Christian majority is prohibited from the practice of Christianity by saying the Lord’s Prayer or engaging in religious education. The letter-writer argued that wearing a kirpan does not indoctrinate religious theology on other public school students. Letter to Editor, “Wearing kirpan isn’t imposing faith on others,” The Toronto Star , February 25, 1990, B2.

113

symbolic representation of a kirpan was worn. A Sikh student was also welcome to participate if

the kirpan was left at home. 121 If the administrative recommendation was approved, kirpans would be designated as weapons and prohibited in the Peel Board.

Delegations expressed their views and correspondence was reviewed by the Peel

Board. 122 On one side, kirpan opponents argued that the kirpan was a weapon and weapons were

not acceptable in Peel schools. While the kirpan might have religious significance for Sikhs, that

did not negate the fact that a kirpan was a weapon.123 One anti-kirpan delegation presented a

petition with 1,500 signatures. The petition asked that all weapons be prohibited regardless of

their religious significance. 124 One person urged the Sikh community to leave these “gory, insulting exhibits” behind closed doors. 125 Some kirpan opponents allowed that a small replica

kirpan would be acceptable. In a letter to their trustee, the Pheasant Run Organization of Moms

121 Peel Board of Education, Regular Meeting of the Board, Minutes, 1988-12-13, Item 3, Approval of Agenda;. “Modification To Policy #48 (Discipline Policy), Administrative Regulations,” Appendix I.

122 In response to questioning by the Board’s lawyer, Weldon explained that the Board of Education is an elected public body that is open to public input. One of the ways for a citizen to have input is to approach the Board and ask to speak. According to Weldon, “it is an opportunity for a citizen to explore an issue and communicate to the trustees.” SCO File #793/90. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, March 26, 1990, Volume 4, Transcript, 57.

123 T. Sher Singh observes that there has never been a suggestion that it is improper to display a crucifix on the wall of a kindergarten class. Why? For those who believe in it, he said, the crucifix is a source of religious inspiration. On the other hand, one might argue that a crucifix symbolizes an instrument of torture. Interview with T. Sher Singh, Guelph, May 1, 2007.

124 Peel Board of Education, Regular Meeting of the Board, Minutes, 1988-12-13, Item 15: Delegation: David Ashton re Weapons in Peel Board Schools.

125 AO. Peel School Board, Students Wearing Kirpans. Letter to Peel Regional School Board (Author blanked out), November 25, 1988.

114

and Pops and Teachers went on record in support of wearing of a replica kirpan. 126 Others insisted that even a replica had no place in Peel schools. 127

Some anti-kirpan people argued that immigrants should be more respectful of Canadian

traditions. One delegation questioned the logic of accommodating Sikh religious requirements in

Canada. Sikhs knew that Canada was founded on Christian principles before they decided to

come here, said one kirpan opponent. If they disliked Christian traditions and Canadian law, they

should go home. If Canadian traditions were sacrificed in the name of accommodation, insisted

one person, then “we lose everything that makes Canada special.” 128 In sum, kirpan opponents saw the kirpan not just as a weapon but also as a symbol of immigrant non-compliance with

Canadian ways.

No doubt, the unfamiliar religious traditions of the Sikhs stood in sharp contrast to what some at the meeting understood as the Anglo-Protestant values they wanted Peel schools to preserve. How did all of that square with public recognition of official multiculturalism? Both

Brampton and Mississauga supported festivals that celebrated multicultural diversity. Carabram,

Brampton’s multicultural festival that was founded in 1982, was “dedicated to the preservation, development and promotion of the cultural heritages of the diverse ethnic communities of

Brampton.” Carassauga, Mississauga’s multicultural festival, aimed to promote “diversity and

126 AO. Peel School Board, Students Wearing Kirpans. Letter to Mr. Thomas McAuliffe, Trustee, Ward 8, from the Pheasant Run Organization of Moms and Pops and Teachers, “re Wearing of Kirpans on Board Property,” December 6, 1988.

127 AO. Peel School Board, Students Wearing Kirpans. Letter to Peel Regional School Board, November 25, 1988 (author blanked out); Petition re Weapons or Replica’s in Peel School.

128 AO. Peel School Board, Students Wearing Kirpans. Letter to Chairman, Peel Board of Education (Author blanked out), December 7, 1988.

115

cross-cultural friendship.”129 Food and dance were one thing. Religious accommodation was

another thing entirely. While some in minority groups may decry their lack of acceptance and

argue that restrictions to their religious freedom pose a barrier to participation in society, they

were met by others, some of them at the Board meeting, who felt threatened by unfamiliar values

and traditions. The kirpan debate in Peel tested the limits to tolerance, particularly religious

tolerance. As far as they were concerned, the kirpan had no place in the schools–not as a weapon

and not as a religious symbol.

On the other side of the kirpan debate, some Sikh delegations attending the Board

meeting assured the Peel Board that kirpans did not violate standards of safety in the schools.

The kirpan could be secured and made difficult to remove, insisted one Sikh spokesperson. And

what about the damage an outright ban on kirpans would have on the self-esteem of Sikh youth?

According to one delegation, Sikhs should not have to cast off their cultural heritage to be good

Canadians. Canada, he argued, is a “multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-ethnic and multi-cultural

society.” 130 Another Sikh spokesperson argued that the issue is “one of freedom to practice a minority religion.” 131 As for the replica kirpan, most Sikhs agreed. There is no substitute for a

kirpan. Just as there is no substitute for holy water in the Christian faith, one person argued,

neither is there any substitute for the kirpan. To deny youngsters their freedom of religion, was to

129 “At each pavilion you will be enthralled by the dynamic and colorful ethnic entertainment. From the sensuous Arabian belly dancers, the beautiful Hawaiian Hula dancers to the energetic Ukrainian dancers. You can sample food to your heart’s content from Perogies, Pasta, Souvlaki and Curries and wash it all down with German or English Beer, Irish Guinness, Mai Tai’s Ouzo or Arak.” For a report on Brampton’s multicultural festivals, see Carabram History. Accessed May 8, 2010. http://carabram.org/ . See also Carassauga. Accessed March 14, 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carassauga .

130 Peel Board of Education, Regular Meeting of the Board, Minutes, 1988-12-13, Item 18: Delegation: Raghbir Singh Samagh re Wearing of Kirpans in Peel Schools.

131 Peel Board of Education, Regular Meeting of the Board, Minutes, 1988-12-13, Item 19: Delegation: Manoha Bal re Wearing of Kirpans in Peel Schools.

116

make a mockery of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Ontario Human Rights Code , he

insisted, and “sow seeds of apprehension and religious inequality in minds of youngsters.” 132

Adding to this bifurcated atmosphere, Pandori arrived at the meeting and asked to speak.

Chairperson Carolyn Parrish refused his request because Pandori had not provided the advance notice required by Peel Board protocol. 133 As Pandori characterized it, the Board had practised discrimination by not informing all Sikhs that a meeting had been planned to discuss kirpans. 134

In his view, the Board selected speakers who would discredit Khalsa Sikhs:

This is a political move everywhere in the world. The bureaucracy always wants to choose the people who are shown to be bad in the community. The public at large, when they listen, [will] say, “Oh listen, this is what these people want.” 135

Pandori argued that some speakers had little to do with the Sikh faith, as he understood it. They were not Khalsa Sikhs, he insisted, but “more like a negative voice.” He was not alone in his appraisal. The chairperson agreed. By the time Pandori arrived, Parrish stated, the Board had heard enough. Some Sikh groups, she recalls, were very militant and implied that “we had targeted them for some sort of religious intolerance.” As the meeting dragged on, Parrish observed that the trustees seemed “edgier and edgier” as Sikh delegations repeated “the same

132 AO, 50-843-B. Peel Board - Observations (hand written notes by Joanne St. Lewis, December 19, 1988), 146.

133 When questioned at the Human Rights Commission Board of Inquiry, Parrish testified that she did not know who Pandori was. Delegations usually requested a place on the agenda ninety-six hours in advance of the scheduled meeting. As a new chairperson conducting her first “real” meeting Parrish admitted to being shaky on procedure. That meeting, she recalls “ was a humdinger because it was just loaded with delegations. It was very confusing and frightening to me.” SCO File #793/90. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, March 27, 1990, Volume 5, Transcript, 14, 15.

134 SCO File #793/90. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, February 7, 1990, Volume 3, Transcript, 148.

135 Interview with Harbhajan Singh Pandori, Mississauga, December 28, 2006.

117

thing over and over and over again.” If one more Sikh yelled at the Board, Parrish felt that the

trustees’ attitudes would harden. Said Parrish, “You have to draw the line at some point. Enough

is enough.” She did not allow Pandori to speak

Reflecting back, Parrish recalled that the Sikh delegations accused the Peel Board of

racism, of being “intolerant” of Sikh immigrants. Board members had their backs up. Sikhs were

not the first group to bring their concerns before the Peel Board of Education. Another political

fight involved French Immersion schools. The French Immersion delegations were “all very

articulate, well-educated parents. . . [who] delegated in a very respectful fashion.” By contrast,

Parrish said, Sikh delegations repeatedly accused trustees of racial bias and prejudice. In fairness

to the trustees, Parrish proposed, banning the kirpan did not constitute “racism.” Banning the

kirpan demonstrated fear and a lack of understanding, said Parrish. Trustees regarded the

accusations of the Sikh delegations to be personally insulting and demeaning. As Parrish recalled

it, the meeting “was very emotional.” 136

In retrospect Weldon disagreed with Pandori that the Peel Board deliberately set out to provide a platform to “destructive” people, but he did agree with Pandori that some delegations were “racist, pure and simple, on both sides.” 137 One delegation, consisting of eighty anti-kirpan

people, arrived by bus from a Brampton bar. According to Weldon, some of the people “had

quite a brogue and had probably been in the bar.” That delegation asked the Board to permit the

wearing of traditional Scottish garb in Peel schools, including a dirk, a small dagger tucked into a

136 Board Chairperson Parrish stated that there had already been numerous speakers, many with the same message. She felt that if the Board heard more Sikh speakers, their opinions might harden. Interview with C. Parrish, Mississauga, March 7, 2007.

137 For a general discussion of racism in Canada, see Leo Driedger and Angus Reid, “ Public Opinion on Visible Minorities,” in Race and Racism, Canada’s Challenge , eds. Leo Driedger and Shiva S. Halli (Montreal: McGill/Queen’s University Press, 2000).

118

sock. Thinking back, Weldon felt that there was no connection between the Brampton delegation

and anyone in the Peel Board including the trustees and the senior administrators. At worst, from

his perspective, the incident reflected “the latent racism embedded in society.” At best, he said,

“somebody got carried away.” 138

The Peel Board of Education’s Decision

After the delegations finished making their presentations, the Board considered the three options previously outlined by the chairperson in respect of the policy amendment. While there was no support for postponing the decision indefinitely, the chairperson reminded the trustees that the minister of citizenship and the Human Rights Commission had requested that the vote be postponed. One trustee agreed. The Board should take a “cooling-off period” and allow other

“players” time to clarify matters. Two trustees questioned the logic of proceeding with a vote based on an administrative regulation known to be flawed. Replacing the kirpan with a replica, they reminded the Board, was unacceptable to most Sikhs. In response to a query, the director provided clarification on kirpan procedures. If the motion were to be defeated, he said, the kirpan would be classed as an article of religious faith, not a weapon. Sikh students with kirpans would be permitted to re-join the general school population. By general agreement, the vote proceeded. 139

138 Interview with David Weldon, Mississauga, February 25, 2007.

139 Initially, the Peel Board planned to vote on the modification to its Discipline Policy in November 1988. However, the vote was postponed when Peel learned that the North York Board decided to allow Sikh students to wear kirpans. “For the record dagger ruling delayed,” The Globe and Mail , November 25, 1988, A18.

119

When the ballots were counted, the result was eighteen to three in favour of the

amendment. 140 The kirpan was classed as a weapon. In an amendment, the Peel Board reaffirmed

its strong commitment to the principle of equal opportunity regardless of race, religion or gender

and declared its commitment to respect and tolerance for all people, regardless of origin or

religious belief. Weapons were, however, prohibited. 141 The kirpan, as a weapon, was prohibited

by the Board. It was “a very difficult situation for administration and trustees,” recalled the Peel

Board’s director of education. 142

Why did the Board’s trustees proceed with the vote? Simply stated, already angered by being attacked as racists, many trustees could not get their minds around the notion that the kirpan was a religious symbol rather than a weapon. It was a weapon, said the chairperson, “and they couldn’t see beyond that.” 143 Perhaps other school boards allowed kirpans but they had not

experienced Peel’s history of school violence. 144 The horrific murders at Brampton Centennial

Secondary School heightened trustee sensitivity to violence in Peel. What is more, problems with

weapons in schools were ongoing. In the 1988-1989 school year, the Peel Board’s secondary

schools recorded fifteen gun incidents, ten incidents with objects specified as “other,” one with a

crowbar, one with a baseball bat, and two with numckas. 145 According to one senior

140 AO. 50-843-B. Peel Board -Observations (hand written notes December 19, 1988), 138,139, 146.

141 Peel Board of Education, Regular Meeting of the Board, Minutes, 1988-12-13, Modification To Policy #48 (Discipline Policy), Preamble.

142 “Board wrong to ban daggers, minister says,” The Toronto Star , December 15, 1988, A21.

143 Interview with C. Parrish, Mississauga, March 7, 2007.

144 Allan Thompson, “Peel school board outlaws Sikh ceremonial daggers,” The Toronto Star , 14 December 1988, A7.

145 According to the Superintendent of Operations, David Weldon, a numckas is a form of

120

administrator, many of the Board’s trustees were fearful that violence was a clear threat and held

“a very strong conviction, both professionally and personally, that the school atmosphere must

be maintained.” 146 Weldon agreed. “Rightly or wrongly,” he said, “the trustees opted for what they thought was the high ground, which was to support the [no weapon] policy.” 147 Notably absent from the official list of weapons was the kirpan. But knives were on the list and the implication for those who wore a kirpan was clear.

Adding to the fear of violence was the growing discomfort of a Board, made up almost exclusively those from ‘old stock’ Peel residents, regarding the increasing diversity of Peel’s population. In contrast to the new immigrants, most Peel Board trustees were white, Anglo-

Saxon, and Protestant. Parrish recalls that she was the “token” Catholic trustee on the Board while Cliff Gyles was the single visible minority trustee. If Peel Board staff were growing more familiar with the demographic change in the Peel community, said the Board chairperson, many trustees were unfamiliar with the customs and religions of the new immigrants. She stated:

That was the time period when Zube Vahed [multiculturalism consultant] was hired to try to bring some ethnic diversity to hiring and to bring in programs that would allow Muslim prayers in schools and so forth. She was literally hired to try to make the Board more receptive to the various ethnic groups that were coming into the Board at the time–quite a flood of them.

weapon used in the martial arts (personal communication). Wikipedia reports that a Chinese weapon called the “nunchaku,” also called “nunchucks” in Korea, is a traditional martial arts weapon consisting of two sticks connected at their ends with a short chain or rope. Accessed August 9, 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunchaku . It is likely that the Peel Board’s “numckas” was a similar item. KC. Summary of Weapons Statistics.

146 Interview with Don Lawson, Georgetown, March 12, 2007.

147 Interview with David Weldon, Mississauga, February 25, 2007.

121

Did the trustees’ fear of violence and discomfort with Peel’s new diversity translate as racism?

No, according to Parrish. It was not “bigotry” Parrish insisted, but rather, “a lack of knowledge, a lack of understanding, and being slightly overwhelmed with floods of immigrants with different religious backgrounds.” Furthermore, the extensive media coverage was not always helpful.

Sikhs had no intention of wearing three foot long swords to school, she explained to constituents.

Parrish pointed out that the trustees had likely reacted to the “militancy” of the Sikh delegations that accused the Peel Board of being racist and intolerant. The trustees did not appreciate “being insulted and demeaned,” Parrish said. Sikhs attempted to browbeat them into doing something they did not think was right, concluded Parrish. Trustees pushed back.

While trustees were uneasy at the growing diversity around them, they also had another concern. In the recent municipal election, nine new trustees had been elected to the Peel Board.

As a result, at the time of the vote, almost half of the Peel Board consisted of novice trustees.

Being a new trustee presented challenges. According to Parrish, the position of trustee is an entry-level political position. Those new trustees, she contended, were typically less secure than their experienced fellow trustees, particularly when confronted with the loud “harangue” of a vocal minority. Parrish received sixty-three calls from constituents on the kirpan issue. Confident in her view, she explained her position to each caller on the kirpan issue who would listen. New trustees, she speculated, were at a disadvantage, particularly in the kirpan debate. In her experience, they did not always grasp the nuances of the kirpan issue. As a result, they had difficulty explaining the issue, as they saw it, to constituents. Also, they may have felt intimidated by the number of constituents who called to complain. What would be the political fallout? A more experienced politician would know that only the vocal minority made phone calls. 70, 000 other constituents had not complained. As Parrish recalled it, “the whole mood of

122

that particular Board of Trustees was overly cautious.” Thinking back on the kirpan debate, she

concluded: “It was just the right time to make an issue of it as far as the groups coming into the

board were concerned but a really bad time as far as the trustees were concerned.” 148

At the same time, the trustees were never without the support and guidance of the Peel

Board’s senior administrators. Whether they accepted that support or guidance is another matter.

According to Weldon, the senior administration was entrusted with a responsibility to ensure, as much as possible, that decisions reflected the Board’s traditional values. During the December

13, 1988 Board meeting, Weldon sympathized with the trustees. They were in a bind. They were often ignorant of Sikh traditions, worried about the reaction of their constituents to any vote, and how the vote might effect the next election. Thinking about the debate, Weldon recalled:

You can be assured I sat there for hundreds of hours, and watched them, and listened, and tried to make sure that I understood where everybody was coming from. But things happened. The Malton community had to present a certain political face, and it did. Brampton is more complicated. But, we are a democracy. And, in the end, the politicians supposedly reflect the views of the people they represent.

Once the ballots were counted, said Weldon, we “had to deal with whatever [trustees] decided we had to do.” Said Weldon, “Only the Board can expel someone. Only the Board can fire someone. Only the Board can actually hire someone. They’re the ones that govern.” 149 And

during the kirpan case, he said, “Things happened awfully quickly.”

148 Interview with C. Parrish, Mississauga, March 7, 2007.

149 Interview with David Weldon, Mississauga, February 25, 2007.

123

The Peel trustees took a firm position. There was no middle ground, no mutually

agreeable compromise. What was an article of religious faith for the Sikh community was a

weapon in the eyes of the Peel Board. Overtaken by the growing diversity of the Peel

community, apprehensive about potential violence, and influenced by vocal anti-kirpan

constituents and sensationalist media coverage, the majority of Peel trustees voted to amend the

Discipline Policy and designate kirpans as weapons.150 Abstract arguments about Canadian multicultural ideals and the implications of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms carried little or no weight. The Peel Board proceeded with the vote because they understood the kirpan debate as a local school policy matter in a school board concerned about violence. While other school boards in Ontario and Canada undoubtedly had problems with weapons, those boards did not have the history of the Peel Board’s Brampton Centennial shooting. In voting, the Peel trustees may have thought they were closing debate on the kirpan matter. They were wrong. Said one superintendent:

There are always unintended consequences that flow from policy. And people really try to think through all the time what those unintended consequences will

150 Policy No. 48 states that baptized Sikh students who wear kirpans are subject to the following regulations:

i) If the kirpan is left at home, students are welcomed and encouraged to participate in all school activities.

ii) A Sikh student may attend school wearing a symbolic representation of the kirpan provided that symbolic representation does not involve a metal blade that could be used as a weapon.

iii) It is a requirement of the Peel Board of Education that these regulations be communicated annually to all students and to new students upon registration.

KC. Peel Board of Education, Policies and Regulations, Discipline Policy, December 13, 1988.

124

be. But you know there’s always something that comes up and you say, ‘Who’d have thought that would have happened?’ 151

The Peel Board would soon be challenged again. Pandori, for one, advised the Human Rights

Commission that he would go to the media rather than allow the Board “to do what they want.” 152 Another Sikh spokesperson was no less adamant:

We have lost this round but there are other rounds to play. This is our religious right, granted to us by the United Nations Charter of Rights and Freedoms , by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and by the Ontario Human Rights Code and we are going to fight it at every legal avenue available to us. 153

With the Sikh community up in arms, and the Ministry of Education hoping to find a province-

wide solution, Pandori considered his next move.

151 Interview with Bridget Harrison, Mississauga, July 22, 2004.

152 AO. 50-843-B. “T.C. from Pandori,” Handwritten Note. December 14, 1988.

153 “Peel school board policy bans Sikh pupil from class,” The Toronto Star , December 20, 1988, W2.

Chapter 4: The Kirpan: Prohibited Weapon or Catalyst for Equity Policy?

Those who have power define what constitutes “the natural order of things” and what is considered “normal”, thus determining relationships of dominance and subordination. We learn these relationships and can therefore “unlearn” them. But first we must recognize and acknowledge them. 1

A new immigrant in 1970 and experiencing racial taunting, Pandori lapsed in ritual by removing his turban and cutting his hair in order to find work. Over time, Pandori found that racial taunting and other anti-Sikh discrimination lessened. By the late 1980's Pandori noted that

Ontario, where he lived, had changed for the better. 2 After his baptism as a Khalsa Sikh in 1987,

Pandori, a supply teacher with the Peel Board of Education, proudly wore the 5 K’s at all times to fulfill his religious obligations. When the Peel Board amended its Discipline Policy to prohibit kirpans, Pandori felt that, while many of his fellow Canadians were accepting of his Sikh

1 Peel District School Board, The Future We Want: Building an Inclusive Curriculum , August 2000, 159.

2 For a discussion of immigration policy in Canada and South Asians, see Azfar Khan, “In the Maelstrom of Hope and Despair; The Prospects for South Asian Migration to Canada,” in The Silent Debate: Asian Immigration and Racism in Canada, eds. E. Laquian, A. Laquian, and T. McGee (Vancouver: Institute of Asian Research, 1997). For an historical examination see H. Palmer, “Reluctant Hosts: Anglo-Canadian Views of Multiculturalism in the Twentieth Century,” in Immigration in Canada: Historical Perspectives, ed. G. Tulchinsky (Toronto: Copp Clark Longman Ltd., 1994), 297-333. According to Buchignani, Canadians were slow to offer “full social and ideological acceptance.” Even though Canadian law did not accept racist ideology, South Asians continued to experience prejudice. For a discussion of the Canadian response to South Asian immigrants see N. L. Buchignani, “Accommodation, Adaptation, and Policy: Dimensions of the South Asian Experience in Canada .” Paper presented at the Visible Minorities and Multiculturalism: Asians in Canada, University of New Brunswick, University of Guelph, 1980. For a discussion of racism in Toronto and Vancouver, see E. Laquian, A. Laquian, T.McGee, eds., The Silent Debate: Asian Immigration and Racism in Canada (Vancouver: Institute of Asian Research, 1997).

125 126

practices, the Board was “still very ignorant.” 3 Pandori was not alone. According to Sikh

spokesperson, T. Sher Singh, the “halls of power” in Peel had yet to accept equal participation of

visible minorities. Despite the diversity of its population, said Singh, the Region of Peel

continued to maintain “very serious glass ceilings in terms of allowing new Canadians to

participate fully.” As Singh saw it, “Peel in Ontario and British Columbia in Canada are two

areas that seem to be stuck in the middle ages, seem somehow to have been passed by time.” For

Singh, the Peel Board’s response to the kirpan issue proved a case in point:

The community that thinks its job is to protect the world from new Canadians is dwindling. They are losing power; however, they have dug in their heels. They are keeping control of all of the decision-making until one day they are going to lose it, and they will cry discrimination, and holler that their rights are being infringed. And they will find that there is no protection available then because all of the narrow-mindedness that they have shown now will become entrenched as the convention, as the way of dealing with such issues. 4

One thing was certain. In 1988, few members of the Peel Board could have imagined that a kirpan would end up being a catalyst for change.

In the closing months of 1988, the kirpan had receded as a significant local school board issue. Money was the major issue. At the Peel Board’s Annual Organizational Meeting in

December, the director of education confirmed that Peel had become the largest public school board in Canada with over 90,000 students. 5 In her opening address to the Board, Chairperson

3 Interview with Harbhajan Singh Pandori, Mississauga, December 28, 2006.

4 Interview with T. Sher Singh, Guelph, May 1, 2007.

5 Peel Board of Education, Annual Organizational Meeting of the Board - Minutes, Item 12: Annual Report of the Director of Education, 1988-12-05.

127

Carolyn Parrish said that, faced with so much growth, her prime concern was a shortfall in provincial funding for education. Without an infusion of new funding, the Peel Board lacked resources to build new schools and maintain its existing facilities. According to Parrish, that dilemma was complicated by ongoing competition for funds from separate schools and private schools, and threatened to erode Ontario’s public school system. In addition, the Peel Board faced a shortage of teachers. Forestalling the turmoil and teacher shortfalls were a priority.

Parrish argued that the stakes were high.

The survival of a strong public school system is the basis of any democratic society. Quality education for all, regardless of race, creed or country of origin; regardless of attitude, interest, socio-economic level or special need–this is the foundation of a truly democratic society. It cannot be eroded by the funding of exclusive and restrictive systems. 6

The Peel Board of Education, powerless to generate more money independently, did not feel weak when it came to ensuring the safety of students in its care. In the name of safety, it had taken aim against the wearing of the kirpan in Peel schools. Despite requests to not act precipitously, at its December 13 meeting, the Board officially designated the kirpan a weapon within the meaning of its official ban on weapons in schools. With the recitation of the Lord’s

Prayer also contested at that meeting, the Board may have feared a backlash against forbidding

Christian prayer in public schools while allowing Sikhs to carry “daggers.” If the Lord’s Prayer was going to be banished, so was the kirpan.

Even as the Board moved to amend its Discipline Policy to once and for all deal with the kirpan question by prohibiting it in school, the kirpan issue was gaining in importance outside the Board. A day after the December 13 Board meeting, Harbhajan Singh Pandori contacted the

6 Peel Board of Education, Annual Organizational Meeting, Minutes, Appendix, Chairman’s Remarks, 1988-12-05.

128

Ontario Human Rights Commission to express his frustration. He had filed his human rights

complaint against the Peel Board the previous June. In those six months, he saw no progress. Just

the opposite. Rather than the Commission acting against the Board, the Board banned the kirpan.

As Pandori saw it, the Peel Board had no respect for the religious beliefs of Khalsa Sikhs. Why,

Pandori demanded to know, was there no Human Rights Commission action? A Commission

official reminded Pandori that the Board’s decision affected the Sikh students directly but him

only indirectly. 7

What Pandori was not told was that Ontario’s Ministry of Citizenship had also contacted the Human Rights Commission about the issue of kirpans in the schools. The minister expected the kirpan matter to be raised in the provincial legislature later that day, Ministry officials said. 8

The minister’s office was advised that, while Sikh students were at liberty to file a complaint

under the Ontario Human Rights Code , there had been no official complaint lodged by any

students. The Commission, was, however, moving on Pandori’s complaint, however slowly. Its

first step, not yet completed, was to assess the human rights implications of the Peel Board’s

kirpan decision for Pandori. There had been delays in the process. When a Commission official

asked the Board’s lawyer to provide relevant documents, the lawyer hesitated, stating that the

Board’s decision applied only to the Sikh students, not to Board employees like Pandori.

7 AO. 50-843-B. Handwritten Notes (OHRC), T.C. from Filion, December 14, 1988.

8 One member of the Ontario Legislature suggested that it was “high time” that the government, through the Ministers of Citizenship and Education, got involved and developed a policy to assist boards of education to avoid “some of the problems we have now seen develop in Peel.” While most people in western religions cannot identify with the kirpan issue, there had been no instances of misuse in the Toronto Board of Education. In addition, the North York Board of Education had a method to allow the wearing of concealed kirpans. Ontario Legislature Debates (Hansard), December 14, 1988. Accessed August 4, 2010. http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/house-proceedings/house_detail.do?Date=1988-12- 14&Parl=34&Sess=1&locale=en#P7_168 .

129

Pandori’s case, he insisted, was “furthest from [the] Board’s mind.” The Commission official

pointed out that the two cases were similar. The Peel Board suspended Hundal for wearing a

kirpan at school and for refusing to remain segregated from the larger student population.

Pandori was prohibited from supply teaching in Peel schools because he wore a kirpan. In the

end, the Peel Board’s lawyer agreed–the two kirpan cases were similar and he would “try” to

obtain the documents the Commission wanted. 9

Meanwhile, Peel Board officials sent letters to the fathers of Sukhdev Hundal and

Paramvir Singh in an attempt to clarify the Board’s decision on kirpans and explain its implications for the two students. In the letter to Sukhdev Hundal’s father, Parrish restated the

Peel Board’s concerns about kirpans. She noted the Board’s discomfort with the lack of consensus amongst Sikhs on the necessity of wearing a kirpan. What was acceptable for one Sikh was regarded a religious violation for another. 10 A second concern was the absence of documentation confirming baptism as Khalsa Sikh. With no written record, how would the

Board distinguish between baptized and non-baptized Sikhs? A third concern, and the primary concern, was safety. How could the Peel Board be sure that a Khalsa Sikh would not violate his religious oath to abstain from using the kirpan as a weapon? Finally, while the Board claimed

9 The Human Rights Commission Case Summary states: “In a subsequent conversation on December 14, 1988, the respondent stated that the two matters are separate with the case involving a staff member and the policy decision involving students.” AO. 50-843-B, Handwritten Notes (OHRC), T. C. from Filion, December 14, 1988.

10 The Peel Board disputes that wearing a kirpan is a fundamental tenet of the Sikh faith. The Board understands that the kirpan is to be worn in some circumstances by baptized Sikhs. Some Khalsa Sikhs, however, do not wear a kirpan if it is banned from the workplace. Those Sikhs do not consider themselves acting contrary to their Sikh religious beliefs. Supreme Court of Ontario (Divisional Court), Court File #1170/89, Between Peel Board of Education and Ontario Human Rights Commission, hereafter SCO File #1170/89. OHRC, Respondent Questionnaire, Case No. 50-939B, January 12, 1989, Fact 9, 7.

130

respect for the tenets of the Sikh faith, the Board hoped that the Sikh community would

appreciate that many Peel residents had a “natural fear” of weapons. 11 If the kirpan kept

Paramvir Singh out of school, the letter to his father explained, the Board would provide

educational resources so that Paramvir could study at home. 12 With a kirpan ban in place and letters of explanation sent, Peel Board officials hoped the kirpan debate was settled.

Ongoing Investigation

What might have been out of the way for the Peel Board was not out of the way for the

Human Rights Commission. 13 On January 3, 1989, the regional manager of the Commission,

Toronto West Region, advised Pandori and the Board that Pandori’s complaint had not been

resolved through the Commission’s normal procedures of investigation and conciliation. 14 As a

11 KC. Letter to Mr. Sulakhan Singh Hundal from Carolyn Parish, Chairman, Peel Board of Education, January 11, 1989.

12 KC. Letter to Mr. Singh from D. Weldon, Superintendent of Operations, Peel Board of Education, January 12, 1989.

13 In their discussion of evolving human rights legislation in Canada, Brian Howe and David Johnson argue that Ontario was at the forefront of establishing human rights protections in large part because of pressure from activist groups and structural changes including immigration, urbanization, and the expanded entry of women into the paid workforce. According to those authors, the Second World War and postwar events such as Canada’s participation in the establishment of the United Nations and as a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , lent weight to demands for human rights legislation in Canada. In 1961 the Ontario Human Rights Commission was established to administer the Human Rights Code. Howe and Johnson also argue that the 1982 federal Charter of Rights has now “emboldened judges not only to use the Charter to strike down legislation that contradicted rights but. . . to provide a broad and liberal interpretation of [other] human rights legislation.” By the 1980s, they insist, human rights legislation was central to Canadian society.

14 AO. 50-843-B. Letter to Harbhajan Singh Pandori, re Harbhajan Singh Pandori and Peel Board of Education and Mike Miller, File No.: W-843B, from Vic Marcuz, Regional Manager, Toronto West Region, OHRC, January 3, 1989.

AO. 50-843-B. Letter to Roy Fillion, Winkler, Fillion & Wakely, re Harbhajan Singh

131

result, the Commission planned to explore the possibility of appointing a Board of Inquiry to

deal with Pandori’s claim of discrimination. 15 In response, the Peel Board informed the

Commission that it had not violated the Ontario Human Rights Code and that there was no reason for a Board of Inquiry. 16 Furthermore, according to Board officials, the Commission lacked jurisdiction on school board matters. In a statement to the press, Parrish asserted that the

Commission “cannot investigate or rule on policies passed by a board of education pursuant to its statutory duties.” According to Parrish, the Peel Board would fight the case. She insisted: “We won’t be backing down from this issue.” 17

Neither would the Ontario Human Rights Commission. As part of its effort to determine how best to handle Pandori’s complaint, Commission officials interviewed “experts” on Sikhism.

Gurcharan Singh, speaking on behalf the Sikh Federation of Canada, argued that the Peel

Board’s decision made a “mockery” of the Sikh faith. The kirpan, he declared, is not a weapon, but “a thing of grace.” Singh described the religious obligations of the Khalsa, including the requirement to wear a kirpan. When a child is baptized between the ages of thirteen and fifteen, a smaller kirpan is worn. While there are no specifications as to a kirpan’s size, he explained, a very long kirpan, a very short kirpan, or a plastic kirpan is “ridiculous.” A kirpan must be made of steel and worn at all times, even in the bath. If a Khalsa Sikh is separated from the 5 K’s, there

Pandori and Peel Board of Education and Mike Miller, File No.: W-843B, from Vic Marcuz, Regional Manager, Toronto West Region, OHRC, January 3, 1989.

15 AO. 50-843-B. Letter to Harbhajan Singh Pandori, re Harbhajan Singh Pandori and Peel Board of Education and Mike Miller, File No.: W-843B, from Vic Marcuz, Regional Manager, Toronto West Region, OHRC, January 3, 1989.

16 AO. 50-843-B. Letter to Vic Marcuz, OHRC, re The Peel Board of Education and Harbhajan Singh Pandori, File No.: W-843B, from Roy Fillion, January 17, 1989.

17 Gary Webb-Proctor, “School board defends ban on Sikh daggers,” The Globe and Mail , January 13, 1989, A15.

132

is a process of punishment and forgiveness; however, the act of unsheathing a kirpan and using it

as a weapon is regarded a highly sacrilegious act that would result in dire sanctions. Singh also

informed the Commission that the political development in the Punjab had an impact on the Sikh

community in Canada. Since the 1984 Indian army’s attack on the Amritsar Temple in India,

there had been a resurgence of Sikh religiosity, an awakening of group identity, and

corresponding embrace of the kirpan. 18 Whether the kirpan is worn over one’s shirt or under

one’s shirt is a minor point, he noted, but it would be completely unacceptable for a Khalsa Sikh

to leave his kirpan at home. 19

In a meeting with a Commission official, Dr. John Spellman, professor of Asian studies

at the University of Windsor, provided the Commission with additional information regarding

his previous contact with Pandori’s case and his thoughts on the kirpan. Spellman informed the

Commission official that he had noted several inaccuracies in Pandori’s complaint. Making a

claim to be a priest in a Sikh church was said to be a misleading assertion on the part of Pandori.

Spellman explained that there are no priests or churches in the Sikh faith, at least not as

understood by Christians. Furthermore, Spellman questioned Pandori’s claim to leadership in the

18 Since the late 1970's, separatist Sikhs have been engaged in a struggle for an independent Sikh state of Khalistan, a homeland in Punjab. A Mississauga lawyer, quoted in the article, noted that the struggle took a “violent turn” in 1984 when the Indian army attacked the Golden Temple in Amritsar, Punjab. During the attack, 100 Sikhs were killed. In retribution, one of her Sikh bodyguards killed Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Rioting followed throughout India and 2,500 Sikhs were killed. One Sikh observer contends that the attack in India had an impact on Sikhs in Canada. Some Sikhs became militant, and some embraced their cultural identity by following traditional Sikh practices. Paul Veira, “Community no longer hides identity,” The Globe and Mail , June 3, 1992, A15.

19 AO. 50-843-B. Interview Notes Gurcharan Singh (OHRC), February 15, 1989.

133

Sikh community. Pandori might be a leader for some, he said, but the Mississauga Sikh

community had many factions and Pandori would not likely be recognized as a leader by all. 20

Divided or not, according to Spellman, the Mississauga Sikh community was, as a whole, unhappy with the progress of Pandori’s complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

Spellman noted that the kirpan issue in Peel started with Hundal. At first, Hundal had the support of the International Sikh Youth Federation, a Sikh group which according to Spellman, wanted to

“politicize the issue.” The Federation had “parachuted” Tuli into Peel because he had been involved in a similar case in Alberta. After a time, however, the Federation “recognized that [it] would have to put reins on Tuli because of far-reaching implications.” Hundal was then marginalized by the Federation. Hundal and his supporters then hired a lawyer and approached the gurdwara for help raising money for a court battle. Unsuccessful, they approached Spellman for assistance. According to Spellman, he refused to get involved because he felt the case “had gone too far.” Spellman said he had previously advised Hundal to take the case to the Human

Rights Commission. However, Hundal’s supporters argued that the Commission was too bureaucratic and slow. They did not want to wait, perhaps years, for a Commission ruling.

Spellman, explained, however, that he did not want to deal with Hundal except as part of a

Human Rights Commission complaint. When Pandori again approached Spellman for advice regarding his kirpan complaint, Spellman again advised Pandori to contact the Commission. This time Pandori did so.

20 Not everyone in the Sikh community considered Dr. Spellman to be a credible expert witness. Sikh spokesman T. Sher Singh, co-founder of the Macauliffe Institute for Sikh Studies, later said “I wouldn’t put two bits on anything he has ever said in the past or says now.” According to Singh, the Sikh community no longer asks Spellman to serve as an expert witness “ever since it has been shown that he swings his testimony 180 degrees depending on who is paying for his testimony.” Interview with T. Sher Singh, Guelph, May 1, 2007.

134

Spellman used the term “small ceremonial sword” rather than “dagger” when describing

a kirpan. Referring to a kirpan as a “dagger,” Spellman insisted, is a western interpretation and is

inappropriate. Another possibility, Spellman advised, was for the Commission to simply declare

that the kirpan is not a weapon. If the kirpan is not a weapon, he said, the school board could not

arbitrarily rule it so. Spellman told the Commission that he had a letter from the former federal

minister of justice, Mark MacGuigan, opining that a kirpan is not a weapon. According to

Spellman, MacGuigan defined a weapon as something designed to injure another person. Even a

knife is not a weapon, said Spellman, until it is used as a weapon. So too, the kirpan. If, as

MacGuigan argued, the kirpan is not a weapon, then concealment is not a problem and if there is

no weapon there is no threat to public order.

Spellman also noted that in Vancouver, another large Sikh centre, there was no recorded case in seventy-five years where a kirpan-carrying Sikh was arrested for wearing a kirpan while committing a violent crime. While it cannot be argued that a kirpan has never been used as a weapon, to Spellman’s knowledge it had never been used as a weapon in any school context.

According to notes taken by a Human Rights Commission official, Spellman advised the

Commission that its complaint was “narrowed” by a singular focus on creed because it is difficult “to prove what is doctrinal vis a vis the religions.” Other grounds might offer more latitude, he said. 21

21 AO. 50-843-B. Interview Notes Dr. Spellman (OHRC), February 18, 1989.

135

Case Disposition on Behalf of Pandori

Even as the Commission gathered expert information, and nearly one year after Pandori

had filed his complaint with the Commission, a Board of Inquiry had yet to be appointed. 22 As

Pandori waited, the Peel Board maintained its position on kirpans as weapons and was supported by the Ontario Public School Boards Association. In a letter to the Board’s director of education, a representative from the Association reported that the Association passed a resolution on March

30, 1989 supporting the Peel Board’s position on kirpans. The Association agreed that kirpans had the potential to be used as weapons. In its view, “students who insist on wearing kirpans should be excluded from school. . . and provided with an acceptable program of instruction.” 23

On June 13/14, 1989 a Case Disposition and Case Summary were finally filed by the

Human Rights Commission on behalf of the complainant, Pandori. In the Case Disposition, it

was recommended that a Board of Inquiry be struck pursuant to s. 35(1) of the Code for the

following reasons:

1. Although the respondent indicates it is willing to pursue avenues for accommodating the Complainant, it recently passed a resolution which would include kirpans as a weapon within their existing policy, thus banning the kirpans from the Respondent’s properties.

22 A Commission spokesman stated that it was unknown how long the inquiry would take. It depended on schedules. “Regrettably, it’s a matter of administration.” KC. Kathleen Byrne, “Peel school board’s policy on kirpans faces challenge,” The Mississauga News , July 16, 1989, 3.

23 SCO File #1170/89. Letter to Mr. R.J. Lee, Director of Education, Peel Board of Education, from Arlene Wright, President, Ontario Public School Boards’ Association, April 27, 1989.

136

2. Although the policy pertains to students, and a separate complaint has been Commission initiated to deal with that matter, it would appear to have a direct impact on conciliation attempts in this case. 24

As noted in the Case Summary, Pandori claimed that his right to equal treatment in employment had been infringed by the Peel Board of Education because of his creed in contravention of the

Ontario Human Rights Code sections 4 (1) and 8. As a Khalsa Sikh, he insisted, he was obligated to wear his kirpan at all times. 25 As background, on or about May 20, 1988, Pandori

explained, he was contacted by Michael Miller of the Peel Board and asked whether he wore his

kirpan while teaching. When Pandori replied in the affirmative, Miller asked Pandori to provide

assurance that he would no longer wear his kirpan while teaching in Peel schools. When he

refused to comply with Miller’s request, Pandori’s name was removed from the Board’s list of

supply teachers.

Justification for the Human Rights Commission proceeding with the complaint was said

to have been found under the categories of creed and denial of employment. Following his

conscience since the time of his baptism in December 1987, Pandori wore his kirpan at all times

citing REHAT MARYDA: A Guide to a Sikh Way of Life as a reference with respect to creed. 26

24 The Case Disposition inaccurately reports the date of the Peel Board meeting as December 12, 1988. In fact, the meeting was held on December 13, 1988. Peel Board of Education, Regular Meeting of the Board, Minutes, December 13, 1988. AO. 50-843-B. OHRC, Case Disposition, Case No. 50-843B, June 13-14, 1989.

25 In the Case Disposition, two dates were cited for Pandori’s baptism, December 24, 1987 and December 26, 1987.

26 This injunction to wear the 5Ks (Kakars) appears in Rehat Maryada, The Official Sikh Code of Conduct , "Have, on your person, all the time, the five K's: The Kesh (unshorn hair), the Kirpan (sheathed sword), the Kaccha (drawers like garment), the Kanga (comb), the Karha (steel bracelet)." (See Rehat Maryada , Ceremony of Baptism or Initiation, Section 6, Chapter XIII, Article XXIV, paragraph (p) see SGPC Regulations). AO. 50-843-B. OHRC, Case Summary, Case No. 50-843B, June 13-14, 1989. Pandori testified that he practised wearing the five Kakars

137

The Case Summary noted that, as a Khalsa Sikh, Pandori “is instructed never part with the 5 K’s-

KESH (long hair), KANGHA (comb), KACHH (knickers), KARA (iron bracelet) and KIRPAN

(sword).

The Case Summary explained that the Peel Board denied, in its defence, that any

infringement of the complainant’s rights had occurred with respect to either creed or

employment. As the Board saw it: “They have treated the complainant the same way they would

have treated any other teacher who insisted upon wearing what might be perceived by students

and others as an offensive weapon.” 27 Admittedly, other areas of disagreement remained. For example, the Peel Board did not agree that Miller would provide his questions in writing. Both parties did agree, however, that Miller had informed Pandori he must assure the Board that he would not wear a kirpan while teaching. When Pandori did not respond as desired, five field offices were instructed to remove his name from the Board’s list of supply teachers.

In the regular meeting of the Peel Board on December 13, 1988, it was resolved that the weapons policy would be maintained and kirpans would continue to be included within the meaning of a weapon. The policy stated:

The Board will require each principal to include a statement in the school’s discipline policy to communicate to parents, students and staff, that the possession and/or display of weapons on school property (buildings and land) may result in a recommendation being presented to the Board of Education for expulsion of that student. 28

before baptism to ensure he could fulfill his religious obligations, including wearing his kirpan while sleeping. SCO File #793/90. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, February 7, 1990, Volume 111, Transcript, 161.

27 AO. 50-843-B. OHRC, Case Summary, Case No. 50-843B, June 13-14, 1989.

28 Peel Board of Education, Regular Meeting of the Board, Minutes, 1988-12-13.

138

On December 14, 1988, it was further acknowledged by the Board that two matters were in

dispute: one matter involved Peel staff; the second matter involved a policy decision with respect

to students. As noted, the policy was applicable only to Peel Board students; there was no written

policy with respect to Board staff. 29

Case Disposition-OHRC

A Case Disposition on Pandori was submitted by the Commission for the Human Rights

Commission meeting on June 13/14, 1989. In that Disposition, it was alleged by the Commission that the Board had passed a resolution banning kirpans in contravention of the Ontario Human

Rights Code , thereby infringing on the rights of Sikhs to equal treatment with respect to services and facilities. Further, it was noted in the document that the Board’s policy constituted a requirement that excluded persons identified by a prohibited ground (members of the Sikh faith) and, as such, the Board had acted contrary to the Code. In sum, a Board of Inquiry was

recommended for the following reasons:

1. The respondent has passed a resolution which includes kirpans within the definition of a weapon within the existing discipline policy.

2. This policy, with its inclusion of kirpans, appears to infringe upon the rights of persons of the Sikh faith to equal treatment with respect to services and facilities.

3.This policy also appears to constitute a requirement, qualification or factor which results in the exclusion or restriction of a group of persons who are identified by a prohibited ground (i.e. those being individuals of the Sikh faith) 30

For its part, the Peel Board denied contravening the Code and alleged that the only issue

was safety. Furthermore, the Board maintained that the Commission had no jurisdiction to rule

29 AO. 50-843-B. OHRC, Case Summary, Case No. 50-843B, June 13-14, 1989.

30 SCO File #1170/89. OHRC, Case Disposition, Case No. 50-939B, June 13-14, 1989.

139

on school board policies established pursuant to the Education Act . The respondent alleged that

“the Code does not affect the application of the Education Act with respect to the duties of

teachers and principals” but rather to all pupils. If Sikh students who are not required to become

Khalsa while attending school are excluded, the Peel Board argued, then it is a reasonable

restriction made in good faith in consultation with Sikhs and others.

Appointment of a Board of Inquiry

With documents submitted, the Commission requested on July 27, 1989 that the minister

of citizenship appoint a Board of Inquiry:

to hear the complaint of Harbhajan Singh Pandori dated June 24,1988, as against the respondents the Peel Board of Education and Mike Miller, and the complaint of the Ontario Human Rights Commission as against the Peel Board of Education dated December 12, 1988. 31

Two months later, on October 6, 1989, the Honourable Bob Wong, Minster of Citizenship,

announced the appointment of Rabbi W. Gunther Plaut as a Board of Inquiry Re: Pandori and

the Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Peel Board of Education .32

Rabbi Gunther Plaut

Why was Rabbi Plaut appointed adjudicator in the Peel Board’s kirpan case? The letter from the minister of citizenship confirming Rabbi Plaut’s appointment does not specifically say.

However, it is likely that Rabbi Plaut’s professional accomplishments, judicial training, service

31 AO. 50-843-B. Letter to Thelma Hamilton, Ministry of Citizenship, from Mark Frawley, OHRC, re. Harbhajan Singh Pandori v. The Peel Board of Education and Mike Miller, File No. 50-843-B and Ontario Human Rights Commission v. The Peel Board of Education File No. 50-939-B, July 27, 1989.

32 KC. Letter to Dr. W. Gunther Plaut from Bob Wong, Minister of Citizenship (Ontario), October 6, 1989.

140

to the community, and understanding of faith matters commended him to the minister. He also

had a long history of service with the Human Rights Commission. As testimony to that service,

Rabbi Plaut was the recipient of many honours. In 1984, for example, he was appointed by the

Canadian Government to recommend revisions to federal refugee legislation. In 1989 the

Canadian Council of Refugees elected Rabbi Plaut as its first honorary member. 33 Long a pulpit rabbi at Toronto’s Holy Blossom Temple, he was also named a Companion of the Order of

Canada and a recipient of the Order of Ontario. Rabbi Plaut had been awarded honourary degrees by the University of Toronto, York University, Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of

Religion (Cincinnati/New York), and the College of Jewish Studies (Cleveland). 34

Members of the Sikh community lauded Rabbi Plaut’s appointment. In a letter requesting

intervener status, the president of the Federation of Sikh Societies stated: “The appointee, Rev.

Gunther Plaut is certainly a very eminent person for this role. We have full confidence in Rev.

Plaut and congratulate the Minister in his choice.”35 Another Sikh letter-writer noted Rabbi

Plaut’s “illustrious career,” “qualities of head and heart,” and “reputation as a defender of human

rights.” 36 According to Sikh spokesman, T. Sher Singh, Rabbi Plaut “was known as a person who had his own mind and who would be very fair.” As Singh saw it, Rabbi Plaut could not be

33 W.G. Plaut, More Unfinished Business (University of Toronto Press, Toronto), 1997, 34.

34 Accessed March 14, 2010. http://www.holyblossom.org/rabbi_plaut.htm .

35 Library and Archives Canada, MG31, Series F6 Volume 300, OHRC - Pandori v. Peel Board of Education, hereafter Plaut Papers. File 311-16. Letter to Ms. Catherine Frazee, Chief Commissioner, Ontario Human Rights Commission from Mohinder Singh Gosal, President, Federation of Sikh Societies of Canada, December 5, 1989.

36 Plaut Papers. File 311-16. Letter to Dr. W. Gunther Plaut, Chairman, Board of Inquiry, from Sutantar Singh, April 2, 1990.

141

swayed and “certainly had no political ambitions.” Singh was not sure whether Rabbi Plaut

would support the Sikh position or not. 37

From a personal perspective, Rabbi Plaut well understood the devastating impact of human rights violations. As a Jew in Nazi Germany during the 1930s, he knew discrimination and persecution. 38 As Rabbi Plaut put it: “When I was twenty years old the world in which I had grown up suddenly came to an end.” 39 As a result of Nazi prohibitions, he was barred from practising law:

By Nazi decree my law career was now ended; Jews would no longer be admitted to the internship necessary for admission to the Bar. At twenty years of age, after a breezy and thoughtless flirtation with the law, I was a young man without a profession–simply because I was a Jew. The Nazis separated me permanently from a world that for a while appeared to accept me for what I was rather than who I was. 40

If a legal career was not possible, at least Jews had not yet been blocked from attending university. Despite the growing hostility toward Jews in Nazi Germany, Rabbi Plaut gained admission to a doctoral program in international law. On July 24, 1934, he obtained his doctorate. While hoping for circumstances in Germany to improve, his father suggested that

Rabbi Plaut attend a rabbinical seminary to further his knowledge of Judaism. Rabbi Plaut agreed. Focusing on religious studies, he felt, would help him come to grips with the “bitter realities” of his life as a Jew in Nazi Germany. Later, when offered a scholarship to continue his

37 Interview with T. Sher Singh, Guelph, May 1, 2007.

38 W. G. Plaut, Unfinished Business (Lester & Orpen Dennys, 1981), 21.

39 Plaut, Unfinished Business , Prologue ix.

40 Plaut, Unfinished Business , 36.

142

rabbinical studies at Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, Rabbi Plaut accepted and departed

Germany for the United States. 41

Ordained in 1939, Rabbi Plaut first served as an assistant rabbi in a congregation in

Chicago and then in St. Paul, Minneapolis. In 1961 he accepted the pulpit of Holy Blossom

Temple in Toronto where he served from 1961 to 1977. In contrast to American Jews, Rabbi

Plaut observed, the Canadian Jewish community demonstrated a deeper commitment to Israel and Jewish education. Yet, he also sensed a feeling of “Jewish inferiority” in the Canadian community that he attributed to its domination by more recent immigrants, still lacking confidence in their place in Canadian society. As Rabbi Plaut understood it, for many Canadian

Jews, their collective memories of European antisemitism were reinforced, even in the early-

1960s, by “rigid exclusion of Jews from the power basis of Canadian life.”

The year following his retirement from the pulpit in 1977, Rabbi Plaut was offered a position with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. For the next seven years, Rabbi Plaut served as the Commission’s vice-chairman. In 1984, he accepted a federal appointment to redraft

Canada’s refugee legislation. 42 According to Rabbi Plaut, personal experience as a refugee influenced his policy thinking with regard to people eager for admission to Canada:

41 Rabbi Plaut petitioned to bring his parents, then living in England, to the United States. His petition was denied for unknown reasons. In later years, he used the American Freedom of Information Act to gain access to that government document. He learned that the examiners voted against him because he was a declared Zionist and therefore an ‘internationalist’ and unreliable. Also, Rabbi Plaut’s father was unable to supply the addresses of his two sisters who were at Auschwitz. Plaut, More Unfinished Business , 28.

42 Plaut, Unfinished Business, 194, 18.

143

The fact that I myself had once been a refugee helped me to identify with the needs of those now begging for admission, but my presumed bias in this regard made me even less welcome among the top civil servants of the department.

Immersing himself in a study of refugee legislation, Rabbi Plaut noted two distinct approaches to

the refugee law. One approach favoured the needs of the refugee. The second approach favoured

the interests of the host country. In Canada, he concluded, “national protectionism, however ill-

conceived, had the upper hand and tried to hold refugees at bay, especially when they were of

non-European origin.”

In terms of welcoming refugees to Canada, Rabbi Plaut noted that little had changed over the years. A generation before, Frederick Blair, the federal immigration minister, deemed Jews undesirable as refugees. In the 1980s, African and Asian refugees were perceived as a threat to national stability. ‘White’ groups, on the other hand, including Soviet and Portuguese refugees, gained admission more readily. 43 As Rabbi Plaut understood it, postwar refugee determination in

Canada reached a low in 1986 with an incident of alleged abuse of the refugee determination process. Five thousand Portuguese migrants, reported to be adherents of the Jehovah’s Witness faith, claimed refuge in Canada on grounds of religious persecution in Portugal. According to

Rabbi Plaut, there were no reports referring to the religious persecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Portugal. What is more, few of the Portuguese claimants had “the foggiest notion of what a

Jehovah’s Witness was.” Why were those Portuguese migrants, who were obviously abusing the refugee process, allowed to stay in Canada? It was likely, Rabbi Plaut heard, that the Progressive

Conservative government hoped to gain ethnic votes in Toronto.

43 Plaut , More Unfinished Business, 23, 21

144

If Portuguese abuse of the refugee process was problematic, said Rabbi Plaut, it was mild compared to the negative portrayal of 170 Sikh refugee claimants from India. Five thousand

Portuguese refugees had been admitted without protest. By contrast, the press portrayed Sikh refugee claimants as terrorists, “war-like” and “aggressive.” It was “an almost-hysterical display of un-named fears that were manifestly tainted by racist prejudice,” Rabbi Plaut insisted. As he understood it, the growing public resentment towards immigrants and towards the notion of multiculturalism was fueled by the recession of the early-1980s. Multiculturalism was the

“whipping boy” for Canadians set against “foreigners, immigrants, bogus refugees, and other

‘unsuitables’ who took advantage of Canadian largesse and patience.” 44

During his term of service with the Human Right Commission, Rabbi Plaut found his interest in the law rekindled. Fifty years earlier in Germany, Hitler had crushed Plaut’s career in law. When Rabbi Plaut’s term as vice-chairman of the Commission ended, he hoped to exercise his legal training as an adjudicator for the Commission. Adjudicators, he knew, functioned as quasi-judges but with “greater leeway to determine the admissibility of evidence and. . . enter into cross- examination.” 45 While Weimar German and Canadian law differed, the process of legal thinking would be similar as far as Rabbi Plaut was concerned.

44 Plaut, More Unfinished Business , 29, 30, 39.

45 During his time with the OHRC, Rabbi Plaut observed inequities in its system. If the intent of human rights legislation was to protect the weaker members of a society, he argued, the respondent’s rights were overlooked. Each decision of the OHRC to appoint a Board of Inquiry imposed a financial burden for a respondent who wanted legal representation. Liable or not, said Plaut, a respondent paid out of pocket for legal assistance. On the complainant’s side, however, Ontario’s taxpayers covered legal costs. Plaut, More Unfinished Business , 51, 52.

145

An Ontario Human Rights Commission Board of Inquiry Convenes

On October 6, 1989, more than a year after Pandori filed his complaint with the Human

Rights Commission, parties to the complaint were advised by letter that a hearing of the

complaint would commence on November 1, 1989 by way of a conference telephone call. 46 For

the Peel Board, the prospect of defending itself at the hearings was not welcome. It hoped to

forestall appearing before Rabbi Plaut. On October 25, 1989, just prior to the scheduled meeting,

the Board’s solicitors advised Commission counsel of their intent “to dispute the jurisdiction of

the Board of Inquiry with respect to the Complaint.” 47 As noted in Rabbi Plaut’s report, the

Board argued that the Human Rights Commission had no jurisdiction in the case because education was not covered by the Ontario Human Rights Code. Education, it was argued, came under the aegis of the Education Act. 48

On November 15, 1989 solicitors for the Peel Board advised the chief justice of the

Supreme Court of Ontario of the Peel Board’s attendance before Rabbi Plaut and submitted its

“Application to Adjourn the hearing pending the determination of the Application for Judicial

46 SCO File #1170/89. Affidavit, November 27, 1989, 4.

47 SCO File #1170/89. Affidavit, November 27, 1989, 4.

48 OHRC. Decision, 2. On November 1, 1989 respondent counsel asked Rabbi Plaut to schedule dates for the hearings that would not conflict with dates of the anticipated judicial review. If Rabbi Plaut refused, respondent counsel would bring a motion before Divisional Court asking for a delay pending determination of the application for judicial review. KC. Letter to Tony Griffin, Legal Services, Ontario Human Rights Commission, from Mr. Robert Keel, Keel Cottrelle Harris, re: Peel Board of Education re: OHRC Complaint and Pandori, October 25, 1989.

146

Review.” 49 In the Applicant’s Factum, submitted on January 4, 1990 in aid of its explication for

a writ of prohibition, the Board identified three issues:

Whether the concept of “services, goods and facilities” in section 1 of the Ontario Human Rights Code , 1981 , encompasses the provision of education as mandated by the Education Act ; Further and in the alternative, because the Education Act provides a Code with respect to attendance and discipline, the issue is whether the Ontario Human Rights Code should apply to supercede or abrogate such provisions of the Education Act ; Further and in the alternative, because a Board performs a quasi-legislative function in setting Discipline Policy and a quasi- judicial function in certain specific circumstances, such as subsection 22(3) of the Education Act , the issue is whether a Board should have the right to prohibit kirpans notwithstanding the Ontario Human Rights Code .50

Even as the Board’s appeal awaited decision, on November 1, 1989, the hearing went ahead and

Rabbi Plaut fixed dates for hearing the Commission’s evidence during the first two weeks of

February. 51

For its part, the Peel Board had to address separate issues related to students and to employment. As a compromise, it was agreed that the Board would postpone its Application to

Adjourn until the Commission’s witnesses testified before Rabbi Plaut regarding the employment issue. As agreed, the Board of Inquiry hearings would convene to take evidence from witnesses in February 1990. At that point, following the hearing of the Human Rights

Commission evidence, the Board would renew its Application to Adjourn. It was understood that

49 SCO.File #1170/89. Letter to The Honourable Chief Justice J. Callaghan, Chief Justice of the High Court of Justice, Supreme Court of Ontario, from Robert G. Keel, Keel Cottrelle Harris, Re: Peel Board of Education and Ontario Human Rights Commission, Divisional Court File Number 1077/89, January 9, 1990.

50 SCO File #1170/89. Applicant’s Factum, Part 2 - The Application, January 4, 1990, 4.

51 Plaut Papers. File 311-16. Letter to Mohinder Singh Gosal, President, Federation of Sikh Societies of Canada, from Marilyn Ginsburg, Counsel, Ontario Human Rights Commission, re: Pandori and Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Peel Board of Education, December 13, 1989.

147

the Board’s application for judicial review would be heard, at the earliest, in May 1990. The

Board pressed to expedite the application for judicial review in hopes of attaining resolution in

March 1990. All hung on the court’s ruling. If the court ruled in favour of the Board, then the

Commission had no jurisdiction over the student issue. In that case, it was argued, proceeding

with the hearing would result in unnecessary costs.52

Press

As the kirpan case proceeded through the judicial system, the kirpan issue was also being

tried in the court of public opinion. 53 Commenting in retrospect on the media’s fascination with sensational images, Ontario Human Rights Commission Counsel Anthony Griffin, argued that the kirpan story was one the media loved because it involved people with “dark skin, accents, and knives.” Did the kirpan ban get rid of knives in Peel schools? “No,” said Griffin, “it was a sop to parents.” 54 A Brampton Times editorial asked that Sikhs understand that the kirpan issue

52 SCO File #1170/89. Letter to The Honourable Chief Justice Callaghan, Chief Justice of the High Court of Justice, Supreme Court of Ontario, from Robert G. Keel, Keel Cottrelle Harris, Re: Peel Board of Education and Ontario Human Rights Commission, Divisional Court File Number 1077/89, January 9, 1990.

53 In response to arguments that mainstream media reflect “existing social realities and tensions,” Harold Troper and Morton Weinfeld agreed to a certain extent. They also argued that the press has “a commercially driven bias” to report minority issues in a sensational manner thus creating an “unwelcoming climate in which to advance an ethnic agenda.” H. Troper and M. Weinfeld, “Diversity in Canada,” in Ethnicity, Politics, and Public Policy , eds. H. Troper and M. Weinfeld (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999), 22, 23. John W. Spellman, head of the Institute of Asian Cultures at the University of Windsor was quoted in the Sikh News and Views as stating: “The western preoccupation with violence as news, entertainment and sensation takes on an Asian flavour by explaining complex issues as religious violence. Indians, especially Moslems and Sikhs, are labelled as fanatics thus debasing and destroying both the religion and the people.” KC. B.S. Mahal, “Damnation of Canadian Sikhs,” The Sikh News & Views , vo. xiii no. 1 (October 1988), 7.

54 The views expressed are those of Mr. Griffin and do not necessary represent the views of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Personal communication with Tony Griffin, August

148

was not a problem of race or faith. It was a problem of weapons and the threat posed by children

in schools with access to weapons:

The problem is [that] a symbol of faith can easily be used as a dangerous weapon, and society is being asked to permit that potential danger into the schools–which are populated by children who quite often act before they think. . . [The problem] is a case of a weapon and society’s fear about it. 55

If wearing kirpans was to be allowed, opined the writer, Sikhs would then face the “wrath of an angry and fearful community.” In addition, The Brampton Times reported, seventy-nine respondents in a readers’ poll agreed that kirpans should be banned in Peel schools. One commentator argued that Sikhs should behave like “real” Canadians. Another commentator insisted that “Sikhs should be willing to join us and understand Canadians.” Yet another respondent questioned the logic of debating the kirpan issue in a country such as Canada. After all, he declared, Canadians who live in foreign countries must follow foreign laws. 56 Sikhs in

Canada should follow Canadian laws. One respondent stated, tongue in cheek, that he “did not

mind” if Sikhs carried their ceremonial swords on airplanes as long as his children could carry

15, 2007 and March 21, 2010.

55 KC. Opinion, “Sikhs should understand that people fear kirpans,” The Brampton Times , February 16,1990, 4.

56 As reported in Maclean’s magazine, the results of a poll conducted by Environics Research Group in 1989 indicated that sixty-three percent of Canadians supported official multiculturalism. Surprisingly, noted the writer, in a second poll conducted by Maclean’s/Decima in 1989, results indicated that sixty-one percent of Canadians agreed that immigrants should change their culture. As much as Canadians purportedly supported multiculturalism, many also felt that immigrants should change their culture. If, as argued in Maclean’s , the large influx of immigrants to the Toronto area resulted in a sense of dislocation for some long-time residents, then it is possible that Peel residents had a heightened sense of dislocation when Sikhs fought to wear what many people considered to be weapons. Peeter Kopvillem, “An Angry Racial Backlash,” Maclean’s , July 10, 1989, 14-16.

149

their ceremonial submachine guns. 57 Taken together, The Brampton Times reflected a

community uneasy with cultural and religious diversity. 58

As the local press reported public opinion regarding kirpans, Rabbi Plaut was also “the

target of numerous missives.” 59 Susan Little, a Peel parent, and her supporters submitted a petition with over 1000 signatures to Peel Board trustees supporting the Board’s kirpan ban. 60 In

addition, Little distributed 5000 copies of an anti-kirpan letter to Peel residents to be signed and

sent to Rabbi Plaut. The letter claimed that permitting kirpans would give Canadians the

impression that the religious rights of a minority had been upheld over the rights of the Christian

majority. 61 After receiving the first few letters, Rabbi Plaut instructed his secretary to open all such mail and file it away. According to Rabbi Plaut, his ruling had not yet been delivered and he

57 KC. Amanda Kreidie, “Kirpans remain sensitive issue readers tell us,” The Brampton Times , February 16, 1990 (page not identified).

58 As reported in The Toronto Star , racism was a growing concern in the Greater Toronto Area. In the wake of a shooting of two black men by Peel and Metropolitan Toronto Police, Lieutenant-Governor Lincoln Alexander challenged businessmen to improve race relations. One “cross-cultural” consultant hired to assist businesses adapt to a workforce described as “no longer male, white, able-bodied and of Anglo-Saxon descent” contends that it is “very hip. very cool, very chic in Toronto to eat at Vietnamese, Indian and African restaurants–it makes us feel like we’re very liberal.” But he argued, “racism and bigotry are alive and well” and Canadians should not pretend otherwise. Kathleen Kenna, “Let’s not pretend racism doesn’t exist.” The Toronto Star , February 12, 1989, B4.

59 OHRC. Decision, 3.

60 Leslie Ferenc, “Dagger petition submitted,” The Toronto Star, March 8, 1990, W2.

61 Leslie Ferenc, “Letter-writing campaign launched to support ban on kirpans in schools,” The Toronto Star, March 22, 1990, W6.

150

wanted to avoid the influence of public appeals. 62 For the record, Rabbi Plaut provided clarification of his role as Human Rights Commission adjudicator:

interpret the law as it stands in the light of the evidence brought before me, cognizant, of course, of the role of courts and boards of inquiry in shaping the contents of public standards, as reflected in the use of such terms in the Code as “reasonable,” “undue hardship,” and “safety.” 63

Ontario Human Rights Commission Board of Inquiry

On February 5, 1990, the Board of Inquiry convened to hear the evidence of the

Commission. While the Commission presented its evidence, the Board was informed that its

petition to expedite its application for judicial review was successful and that the date had been

set for March 5,1990. After the Commission’s evidence was heard, as previously agreed, the

hearings stopped while Rabbi Plaut decided whether to adjourn the Board of Inquiry pending

disposition of the application for judicial review.

On consideration, Rabbi Plaut decided in favour of adjournment. For his part, Rabbi Plaut

also wanted clarification as to whether the issue of students and the Education Act came under

the purview of the Human Rights Code 1981 . As a proponent of human rights, Rabbi Plaut cared

about public perceptions of justice and about expedition. As he understood it, a superior

institution would examine certain aspects of the case. An adjournment would not have a negative

impact on the Board of Inquiry, he felt. 64 All parties awaited the decision of Divisional Court with respect to jurisdiction.

62 Plaut , More Unfinished Business , 57.

63 OHRC, Decision, 4.

64 KC. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, February 8, 1990, Volume 5, Transcript, 13, 58-63.

151

On March 9, 1990 the Divisional Court issued its ruling. It rejected the Peel Board’s

application. There was no justification, ruled the Court, to exclude education as a service under

s.1 of the Ontario Human Rights Code 65 Simply stated, the Ontario Human Rights Code had primacy over other legislation. The Peel Board’s solicitor announced that the Board would not appeal the Court’s decision because the school board’s responsibility and jurisdiction had been clarified. 66 Additional dates for the Ontario Human Rights Commission Board of Inquiry

hearings were fixed for late March and the first three weeks in April.

Board of Inquiry

As noted by Rabbi Plaut in his report ( Pandori v. Peel Board of Education (1990), 12

C.H.R.R. D/364, aff’d (1991), 3. O.R. (3d) 531), the facts of the case were not in dispute, witness

testimony was credible, and evidence was “buttressed by seventy-four exhibits.” 67 But the stakes were high. Gurcharan Singh sought intervenor status on behalf of the Federation of Sikh

Societies of Canada. The Federation anticipated that Rabbi Plaut’s ruling would set a precedent and “extend far beyond the playgrounds of the Peel Board of Education.” 68 Singh argued that the

Federation was “apolitical, democratic and national,” an organization, he insisted, that was

representative of a majority of Sikhs. On consideration, Rabbi Plaut granted the Federation

intervenor status. As he listened to witness testimony in the kirpan case, it was important to hear

65 1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or handicap. SCO File #1170/89. Order, March 5, 1990, 2.

66 Nomi Morris, “Rights probe okayed of school kirpan ban,” The Toronto Star, March 6, 1990, A13.

67 OHRC, Decision, 12.

68 KC. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, February 5, 1990, Volume 2, Transcript, 19,20.

152

out all major players, inquire as to their understanding of the issues involved, and find patterns in

their thinking and approaches. The full story unfolded slowly.

Expert witness Spellman testified before the Commission. He reviewed the history of

Sikhism from its beginnings in the fifteenth century to the present. According to Spellman:

Sikhism is certainly a religion but it is far more than a religion. It is also a people. It is, by some, considered to be a nation. It is certainly a culture. It is a creed. It is also an ancestry. Sikhism is all of these things because like Judaism and Hinduism and unlike Buddhism and Christianity, it is significantly influenced by the practice of a people, rather than focusing primarily on a specific teacher, though teachers are obviously central. (Ev. II LI) 69

When a Sikh becomes Khalsa, Spellman explained, it is considered a transgression of the faith to be without the 5 K’s. One of the 5 K’s is the kirpan. According to Spellman, the kirpan is a symbolic representation that arises from “a particular culture with a particular historical and cultural background.” In the Sikh faith, a kirpan is considered an “instrument of the divine itself.” In a Sikh home, a kirpan is unsheathed to prepare food. In the gurdwara, a kirpan is unsheathed to bless “prasad,” a Sikh communion food. 70 A kirpan cannot be made of gold, silver, plastic, paper or anything other than steel. It can be worn either inside or outside of clothing in a strap called a “gutra.” While there is no prescribed size for a kirpan, to Spellman’s knowledge, the smallest blade considered acceptable was 3.5 inches. Is the kirpan a weapon? “[The kirpan] is not designed, it is not intended, it is not meant and it is not used as a weapon,” he stated, “so I have to conclude it is not a weapon.” As further evidence that a kirpan is not a weapon, Spellman

69 OHRC. Decision, 4.

70 Karah Prasad is a pudding prepared in an iron vessel from flour, sugar and ghee. After reciting a prayer of thanksgiving, the man officiating touches the Karah Prasad with a Kirpan. Rehat Maryada, A Guide to the Sikh Way of Life . Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandrak Committee, Amritsar, 1978. SCO File #793/90. Notice of Appeal. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, February 5, 1990, Volume 1, Transcript, 89, 95, 98.

153 referred to the letter in his possession from Mark MacGuigan, former minster of justice, to the president of the World Sikh Organization. In that letter, MacGuigan claimed that the

Government of Canada did not consider, nor list the kirpan as “a restricted and prohibited weapon.”

Spellman compared the kirpan to other artifacts with the appearance of a weapon but without the meaning of a weapon. One such item, he said, is the mace. In the past, the mace served the function of a club during times of war. At present, he noted, the mace sits by the speaker in the House of Commons as a symbol of power, authority and dignity. Another such item is the sword. Once a weapon, said Spellman, in present day England, the queen confers knighthood with a sword, a representation of chivalry, gallantry, and courtly behaviour.

Can a kirpan be altered to make it less objectionable to non-Sikhs? No, Spellman insisted,

“You cannot grind the blade. You cannot sharpen it. You cannot make it duller. . .You cannot cut off the tip.” Comparing a Sikh kirpan to a Christian crucifix, Spellman suggested that a crucifix might be considered a potential weapon because it resembles a hammer. Should the arms of the crucifix be “lopped off,” thereby making it safer? Is the object still a crucifix without its arms?

No, Spellman argued, it was not: “A crucifix is a crucifix, and it exists in its full integrity. No less is a kirpan and that includes the ability to take it out, put it in, not have it blunted, not have it dulled, and by the same token, not have it sharpened.” Additionally, while all Khalsa Sikhs are obligated to wear a kirpan, non-baptized Sikhs may wear articles of the Sikh faith as a symbol of their Sikh cultural identity. According to Spellman: “We are also talking about a symbol of identity of a community, of which this is one of those symbols, and in that context, you cannot,

154

in my judgment, properly deny to a community symbols that are part of its history and its culture

and its belief system, its identity.” 71

The discussion turned from Sikh religious observance to Spellman’s characterization of

Sikhs as a minority group in Canada. According to Spellman, an estimated one quarter million

Sikhs resided in Canada. Approximately 10 percent were baptized. Spellman pointed out that

Khalsa Sikhs were an admirable and law-abiding group with high ethical and moral standards. In one hundred years of Sikh residence in Canada, the kirpan had been misused on only three or four occasions, said Spellman. 72 When respondent counsel introduced evidence linking Sikhs to kirpan crimes, Spellman “burst into an angry speech.” There is no justification, he contended, for vilifying an entire community on the basis of individual actions. Said Spellman, “I don’t know how many Poles, Italians, Jews or Christians have used other things to make an assault without having that used as evidence against an entire community” 73

Spellman presented the Board of Inquiry with a guide for standard behaviour in the Sikh

faith:

What size of kirpan a Khalsa Sikh might choose to wear was his/her personal choice; While “standard” Sikhism does not approve of miniaturization of the kirpan, some Sikhs might consider a miniature kirpan an acceptable size; Some Khalsa Sikhs will surrender their kirpan when traveling on airplanes, considering this is a situation of compulsion; Dr. Spellman doubted that, as it was related, a Khalsa Sikh could have received permission from the panch pyari at a certain gurdwara to surrender his kirpan to the security police at an airport and stow it with his luggage. Whether to wear the kirpan inside or outside of one’s clothing is

71 SCO File #793/90. Notice of Appeal. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, February 5, 1990, Volume 1, Transcript, 113, 138, 140, 117. 119, 132.

72 OHRC. Decision, 7.

73 Nomi Morris, “Board asks court to halt rights hearing,” The Toronto Star , February 7, 1990, A4.

155

a personal choice; [and] There is no one Sikh organization that speaks for all members of the community in Ontario or Canada.

Further evidence presented the Board of Inquiry regarding the Sikh faith came by letter

from India. In December 1989 Marilyn Ginsburg, counsel for the Commission, wrote to the

Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) in Amritsar, India, requesting information

about the kirpan. The SGPC is unduly regarded as the “supreme religious instance of the Sikh

faith.” 74 Respondent counsel agreed to admit the letter as an exhibit with the understanding that

not all Sikhs in Canada followed its guidelines:

No definite size of the Kirpan has been fixed, although it should not be reduced to a mere formal size. A one foot Kirpan is usual. Children’s kirpans will usually be smaller than those of adults. No baptised Sikh may remove his/her Kirpan under any circumstances. There is no religious injunction that the Kirpan must be worn in plain view. “It should be worn sensibly and not shyly, certainly without any sense of concealment.” The Kirpan should be easily removable from its sheath. It must not be sewn, though the handle may be tied down. A baptised Sikh is not to use the Kirpan in anger as a weapon; if he/she does so, that person is guilty of misconduct. In case of any such complaint the panch pyari will summon the person, judge him/her and pronounce the penalty. Non-appearance or insubordination may result in religious excommunication, following which the observant community would likely ostracize the person concerned. 75

Uncontested Facts

As noted by Rabbi Plaut in his report, the Peel Board did not dispute the kirpan’s spiritual

significance for adherents of the Sikh faith. Despite the kirpan’s religious significance for Sikhs,

Board officials insisted that the kirpan had the appearance of a weapon and could be perceived as

such by other people. The kirpan therefore fit the Peel Board’s meaning of a weapon as noted in

74 Spellman stated that the SGPC is the official organization of the Sikhs constituted by the Punjab government under the Sikh Gurdwara Act of 1925. It is a representative and elected body of Sikhs that controls the gurdwaras in Punjab. According to Spellman, the SGPC published the Rehat Maryada, the Sikh code of discipline. SCO File # 793/90. Notice of Appeal. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, February 5, 1990, Volume 1, Transcript, 126, 127.

75 OHRC. Decision, 10.

156

its disciplinary policy. Submitted to Rabbi Plaut in an agreed statement of facts, relevant sections

of the Board’s policy were highlighted:

The Peel Board of Education is a public Board of Education which provides elementary and secondary education pursuant to the Education Act, and the trustees of the Board are elected pursuant to the provisions of that Act and the Municipal Elections Act of Ontario;

Ss. 235 and 236 of the Education Act list among the duties of teachers and principals “to maintain proper order and discipline.” Section 236(m) states:

[It is the duty of a principal of a school in addition to his duties as a teacher] subject to an appeal to the Board, to refuse to admit to the school or classroom a person whose presence in the school or classroom would in his judgment be detrimental to the physical or mental well-being of the pupils. 76

Since 1976, the Peel Board had maintained an Operating Procedure prohibiting all weapons. In 1979, the Board developed a Discipline Policy. Both the Operating Procedure and

Discipline Policy had been developed in response to the increasing incidence of violence in Peel schools. After investigating the kirpan issue and attempting to negotiate a compromise that would satisfy both Sikhs and Board officials, the issue came before the Peel Board’s trustees for a decision. In December 1988 the Board’s Discipline Policy No. 48, was amended to stipulate that baptized Khalsa Sikhs were welcome in Peel schools without their kirpans. Even if the kirpan had spiritual significance for Sikhs, other people perceived it as a weapon. From the perspective of the Peel Board, prohibiting kirpans was consistent with the policy prohibiting all weapons. As noted in item 13:

The Board shall require each principal to include a statement in the school’s discipline policy to communicate to parents, students and staff, that the possession and/or display of weapons on school property (buildings and land) may result in a recommendation being presented to the Board of Education for expulsion of that student.

76 OHRC. Decision, 11.

157

When the policy was amended by the Peel Board, item 14 was added:

In keeping with item 13 above, students will not be allowed to possess weapons of any nature, including kirpans, on school property. Baptized Sikh students who wear kirpans will be subject to the following regulations:

i) If the kirpan is left at home, students are welcomed and encouraged to participate in all school activities.

ii) A Sikh student may attend school wearing a symbolic representation of the kirpan provided that symbolic representation does not involve a metal blade that could be used as a weapon.

iii) It is a requirement of the Peel Board of Education that these regulations be communicated annually to all students and to new students upon registration. (Exhibit 29)

Harbhajan Singh Pandori: Complainant

As noted by Rabbi Plaut in his report, complainant Pandori was a Khalsa Sikh teacher

who wished to be restored to “his right to exercise his religion his religion peacefully and

without interference.” Pandori sought “neither special nor general damages.” Pandori informed

the Board of Inquiry that he taught night school for the Peel Board of Education from 1983 to

1987. He also worked as supply teacher for the Peel Board during regular school hours. After

being baptized as a Khalsa Sikh in 1987, Pandori wore the 5 K’s at all times to fulfill, in part, the

religious obligations of a Khalsa Sikh, with the exception of three air trips. 77

In 1988, recalled Pandori, he received a telephone call from Miller on behalf of the Peel

Board. Miller asked Pandori to stop wearing his kirpan while teaching. Insulted, Pandori informed Miller that he did not appreciate his racist remarks. Furthermore, he asked that Miller

77 Pandori had to surrender the kirpan during air travel. When he consulted the panch pyari, he was instructed to pray and make atonement in hopes of sparing other Sikhs from a similar indignity. OHRC. Decision, 11,12,13.

158

provide his request in writing. According to Pandori, he sought written verification from Miller

to ascertain whether he was authorized to act on behalf of the Peel Board.

At the time of the Board of Inquiry, Pandori was employed as a teacher with the

Etobicoke Board of Education. Before accepting his Etobicoke teaching position, Pandori had

advised the interviewing principal of his human rights claim against the Peel Board. According

to Pandori, the Etobicoke principal assured him that wearing a kirpan was not a problem in the

Etobicoke Board. 78 Since working in Etobicoke, Pandori has worn his kirpan at all times without issue.

In his report, Rabbi Plaut noted that the kirpan issue had had a profound impact on the

Pandori family and touched “the deepest layers of faith and emotion.” Rabbi Plaut observed that

Pandori had testified “with great bitterness” about his daughter’s reaction to an item in the Peel

Board’s Information Handbook stating that the Sikh kirpan was prohibited in all Peel schools.

His daughter felt demeaned by the information pertaining to Sikhs and kirpans, said Pandori. In his opinion, the Peel Board’s actions were racially motivated. While Rabbi Plaut did not concur with Pandori’s allegation of racially motivated discrimination, he acknowledged the damaging impact of stereotyping on visible minorities in Canada:

Sikhs are readily identifiable by their habit, and this provokes a cluster of anxieties and prejudices. This experience is not confined to Sikhs, of course, and many other visible minorities and even non-visible minorities have been subjected to discrimination of all sorts, and it is precisely to this that the Code directs itself. 79

78 SCO File # 793/90. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, February 7, 1990, Volume 3, Transcript, 145, 135.

79 OHRC. Decision, 14.

159

Kirpan Policy in Other Jurisdictions: Testimonies Given at the Board of Inquiry

Inderjit Mehat

Witnesses for the Commission gave evidence about how the kirpan is dealt with in other

Canadian school jurisdictions. Evidence on kirpan policy came by letter from the University of

Toronto, York University, George Brown College, Humber College, and the Scarborough Board of Education. None of the school jurisdictions had a specific kirpan policy. Taken together, the evidence revealed that the Peel Board was alone in Ontario in labeling kirpans a safety concern requiring a total ban. Other school jurisdictions addressed kirpans with more flexible procedures. 80 In the universities and colleges, the kirpan issue was not addressed because the

issue had never arisen.

Inderjit Mehat, formerly of the Surrey Board in British Columbia, testified about the

kirpan experience in British Columbia. At the time of his testimony, Mehat was on secondment

from the Surrey Board to the British Columbia Ministry of Education as co-ordinator for

multiculturalism and heritage languages. He reported that a greater number of Sikhs resided in

Surrey than Peel. Nonetheless, kirpans were not banned in Surrey or other parts of British

Columbia. While there were reports of intra-community violence from within the Surrey Indo-

Canadian community, the kirpan had never been used aggressively to Mehat’s knowledge. 81

Three kirpan cases had arisen in the Surrey Board, said Mehat. Each case was resolved amicably. Mehat and his colleagues in the Surrey Board anticipated that additional kirpan-related

80 OHRC. Decision, 23.

81 SCO File # 793/90. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, February 7, 1990, Volume 3, Transcript, 1, 36.

160

issues might arise. To deal with those issues, a home-school worker was assigned to visit a Sikh

child’s home. In discussions with parents, it was hoped that the home-school worker would be

able to ascertain whether a child carrying a kirpan to school was a baptized Sikh. If so, the home-

school worker would discuss the educational implications of having a kirpan at school.

According to Mehat, the Surrey Board did not coerce anyone to remove a kirpan. In his words,

“the last thing we want to do is assimilate children into the school system.” 82

Mehat recounted one situation involving a kindergarten or grade one student who wore a kirpan to school. When the school’s principal saw the kirpan, he was alarmed and sent the child home. After discussion with the Surrey Board’s home-school worker, the parents volunteered to remove the kirpan until their son was older. Pressure for baptism had come from relatives in

India, the child’s parents explained. On the other hand, Mehat insisted, if the parents had decided differently, the Surrey board would have accepted their decision.

“There is a need to validate the experiences and give recognition in legislation or in policy to the rights of minorities.” Implying that the Peel kirpan policy was a case of cultural discrimination, Mehat continued by saying that if minorities in Canada do not feel validated,

“that is not multiculturalism.” 83 Rabbi Plaut disagreed with Mehat’s suggestion that the Peel

Board’s actions were “culturally motivated.” Mehat gave no proof that prejudice had played a part in the Board’s policy. Furthermore, a comparison of school board positions on multiculturalism, racism, and human rights indicated that the Peel Board’s policy was no less affirming than that of the Surrey Board. A meaningful comparison of the two school boards

82 SCO File # 793/90. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, February 7, 1990, Volume 3, Transcript, 28.

83 SCO File # 793/90. OHRC, Chairman, Board of Inquiry, February 7, 1990, Volume 3, Transcript, 94.

161

would, however, be inconclusive because weapons statistics for the schools of British Columbia

were not available. 84

Roy Hardie

Roy Hardie, superintendent of education of the North York Board recounted that Board’s kirpan experience. According to Hardie, kirpan discussions in the Peel Board precipitated similar discussions in the North York Board. After consulting with T. Sher Singh, director of the

Macauliffe Institute of Sikh Studies, Hardie issued a memorandum to North York staff recommending procedures to be followed by principals in dealing with the kirpan. With reference to the kirpan’s spiritual, non-martial connotation, the memo advised that principals should consider each kirpan case on an individual basis, guided by the Board’s ideals of safety and respect for human rights. As Hardie understood it, the relationship between the Sikh community and the North York Board of Education was “good.” There was no blanket ban on kirpans. Where an issue with regard to a kirpan came up, it was resolved to the mutual satisfaction of the North York Board and Sikhs.

Cross-examination revealed that North York Board officials had not put the kirpan question before trustees for a vote. Neither had officials consulted with the Ontario Secondary

School Teachers Federation or elementary teachers’ associations on the matter. Hardie knew that the Ontario Public School Board Association had passed a resolution endorsing the Peel Board’s kirpan ban; however, North York did not feel it necessary to follow Peel’s example because

North York’s kirpan procedure had proven satisfactory. According to Hardie, a policy could

84 OHRC. Decision, 20, 19.

162

“carve the issue in stone.” From his perspective, a workable administrative procedure was flexible and consistent with the North York Board’s race relations and multicultural policy. 85

When questioned about violence in North York schools, Hardie contended that acts of violence varied in degree and nature. In addition to physical violence, Hardie was concerned about the impact of non-physical violence. 86 Hardie also observed that persons intent on violence in schools had ample access to potential weapons such as scissors, exacto knives, woodworking lathe tools, telephone message holders, butcher knives, and other common items. As he saw it, a practicing Sikh with a securely fastened kirpan represented “a far more secure situation.”

Ralph Prentice

Ralph Prentice, associate director of the Etobicoke Board of Education, testified that the

Etobicoke Board had not implemented a ban but had put in place an administrative procedure with respect to kirpans on August 31, 1987. After discussing the kirpan issue with Sikh representatives, Prentice said, Etobicoke Board officials accepted the wearing of a six inch symbolic kirpan secured beneath clothing. School board officials also decided that, as a matter of safety, kirpans would not be permitted during physical education classes. If physical education was compulsory, then Sikh parents who did not consent to the temporary removal of the kirpan could request a formal class exemption. According to Prentice, the Etobicoke Board understood kirpans as an issue of religious and cultural sensitivity as opposed to “other types of issues.” 87

85 SCO File # 793/90. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, February 7, 1990, Volume 3, Transcript, 177, 176.

86 SCO File # 793/90. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, February 7, 1990, Volume 3, Transcript, 184.

87 SCO File # 793/90. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, February 7, 1990, Volume 3, Transcript,

163

Any kirpan inquiry was directed to the Etobicoke Board’s Multicultural Department. Since the

Etobicoke Board did not require a Sikh to give notification, or seek permission to wear a kirpan,

Prentice did not know how many Sikhs with kirpans attended Etobicoke schools. From his

perspective, the Board’s kirpan procedure worked well.

Comparing North York and Etobicoke regulations, Rabbi Plaut pointed out that the

Etobicoke Board’s kirpan regulations were more restrictive in some ways than those of North

York and less restrictive in other ways. The Etobicoke Board, for example, stipulated the

maximum length for a kirpan worn to school and insisted that kirpans be secured. Also,

Etobicoke students wearing kirpans were excluded from physical education classes. Etobicoke

was less restrictive than North York, said Rabbi Plaut, because permission to wear a kirpan to

school was not required. 88

David Weldon

Weldon, superintendent of operations for the Peel Board, reported on meetings attended

by Board officials and Sikh representatives with the objective of negotiating a way for Khalsa

Sikhs to attend Peel schools without violating Sikh religious responsibilities in a way compatible

with safety concerns of the school board. Despite the Board’s best efforts, he explained, internal

inconsistencies among Sikhs prevented agreement. Some Sikhs agreed that a replica kirpan

would be acceptable for wearing to school. Others disagreed. Some Sikhs felt that a kirpan could

be firmly secured to prevent extraction from the kirpan’s sheath. Others found that suggestion

untenable. Discussions between Peel Board officials and Sikh representatives thus ended without

agreement. For his part, Weldon would have recommended any workable arrangement to the

196, 200, 202, 207.

88 OHRC. Decision, 23.

164

Board. 89 Finding no compromise possible, Board officials recommended that Peel Board’s

Discipline Policy No. 48 be modified so as to prohibit kirpans.

Weldon also described the Board’s attempts to keep students Sukhdev Hundal and

Paramvir Singh in school. According to Weldon, Hundal was seen wearing a kirpan at school in

1988. After investigating, school officials permitted Hundal to continue wearing his kirpan while

working under the supervision of the vice-principal near his office. At first Hundal agreed with

the plan. After a time, tired of being segregated, he demanded to be returned to class with his

kirpan. As a result of his refusal to comply, Hundal was suspended. Weldon also testified about

the case of Paramvir Singh, the grade four student who was observed wearing a kirpan to school

in 1987. After the school’s principal met with Paramvir’s parents, it was agreed with his parents

that Paramvir would wear the kirpan while working near the school’s office under supervision.

In January 1989 the Peel Board’s kirpan ban took effect and Paramvir’s parents decided to

withdraw him from school and educate him at home rather than remove his kirpan. 90 Under cross-examination, Weldon admitted that kirpan restrictions in the Peel Board had resulted in differential treatment of Sikh students. 91 As reported in The Toronto Star, Commission counsel accused Weldon of banning the kirpan to appease parents worried about increasing violence in

89 OHRC. Decision, 15.

90 The Peel Board argued that there was no need for any student to become Khalsa while still in school. SCO File # 1170/89. Ontario Human Rights Commission, Respondent Questionnaire, Case No. 50-939B, January 12, 1989, Fact 10, 7.

91 OHRC. Decision, 16.

165

Peel schools. 92 Weldon, however, denied that the Peel Board’s kirpan policy was “designed as a

sop to fearful parents.” 93

Questioning explored the role played by Zubeda Vahed, an employee in the Peel Board’s

Operations Department and its consultant for multiculturalism and race relations. Prior to joining the Operations Department, Vahed worked in the Board’s Program Department where her responsibilities included examining issues of multiculturalism in the curriculum. 94 As noted in

The Mississauga News, Commission counsel “seemed incredulous” that the Board’s

multiculturalism consultant did not speak at the meeting when it was decided that Sukhdev

Hundal was to be barred from school. 95 Neither had Vahed attended any of the three meetings to

discuss the kirpan issue with Peel Board officials, community members, and Sikh

representatives. 96 Even if the Board regarded the kirpan problem as a matter of safety, rather than

cultural conflict, Commission counsel questioned the logic of excluding the Peel Board’s

multicultural consultant from the kirpan discussions. 97

92 Paula Todd, “Official says discrimination not intended,” The Toronto Star , March 27, 1990, A4.

93 OHRC. Decision, 16.

94 SCO File # 793/90. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, February 7, 1990, Volume 4, Transcript, 74.

95 KC. “Kirpan hearings concluded,” The Mississauga News , April 8, 1990, (page not identified).

96 SCO File # 793/90. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, March 26, 1990, Volume 4, Transcript, 121.

97 Thinking back, Vahed understood the Peel Board’s logic. The Peel Board, said Vahed, did not address matters of concern through community work but rather through formal processes. Interview with Zubeda Vahed, Mississauga, June 2007.

166

Commission counsel established that the Board’s past experience with weapons led to

precautions against similar violence in the future. If past experience made the Board sensitive to

the issue of weapons in the schools, why focus on the kirpan? According to Weldon, a kirpan

had never been used as a weapon in any Canadian school. On the other hand, common items

including baseball bats and drumsticks had been used as weapons in Peel schools. If those

common items had not been prohibited by the Peel Board, Commission counsel asked, what was

the Peel Board’s logic in banning the kirpan? 98

Another point of discussion was the inconsistency between the Peel Board’s kirpan

policy and the policies of other school boards. Why did the Peel Board find it necessary to ban

kirpans while the neighbouring school boards of Toronto, Scarborough, North York, and

Etobicoke did not? 99 Rather than “elicit reasons” why Peel should be different from neighbouring school boards, questioning by Rabbi Plaut revealed that Weldon did not bring information regarding the kirpan policies of other school boards to the Peel Board’s attention prior to its December 13 meeting.

By way of explanation, Weldon said, the Board tried to bridge the religious needs of

Khalsa Sikhs and safety concerns. But given a growing incidence of violence in Peel schools, particularly violence involving knives, the Board felt compelled to act in defence of student

98 SCO File #793/90. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, March 26, 1990, Volume 4, Transcript, 163,154.

99 Reflecting back, Parrish said: “I think they had higher [ numbers of] ethnic groups than we did at the time. . . North York particularly had a more diverse population and were learning to be tolerant in little steps rather than all of a sudden being thrown into the middle of it. They didn’t have a shooting in any of their schools. And they probably had a more diverse group of trustees. I know in North York there were a lot of Jewish kids. They would have had religious issues, they would have had kids wearing yarmulkes, they would have had a special series of holidays which we didn’t recognize here. It was just a different culture.” Interview with C. Parrish, Mississauga, March 7, 2007.

167

safety. Weldon considered the Peel Board’s approach to have been reasonable, pro-active, and

formulated in good faith.

Tony Pontes

Tony Pontes, vice-principal of Central Peel Secondary School, described his involvement

in the kirpan issue. After discovering Hundal wearing a kirpan at school, Pontes advised the

school’s principal of the situation. The principal, in turn, sought guidance from Board superiors.

This, Rabbi Plaut noted, necessitated that everyone learn about Sikhism. 100 Talks with Sikh spokespersons began. Finding no common agreement among Sikhs on kirpans and little will to compromise, Hundal’s suspension continued. Eventually, the kirpan issue proceeded to Board trustees for consideration. Looking back, Pontes observed differences between the Peel Board and other school boards in addressing issues of concern:

Some boards have a much more local process where schools are really autonomous and they make their own good common sense decisions. And then there are other boards that are much more centralized. Certainly the Peel Board at the time [was] very centralized in the sense that schools were expected to be discussing serious issues with the Central Board Office and getting expert recommendations. 101

In his decision, Rabbi Plaut questioned the appropriateness of the centralized decision-making

process that characterized the Peel Board’s response to the kirpan issue. Said Rabbi Plaut:

Given the large and variegated nature of the Peel system, a wholesale approach might work in some areas but might not meet the needs of others. Where it touches upon a particular segment of the community, such as Sikhs, only a very

100 OHRC. Decision, 16, 14, 27

101 Interview with Tony Pontes, Brampton, January 29, 2007.

168

clearly defined situation-which is best determined on an individual school level– might render special measures defensible. Such individuation will make for greater flexibility and equity. 102

Norman Gollert

Norman Gollert, the operations officer for the Peel Board, advised Pontes about Sikh religious sensitivities in the Hundal case. As part of his duties, he prepared a survey tracking incidents of violence with knives in Peel schools. He also surveyed a number of other school boards to ascertain their policies regarding weapons in general and kirpans in particular. His findings indicated that few school boards had a weapons policy and, except for Peel, none had a specific kirpan policy. After meeting with Sikh representatives, Gollert also learned that individual Sikhs determined “the strictness of their observance.” 103

As reported in The Toronto Star, Gollert, who had been a school principal for fourteen

years, “faced students armed with switchblades, home-made stilettos, Ninja knives and a variety

of other bladed weapons.” 104 Concluding that kirpans added yet another danger to an already

volatile school environment, Gollert advocated modification of Policy No. 48 by including

kirpans on its list of weapons.

Gollert’s testimony added no new facts, Rabbi Plaut noted. His testimony was significant,

however, because it highlighted the increasing incidence of knife-related violence in Peel

schools. Gollert’s testimony also demonstrated that the Board’s policy was solely based on local

considerations rather than on the experience of other school boards.

102 OHRC. Decision, 59.

103 OHRC. Decision, 27, 28.

104 Leslie Papp, “300 knife incidents spark kirpan fear, probe told,: The Toronto Star, April 5, 1990, A26.

169

William Malcolm Campbell

In 1987/1988 William Malcolm Campbell was principal of Ridgewood Public School

where Paramvir Singh attended grade four classes wearing a kirpan. After receiving notification

from his vice-principal regarding Paramvir’s kirpan, the principal met with Paramvir’s parents

on November 5, 1987.

At the meeting, Paramvir’s parents explained that Paramvir wore a kirpan to school as part of the obligations of the Sikh faith. Paramvir’s parents also provided Campbell with information about the kirpan’s religious significance. Campbell responded that all weapons were prohibited by Peel Board policy. Paramvir’s father, in turn, pointed out that a kirpan was a

“ceremonial sign.” It was not to be construed as a weapon. After the meeting, Campbell decided to permit Paramvir to wear his kirpan to school with certain restrictions. Campbell asked that:

there be no reference made to the kirpan, no indication of it being used as a threat, referred to as an item that could be used in a threatening way, that ideally it would not be visible, would not be communicated in general with other students, and indicated that the misuse or a threat pattern would likely result in a disciplinary action under the nature and support of the Board policy.

According to Campbell, Paramvir’s father supported the steps taken to guard against inappropriate use of a kirpan.

From past experience with the Sikh community, Campbell explained, he was familiar with Sikh religious observance. On a previous occasion, the principal had met with Sikh representatives for discussions about Sikhism and the 5 K’s. At that time, Campbell received printed material on the Sikh faith from the Sikh representatives. Campbell also read an article about a kirpan issue in a professional publication entitled “Discrimination Claim for Sikh

Student.” The article, published in the April 1987 edition of Canadian School Executive ,

reported on the Tuli kirpan issue in Alberta.

170

After the meeting between his parents and his principal in November, all went well for

Paramvir at school until the following spring. On May 31, 1988 Campbell’s superiors advised

him that the Board now prohibited kirpans in Peel schools. 105 Campbell, his superintendent, and

Paramvir’s father met to discuss the new kirpan regulations. It was decided that Paramvir would wear a replica kirpan to school not to exceed three and one half inches in length. Unaware of the exact length of Paramvir’s kirpan, his father gave permission for Campbell to measure the kirpan at school.

On June 1, 1988 Campbell measured Paramvir’s kirpan. He found that it was six inches in length, thereby exceeding the accepted parameters for a replica kirpan established by the Peel

Board. After speaking to Paramvir’s father, Campbell allowed Paramvir to work under the principal’s supervision near the school’s office. On June 7, 1989, Paramvir came to school wearing an even larger kirpan. Pending discussions between Paramvir’s father and Sikh religious authorities in Amritsar, India, it was agreed that the Peel Board would defer issuing Paramvir a formal suspension.

While everyone waited for clarification from India, an upsetting incident changed

Campbell’s mind about kirpans. On June 17, 1988, as Paramvir and a friend walked home from school, he became involved in a dispute with two older boys. When they threatened him,

Paramvir defensively clasped the handle of his kirpan and shouted, “This is the way we punch in India.” 106 Alarmed at the implied threat, the older boys fled. They subsequently reported the kirpan incident to the principal. Confronted with the threat of the kirpan being used

105 SCO File # 793/90. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, April 5, 6, 1990, Volume 7, Transcript, 9, 10, 16.

106 OHRC. Decision, 38.

171 as a weapon, albeit defensively, Campbell swung his support to the Board’s new kirpan restrictions. It was likely, Campbell felt, that boys “being overly assertive” would use “the sharp tongue, the negative communication, hands, feet, spittle, and also, the kirpan.” 107

In his report, Rabbi Plaut described Campbell as a highly responsible witness with obvious concern for the religious needs of the Singh family. According to Rabbi Plaut new facts emerged from the principal’s testimony. One was that the Peel Board had not accepted the proposal of the Singh family to secure Paramvir’s kirpan inside his clothing. Another was that

Paramvir, when threatened, saw the kirpan as a potential weapon. Rabbi Plaut also acknowledged that Campbell understood that violence had many different faces.

Carolyn Parrish

Parrish, a former teacher and Peel Board trustee since 1985, was elected chairperson of the Board in November 1988, just prior to the meeting at which kirpans were banned. Parrish indicated that she saw no conflict between respect for minority cultures and religions as required by the Board’s multiculturalism policy and its policy banning kirpans. As noted by Rabbi Plaut in his report, Parrish was present at the May 10, 1988 meeting of the Peel Board when Hundal’s suspension was discussed. Recalling that various kirpans were viewed at the meeting, Parrish stated:

I would have presumed [the kirpan] was a potential weapon, and that when I saw. . . the kirpans that evening, that the weight of them, even the weight of the scabbards, was very overpowering. It was obviously a weapon. 108

107 SCO File # 793/90. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, April 5, 6, 1990, Volume 7, Transcript, 61.

108 OHRC. Decision, 31, 24.

172

On December 13, 1988, Parrish chaired the meeting of the Board at which trustees voted

to amend Policy No. 48 and ban kirpans. According to Parrish, she supported the administrative

resolution to ban kirpans because no compromise had been reached by the Sikh community and

the Board. Said Parrish:

If there was no compromise then the weapons policy had to be enforced and kirpans had to be classified as weapons because wearing them openly and wearing them easily removed from the scabbard was something that I could not live with. 109

Were kirpans a problem? No. Under cross-examination by Commission counsel, Parrish admitted that there had been no incidents of kirpan violence in Peel schools. She further agreed that students attending Peel schools had access to hundreds of scissors, screwdrivers, chisels and knives. What is more, kirpans or no kirpans, violence was at a peak in the overcrowded schools of the Peel Board.

Commission counsel questioned why kirpans should be banned from schools if they did not play in school violence? Weapons were banned, Parrish insisted, because they were inherently dangerous. The difference between banning weapons and banning kirpans, she explained, was that the Peel Board had tried for eight months to find a compromise that would accommodate the religious requirements of Khalsa Sikhs. Commission counsel asked Parrish if

Peel schools had been safer since the kirpan ban took effect. No, Parrish admitted, after confirming that the question was not “facetious.” Incidents of violence, she insisted, “are increasing on a day to day basis as they do in other school boards.”

109 SCO File # 793/90. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, March 27, 1990, Volume 5, Transcript, 13.

173

When questioned further, Parrish explained that her view on kirpans differed from the

perspective of the majority of Peel Board trustees. The Board’s response, she informed

Commission counsel, was to forbid the wearing of kirpans in Peel schools. For her part, Parrish

saw room for compromise. Kirpans would be a “non-issue” she felt, if worn concealed under

clothing and made very difficult to withdraw. Parrish explained that she was compelled to give

her personal opinion, even if her view conflicted the Board’s perspective, because she was under

oath. 110

Later, recalling her testimony before the Board of Inquiry, Parrish explained that she testified as chairperson of the Peel Board; and, as chairperson of the Board, Parrish felt obliged to present the perspective of other trustees:

A chairman of a Board is elected by the other trustees once a year. So you really don’t have any independent powers. It’s not like the mayor that is elected by all the people. You are there to serve the other trustees and you sit at their pleasure. So a lot of times you have to take a position that reflects the majority of the Board. The Board at that time was probably nine tenths against wearing kirpans to school.

According to Parrish, trustees were advised by Peel Board staff to treat the kirpan as a weapon.

She recalled feeling “torn” because her feelings were in opposition to the Board’s perspective.

The trustees delayed making a decision until further information was made available. At the December 13, 1988 meeting of the Board, delegations of Sikhs made submissions about methods for securing a kirpan. The minister of citizenship also sent a letter asking to meet with

Peel Board officials before they made a decision. They did not do so. According to Rabbi Plaut,

110 SCO File #793/90. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, March 27, 1990, Volume 5, Transcript, 108,110. 121.

174 it was not his place to speculate why Peel Board trustees proceeded to rule on the kirpan without first meeting with the minister. His task, he insisted, was to decide whether the Board’s decision was compatible with the Code’s provisions.

According to Parrish, Board trustees took the position that there was to be no negotiation.

Parrish asked to be questioned both as chair of the Peel Board and as an individual trustee. She later recalled:

I had a lot of respect for Dr. Plaut. I think he is a fantastic human rights advocate and was very learned and really I respected him a lot. . . I can remember feeling a little ashamed of the Board’s position and the fact that I had to, by law or convention, convey that impression. And of course you always had one or two trustees sitting in the audience listening so you couldn’t deviate.

Parrish gave her opinion on the kirpan issue from two perspectives. As Board chair she insisted that the kirpan should not be permitted. As an individual, she said that she had no difficulty with the wearing of kirpans in schools as long as safety precautions were put in place. According to

Parrish, “There had never been any incidents. . . nobody dropped a kirpan on their toe in phys ed.” When the ruling came out, she recalled, “ I was quite gleeful and immediately removed as chairman of the Board.” 111

Linda Palazzi

Linda Palazzi, superintendent of schools for the Peel Board in 1988, was involved in the decision to suspend Sukhdev Hundal. As Palazzi understood it, the kirpan was a weapon.

According to the Commission, “the inclusion of the kirpan. . . under the weapons provisions, represents a flawed understanding of what kirpans really are.” It was evident, said Rabbi Plaut,

111 Interview with C. Parrish, Mississauga, March 7, 2007.

175

that Palazzi “viewed the kirpan from one perspective while Sikhs viewed it from another.” And,

“that difference ran like a thread throughout the hearings.” 112

When questioned by the Peel Board’s counsel, Palazzi described a chance encounter with

Hundal that led her, in hindsight, to question the sincerity and depth of his religious commitment to the Sikh faith. Approximately one year after Hundal was suspended from the Board, Palazzi encountered him at the Pearson Airport. According to Palazzi, Hundal wore a turban, “very form-fitting shirt,” and “very form-fitting pants.” Notably absent was any sign of his kirpan. Said

Palazzi:

I looked very carefully because obviously, having been so involved, I was fascinated, and there was absolutely no sign of any kirpan that I could see, and from what I saw, [the kirpan] could not possibly have been hidden under the shirt or anything. 113

Under cross-examination by Commission counsel, Palazzi conceded the possibility that Sukhdev

had been wearing his kirpan at the airport and that she did not see it. Also, Palazzi admitted, she

did not know whether Sukhdev did not wear his kirpan at the airport because of Transport

Canada’s restrictions.

In another line of questioning, Commission counsel asked Palazzi if, in her opinion, it

was realistic to assume that school board policy could ensure school safety. According to

Commission counsel, maximizing safety through policy was a realistic goal while guaranteeing

112 OHRC. Decision, 25.

113 KC. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, April 4, 1990, Volume 8, Transcript, 25, 27.

176

safety was not possible. After debating the matter, Palazzi admitted that she could not guarantee

anything in life. School board policy, she eventually conceded, could not ensure school safety. 114

Zubeda Vahed

As noted in Rabbi Plaut’s report, Zubeda Vahed, multiculturalism and race relations officer of the Peel Board, admitted that the language in Policy No. 48 would not make a Sikh student “feel that his culture and identity were validated by the educational system.” Vahed’s testimony indicated that “the phrasing of the handbook was not compatible with the basic objectives of the Board’s own department on race relations.” 115 Despite the fact that she was the

Peel Board’s multicultural consultant, Vahed had not been asked to provide information regarding Sikhism. Nor had she been invited to participate in the meetings held with Sikh representatives, Board officials, and community members to find a compromise for wearing the kirpan.

In questioning Vahed, Peel Board counsel demonstrated that the Board had a multicultural race relations program, took issues of multiculturalism into account in developing policy, and had an education process in place with respect to Sikhism. Vahed’s role as multicultural and race relations officer involved community consultations, developing resource materials, and arranging visits to places of worship. 116

Peel Board counsel asked Vahed to explain how she handled questions about religion.

When not conversant with a particular faith, Vahed explained, she contacted members of the

114 KC. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, April 4, 1990, Volume 8, Transcript, 36.

115 OHRC. Decision, 33.

116 KC. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, April 5, 1990, Volume 9, Transcript, 10-19.

177 faith community for assistance. While sensitive to the needs of different faith communities,

Vahed did not claim an understanding of all the “nuances and interpretations and values.”

Questioning revealed that Vahed had not felt sufficiently conversant with the Sikh faith to advise

Pontes, regarding Sukhdev Hundal. Instead, Vahed advised Pontes to contact Dr. Banwatt, a Sikh community representative whom Vahed considered knowledgeable about Sikhism and “issues around schools and the running of schools.” 117 On a previous occasion, Vahed had also sought the advice of Dr. Banwatt regarding a Sikh student’s turban. After determining the nature of the issue, Vahed advised the student’s parents of her role as an employee of the Peel Board. Past experience led Vahed to conclude that parents did not always understand the difference between school boards, the government, and the province. To provide clarification, Vahed explained how she could assist parents. As Vahed put it, she was not the “Human Rights [Commission.]”

Cross-examination by the Commission showed that Vahed was the sole multicultural officer for the largest school board in Canada. Vahed also helped draft the Peel Board’s multicultural policy that predated the kirpan issue. Questioning confirmed that the Board’s multicultural policy went beyond culture to include questions of race and religion. Vahed agreed with Commission counsel that the kirpan case might be considered a “multicultural issue” but

Vahed confirmed that she was not involved in drafting the amendment to the Board’s discipline policy banning kirpans or in previous kirpan situations. 118

Why was Vahed excluded from the kirpan matter? She allowed that she had little to contribute to any discussion of Sikh religious observance. Reflecting back, she stated, “I was very, very clear indicating that I was not the key resource when it came to members of the Sikh

117 KC. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, April 5, 1990, Volume 9, Transcript, 22, 26.

118 KC. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, April 5, 1990, Volume 9, Transcript, 29, 43, 45.

178

community.” 119 When Commission counsel questioned Vahed about Sikh religious variance, she responded that she did not find it unusual. 120 Vahed noted “an incredible variety and latitude in terms of interpretation of belief systems.” 121 Many faith communities, she insisted, have

“different levels of commitment, understanding, orthodoxy, interpretation, life experience [and]

education.” 122

Two decades after the hearings, Pandori still recalled Vahed’s testimony with bitterness.

Indeed, Pandori alleged that Vahed was no more that a “puppet” of the Board; “a multicultural person [hired] to oppose the multi-cultures.” Ten years after the hearing, Pandori visited a Sikh gurdwara in Toronto. On display in the gurdwara, he found a magazine featuring Vahed as an award recipient for her work in multiculturalism. Pandori contacted the magazine’s editors to protest Vahed’s inclusion. Said Pandori: “This is the same woman who opposed my kirpan case,” he complained. “ How could you put her in the magazine?” 123

Looking back, Vahed rejected Pandori’s allegations. She did not see herself as a “puppet”

of the Peel Board. As for her testimony at the Board of Inquiry, Vahed recalled, most of her

answers did not support the actions of the Peel Board in the kirpan case. Said Vahed:

119 Interview with Zubeda Vahed, Mississauga, June 11, 2004.

120 Sutantar Singh wrote to Rabbi Plaut advising him that Pandori’s claim that a kirpan is not used in combat was incorrect. Quoting from “The Heritage of Sikhs” Singh pointed out that the kirpan could be used in combat but “was only to be used in self-defense, as a last resort.” Plaut Papers. File 311-16. Letter to Dr. W. Gunther Plaut, from Sutantar Singh, April 2, 1990.

121 KC. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, April 5, 1990, Volume 9, Transcript, 48.

122 SCO File # 793/90. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, April 5, 6, 1990, Volume 7, Transcript, 49.

123 Interview with Harbhajan Singh Pandori, Mississauga, December 28, 2006.

179

[Mr. Pandori] may have been under the impression that the Board had asked me to speak in a certain manner. I want to clarify this, that the deal made with the Board lawyers was that I would not go, I would refuse to appear as a witness if they were going to brief me–that they would put me on the stand and I would speak truly as I saw. And if you look at all the transcript you will see that almost 90 percent [of Vahed’s testimony] is not favourable to the board.

Vahed valued her personal integrity and her work with multicultural communities in Peel Region more than a job with the Peel Board of Education:

My reason very specifically for saying that I do not wish to be briefed was that I was very clear in my mind that the job was unimportant but my integrity was. . . I would have to live my life within the communities. . . I would be of no use in that position if I was not fair.

In retrospect, Vahed speculates that Pandori might have taken offense to her testimony about

Paramvir Singh, the Sikh student who feigned a threat with his kirpan when confronted by older bullies. “It is possible,” Vahed speculated, “that Mr. Pandori would have preferred me to say that it was a kirpan, a religious symbol.” Vahed could not truthfully say, she insisted, that Paramvir had not viewed the kirpan as a weapon at the moment he was threatened:

I don’t know, in that scenario, with that young man, if it meant it was a kirpan or it was an act of defiance. . . and to have responded to that in any other way would have been a dishonor and a lie on my behalf.

Only Paramvir himself, she insisted, could answer that question. 124

124 Interview with Zubeda Vahed, Mississauga, April 25, 2007. Sikh spokesperson, T. Sher Singh, co-founder of the Macauliffe Institute of Sikh studies, disagreed with Pandori’s allegation that Vahed was a “puppet” of the Peel Board. Looking back, Singh was given to understand that Vahed’s powers as the multicultural consultant for the Peel Board had been

180

Commission counsel questioned Vahed about her personal feelings regarding the Peel

Board’s Discipline Policy. Vahed responded that she felt “extremely, extremely torn.” Vahed

told the Board of Inquiry that she valued both individual rights and group rights. She also

appreciated the Board’s concerns about kirpans and school safety. As she understood it, the

kirpan issue was one that called for reasonable accommodation. 125

Dr. Edward Blackstock

Dr. Edward Blackstock, chief psychologist for the Peel Board, testified that most

teenagers would perceive kirpans as weapons. Many teenagers, he said, are fascinated by

violence, weapons, war, and especially knives. In the preceding decade, Blackstock had observed

an explosion of interest in the martial arts in North America. Many teenagers had a keen interest

in “medieval, arcane types of things.” As he understood it, most students would find kirpans

“awesome.” The fanciness of the daggers and their curved blades led Blackstock to predict that

kirpans would generate a high level of interest among students. 126

According to Blackstock, approximately 4,500 potentially dangerous students attended

Peel schools. It was impossible, he insisted, to predict which students might engage in an act of violence. With a ratio of one psychologist to 2500 students, Blackstock argued that the Peel

Board had insufficient resources to support troubled students. 127 Despite the lack of resources, students did receive some support in Peel schools. Teaching assistants were, for example, hired

“clipped” by the Peel Board. Interview with T. Sher Singh, Guelph, May 1, 2007.

125 KC. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, April 6, 1990, Volume 10, Transcript, 94.

126 SCO File # 793/90. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, March 27, 1990, Volume 5, Transcript, 141, 143.

127 SCO File # 793/90. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, March 27, 1990, Volume 5, Transcript, 130.

181

to watch over students with behavioural difficulties. Secondary schools also provided a “contact

program” to support students considered potentially aggressive. 128 Some students required a

more intensive level of support. Said Blackstock:

We have a couple [of students] in the Peel system now, who we feel are so disturbed and so potentially violent that we assign a teacher’s assistant to stand by them every minute that they are in the school system. We judge that it is not safe to leave them unsupervised even by a distance of 10 or 15 feet. 129

Blackstock described the Board’s attempts to accommodate one particularly challenging student.

During the student’s psychological assessment at the Board, he informed the assessing psychologist that his sister was raped by five men in South America. According to the student, he traveled to South America during his Christmas vacation, murdered three of the rapists and beat the other two. While recounting that story, the student groaned, made noises, and rolled his eyes.

Alarmed and fearful for his life, the Board’s assessing psychologist contacted Blackstock for assistance. Meanwhile, the student fled.

After he conducted a thorough investigation, Blackstock learned that the student eventually made his way to “Sick Children’s Hospital” where he had been treated previously and diagnosed as “psychotic.” Before allowing the student to return to school, the Board required a medical declaration advising it of the student’s capacity to return to school. When the document arrived, there was little reassurance that the student was prepared to re-enter school. According to Blackstock, the note from the student’s doctors advised that: “He is dangerous. However, we think it is more dangerous for him to remain at home than to come to school. So he may return to

128 SCO File #793/90. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, March 27, 1990, Volume 5, Transcript, 145-152.

129 SCO File #793/90. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, March 27, 1990, Volume 5, Transcript, 146.

182

school.” When the student returned to school, Blackstock reported, he was “heavily medicated”

and “closely monitored.” 130

Was there a connection between Sikh students carrying kirpans and students with behavioural disorders? Did Sikh students pose a comparable risk? No. Blackstock conceded that

Sikh students, having the support of a strong family structure, presented a lower risk factor for violence. In his report, Rabbi Plaut stated that he found Blackstock’s testimony “particularly noteworthy,” because it detailed the lengths taken by the Board to allow psychotics and violent offenders to attend school. 131 If the Board could support violent offenders, why could it not

support religious Sikhs?

Reports of violent students attending Peel schools provoked concern in the community.

As reported in The Toronto Star , one Mississauga letter-writer expressed opposition to the

wearing of kirpans and to the “babysitting” of violent students in Peel schools. Appalled by the

number of potentially violent students, the letter-writer questioned the logic of catering to such

students at taxpayers’ expense. “What do we have here?” the letter-writer demanded. “Is the Peel

Board babysitting our teenage students? As a taxpayer, I object! During my schooling, this type

of student would be expelled, not catered to.” 132

130 SCO File #793/90. OHRC, Board of Inquiry, March 27, 1990, Volume 5, Transcript, 153-156.

131 OHRC. Decision, 34, 35.

132 Letter to the Editor, “Why must police guard high school students?,” The Toronto Star , April 16, 1990, A18.

183

Concluding Arguments

Concluding arguments were scheduled to be heard on April 18 and April 19, 1990 at

Toronto’s Park Plaza Hotel. Following those arguments for the Peel Board and the Commission,

Rabbi Plaut began reviewing the evidence to decide whether the Board had discriminated against

Sikhs, either directly or indirectly. 133 If Rabbi Plaut found evidence of indirect discrimination, then Board officials would be required to demonstrate that accommodating Sikh religious observance constituted undue hardship for the Board. 134 As noted in his memoirs, Rabbi Plaut felt that the kirpan case was difficult because it involved a clash of rights–the right to be secure of body vs. religious freedom. Both rights were “legitimate concerns of a free society.” 135 On

May 15, 1990 Rabbi Plaut held an executive session with parties to the case to discuss the

intersection of state and religion in Canadian law. It was his intent, said Rabbi Plaut, to inquire

further about “legal precedents concerning the interaction between religion and state.” 136 One month later arrangements were finalized for Rabbi Plaut to render his judgement. A letter was sent confirming the reservation of the Empress Room in the Park Plaza Hotel, Toronto for July 6,

1990. 137 All parties awaited Rabbi Plaut’s decision.

133 Plaut Papers. File 311-16. Letter to M. Singh Gosal, President, Federation of Sikh Societies of Canada, from W. Gunther Plaut, April 17, 1990.

134 Paula Todd, “Schools can’t ban kirpans, probe told,” The Toronto Star , April 19, 1990, A10.

135 Plaut, More Unfinished Business , 59.

136 Plaut Papers. File 311-16. Letter to A. Griffin and M. Ginsburg (OHRC), H. Pandori, and R. Keel (representing the Peel Board of Education), from W. Gunther Plaut, May 8, 1990.

137 Plaut Papers. File 311-16. Letter to Mr. Scott Robinson, Catering Manager, Park Plaza Hotel, Toronto, from Thelma Hamilton, Administrative Officer, Ministry of Citizenship, June 14, 1990.

Chapter 5: The Future We Want: A Never Ending Journey

Making allowances for the faiths and minorities in Canada rubs some Canadians the wrong way and probably always will. What will not pass unchallenged is the assertion that people who wear turbans and kirpans are doing something un- Canadian. Institutions such as the RCMP and the school boards with a mandate to recruit from and serve all groups, should be particularly tolerant of differences where there is no compelling reason not to be. 1

“The [Board of Inquiry] hearings dragged on for a long time,” Rabbi W. Gunther Plaut later recalled, “with experts on the stand and journalists in the wings.” But on April 19, 1990 the public hearings were finished. Rabbi Plaut retired to consider his ruling. As he often did, Rabbi

Plaut decided in his own mind what the primary issue was in the case. 2 As he explained in his notes on the hearing, the key question was “how much the right to practice one’s religion can be reasonably restricted?” 3 According to Rabbi Plaut:

The moment we enter this realm we are forced to make certain judgements which the law expects us to make, which deal with social and demographic matters. The law functions not in the abstract but in a particular setting. 4

How would that insight apply in the kirpan case? Rabbi Plaut’s notes identified several preliminary issues for consideration including context, legal precedent with regard to religious rights and the state, and the responsibilities of the Peel Board and Sikh community to find a resolution consistent with the requirements of the Ontario Human Rights Code. A more specific

1 Plaut, More Unfinished Business , 60.

2 Plaut , More Unfinished Business, 57.

3 Plaut Papers. File 311-16, Pandori, Preliminary Considerations, 1.

4 Plaut , More Unfinished Business, 57.

184 185

issue articulated by Rabbi Plaut was the relationship between the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Education Act, and how the Code pertained to the schools. The District Court had ruled that the Code took precedence over the Education Act . Rabbi Plaut noted, however, the Code also “gives leeway to exceptions.” Might public safety--in this case concern about weapons-- require an exception to be made? If so, what was the definition of the word “weapon?” Who determines the ultimate meaning: the dictionary; common perception; school board officials; or, the framers of the Education Act ? Under what conditions would the Code take precedence?

Rabbi Plaut began his deliberations by reviewing judicial decisions involving religious rights, the wearing of religious apparel, and personal and public safety. As he saw it, turban cases were not instructive for the Peel Board’s kirpan matter because adjusting “a hat” does not involve safety in schools. Rabbi Plaut then reviewed kirpan regulations put in place by police forces and schools in other jurisdictions. Even if the Royal Canadian Mounted Police permitted kirpans, Rabbi Plaut contended, that example was not applicable to schools because police officers were already armed. They were also adults. An examination of school regulations was informative. Rabbi Plaut noted that kirpans were permitted in certain schools. He concluded that variety in kirpan regulations demonstrated that “safety can be interpreted in different jurisdictions.” If kirpans are permitted in certain schools, he argued, kirpan safety is not a universal concern. Also, Rabbi Plaut questioned whether the Peel Board suffered an unusually high rate of violence when compared to other school districts. If not, he concluded, “it is the mind set of the parents that makes the difference.” Rabbi Plaut understood that Peel parents

“want to maximize safety.”

Rabbi Plaut was also forced to ask whether the Peel Board was a racist institution, as alleged by Pandori. An examination of Canadian history led Rabbi Plaut to observe “a

186 phenomenon of social fears elicited by large numbers of non-European immigrations with a subsidiary anxiety over the change of social values.” There was no evidence, Rabbi Plaut noted, that the Board was so motivated. In the absence of conclusive evidence, he wrote, “ I must refuse to speculate on base motives of the Peel Board and treat board policy as framed: as a matter of safety.” Rabbi Plaut also commented on the “sensitive” manner in which the kirpan matter was addressed by individuals on the Board and in its employ.

In view of Peel Board policy, what were the options for Sikh students? One possibility considered by Rabbi Plaut was home schooling. Despite the potential advantages of home schooling, “too much is lost,” said Rabbi Plaut, particularly social engagement with other students. Another possibility, not pursued during the hearings, was hiring additional support staff to supervise kirpan-wearing students at school. That solution was also judged unacceptable.

Rabbi Plaut pointed out that Sikhs would be stigmatized “as potential offenders and security risks, which is precisely what they deny.” Perhaps a better course of action, he said, was for the

Peel Board to provide education to staff, students, and parents on the Sikh faith, thereby lessening apprehension of the kirpan.

What adjustments might be expected on the part of the Sikh community? According to

Rabbi Plaut, answering that question necessitated entering the “gray area of the relation of church and state.” He was given to understand that the Sikh community would wish to co- operate fully in finding a resolution. For his part, Rabbi Plaut would not issue orders concerning religious observance. He would, however, raise possibilities pursued by others of the same religious faith and ask that those alternatives be considered. Were there limits to an individual’s personal religion? Yes. According to Rabbi Plaut, the state need not respect all religious decisions. He understood that the state and its agencies “can, within the objectives of the Code ,

187

take its lead from expert religious scholars.” For example, a kirpan might be worn under clothing

while a student attended school and a kirpan’s size might be restricted.

Rabbi Plaut noted that kirpans are not permitted on airplanes. Should schools be able to impose similar restrictions? While no evidence was offered during the Board of Inquiry hearings to explain how airplanes and schools differed, Rabbi Plaut noted the greater risk of “life-and- death” situations in airplanes. On the other hand, air travelers have access to other modes of transportation while children are required to attend school.

After jotting down preliminary considerations, Rabbi Plaut contemplated potential rulings. He questioned the necessity of issuing a formal policy regulating kirpans. As he saw it, the principal of each school was in the best position to make a judgement on a kirpan matter in a specific location.

Another possibility was to permit Khalsa Sikh adults and baptized students to continue wearing their kirpans. Still, Rabbi Plaut hoped that Sikh families would consider his suggestion that they postpone a student’s baptism until after graduation from high school. With baptism postponed, a Sikh student need not wear a kirpan to school and a religious transgression could be avoided. Yet another possibility, he noted, was to permit the wearing of kirpans on a staggered basis; in primary schools as of September 1, 1991 and in secondary schools as of September

1992. After a period of three years, Rabbi Plaut suggested, the issue could then be reviewed under “altered circumstances.” 5 Rabbi Plaut weighed the circumstances and alternative

possibilities and finally put his decision in writing.

5 Plaut Papers. File 311-16, Pandori, Preliminary Considerations, 1, 2. Plaut Papers.

188

Rabbi Plaut’s Decision

On July 6, 1990 Rabbi Plaut handed down his decision. (Pandori v. Peel Board of

Education (1990), 12 C.H.R.R. D/364, aff’d (1991), 3. O.R. (3d) 531). As he explained in his report, two joint complaints were launched against the Peel Board of Education on June 24, 1988 and December 21, 1988. In the first complaint, Pandori claimed that his religious rights as a practicing Sikh had been infringed under ss. 4(1) and 8 of the Ontario Human Rights Code . In the second complaint, the Ontario Human Rights Commission claimed that ss. 1, 8, and 10 of the

Ontario Human Rights Code had been violated by a Peel Board policy restricting the rights of

Sikh students and teachers to fulfill their religious obligations. According to Rabbi Plaut, the

kirpan case hinged on a collision of two rights:

the right of each person to a free and untrammeled exercise of religion; and the right of the Peel Board to set proper policies aimed at protecting all who come within its purview. 6

In his report, Rabbi Plaut recounted the proceedings. The Peel Board had appeared before the

Supreme Court of Ontario (Divisional Court) contending that the Board of Inquiry had no jurisdiction in the matter. It argued that education was not one of the services included in s. 1 of the Code . The Divisional Court rejected that argument and ruled that the Code had precedence over the Education Act. Proceedings then resumed before Rabbi Plaut.

Legal Analysis

Rabbi Plaut noted that the complaints of the Commission and Pandori were based on sections 1, 4, 8 and 10 of the Code .7 Rabbi Plaut noted that the Commission argued its case along

6 OHRC. Decision, 3.

7 1. Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities,

189

two lines. In the first line of argument, the Commission contended that the Peel Board had

infringed s.1 of the Code with an act of direct discrimination. Should the first argument fail, said

Rabbi Plaut, s.10 would form the basis of the Commission’s complaint “in that indirect discrimination had undoubtedly occurred.”

To begin, Rabbi Plaut quoted the Supreme Court’s definition of direct discrimination in

O’Malley v. Simpson-Sears Ltd., 7 C.H.R.R. (1986). The Court defined direct discrimination as a practice that “discriminates on a prohibited ground, for example, No Catholics, or no women, or no blacks employed here (D/3106, 9 24772).” 8 How did the Court’s ruling apply to the Peel

Board? According to the Commission, the Peel policy singled out Khalsa Sikhs by banning kirpans, thereby fitting the Supreme Court’s definition of direct discrimination. Khalsa Sikhs are

without discrimination because of race ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age marital status, family status or handicap.

4(1). Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of. . . creed. . .

8. No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part [i.e., Part 1, entitled Freedom from Discrimination].

10(1). A right of a person under Part 1 is infringed where a requirement, qualification or factor exists that is not discrimination on a prohibited ground but that results in the exclusion, restriction or preference of a group of persons who are identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination and of whom the person is a member except where,

(a) the requirement, qualification or factor is reasonable and bona fide in the circumstances [. . . ]

(2) The Commission, a Board of Inquiry or a court shall not find that a requirement, qualification or factor is reasonable and bona fide in the circumstances unless it is satisfied that the needs of the group of which the person is a member cannot be accommodated without undue hardship on the person accommodating those needs, considering the cost, outside sources of funding, if any, and health and safety requirements, if any.

8 OHRC. Decision, 37.

190

obligated by their religious faith to wear kirpans at all times. The Commission further noted that

religious discrimination is not conditioned by enumerated defenses under the Code. 9

Rabbi Plaut was not convinced that direct discrimination had taken place. He noted that the Peel Board argued that its policy was neutral in that kirpans were prohibited but Sikhs were welcome. None of the other 4 K’s of the Sikh faith was restricted by policy. What is more, Board officials had met with Sikh community members on numerous occasions for the sole purpose of finding an accommodation for Khalsa Sikh students to attend school. Rabbi Plaut noted that the policy’s poor wording clouded its objective of banning weapons. The Peel Board’s multiculturalism consultant, he said, testified that the impact of the wording in the policy “was detrimental to the self-respect of Sikhs.”

Even if one considered the policy neutral, said the Commission, it was applied inconsistently with regard to kirpans. Inconsistent application of policy constitutes direct discrimination. Kirpans are not weapons and can not be deemed so, Commission counsel argued.

Rabbi Plaut rejected the Commission’s argument on that point. “Impression alone can justify the

definition of “weapon” he insisted. 10 Rabbi Plaut pointed out that a kirpan is considered a weapon by many non-Sikhs. He also noted that Sikhs themselves are aware that the kirpan has potential for misuse as a weapon. But, Rabbi Plaut concluded, the Board policy did not constitute

“a purposeful exclusion of Sikh students.” 11 He found that the Commission’s argument of

inconsistent application could not be sustained. After rejecting the Commission’s submission,

9 There is no defense in the Ontario Human Rights Code 1981 to a prima facie case of direct discrimination on the basis of religion by a public school board in the provision of goods, services, and facilities.

10 OHRC. Decision, 39, 40.

11 OHRC. Decision, 22.

191

Rabbi Plaut concluded that Peel policy was better examined under s. 10 of the Code that “is

designed as an extended interpretation of what may constitute discrimination, thus allowing for

an assessment of the kirpan policy in the light of the defenses there provided.” 12

Application of Section 10 to the Case

Indirect Discrimination.

How did s. 10 apply to the kirpan case? According to Rabbi Plaut, the onus lay on the

Peel Board to demonstrate that s. 10 provides an adequate defense to an allegation of direct discrimination. In other words, the Board had to demonstrate that its policy was “reasonable” and

“bona fide ” and that it satisfied provisions of “safety” and “undue hardship.”

Undue Hardship.

A review of legal precedents convinced Rabbi Plaut that the defense of “undue hardship” could not be claimed on the basis of a “casual, negligible or passing problem.” 13 For its part, the

Board had to demonstrate that “weighty consequences” would ensue if it did not act to prohibit kirpans in its schools. The Board argued that “weighty consequences” would indeed ensue with kirpans present. School safety would be impaired. With safety impaired, the Board could not operate a school system according to the requirements of the Education Act . Undue hardship, the

Board argued, would then ensue.

Safety.

Using legal precedents, Rabbi Plaut reviewed potential limitations to religious freedom.

The necessity to protect public safety would constitute one significant limitation to religious

12 OHRC. Decision, 40.

13 OHRC. Decision, 41, 42.

192

freedom, he noted. Rabbi Plaut quoted chief justice Brian Dickson speaking for the Supreme

Court of Canada:

Freedom means that, subject to such limitations as are necessary to protect safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others, no one is forced to act in a way contrary to his beliefs or his conscience. 14

Rabbi Plaut then questioned whether the Peel Board’s safety concerns were “compelling enough to override the prior right of religious freedom.” 15 On one hand, the Commission had argued that

the Board’s safety concerns were not sufficient to override the religious freedom of Khalsa

Sikhs. In turn, the Board insisted that its policy was proactive. It cited the incident involving

Sikh student Paramvir Singh as a case in point. Paramvir pointed to his kirpan when threatened

by bullies on his way home from school. For his part, Rabbi Plaut was not persuaded by the

Board’s example. The most that could be said, he concluded, was that Paramvir was aware of the

kirpan’s potential. He did not act on that awareness. Furthermore, Rabbi Plaut noted that a kirpan

had not been misused in any school “either in Peel or anywhere in Ontario or even all of

Canada.” 16 That record was worth considering, he insisted, because Sikhs had been in Canada for almost a century.

Rabbi Plaut also questioned the Peel Board’s argument that a kirpan’s absence was preferable to its presence. Numerous common items, such as scissors and bats, had been misused in Peel schools on occasion, said Rabbi Plaut. Those items had not, however, been banned by the

Board. The kirpan had not been misused but was banned nonetheless. Rabbi Plaut conceded that a kirpan might be misused in other settings. Assuming that a kirpan might also be misused in a

14 OHRC. Decision, 43.

15 OHRC. Decision, 44.

16 OHRC. Decision, 45.

193

school, who would misuse it? It was unlikely, he surmised, that a Khalsa Sikh teacher would

misuse a kirpan. What of Khalsa Sikh students? 17 The single incident involving Paramvir Singh

was not a suitable foundation for a policy. Said Rabbi Plaut:

it suggests that Khalsa Sikhs are prone to violence, and that giving them access to kirpans during school hours increases this potential. Since there have been no reported incidents of Khalsa students having misused their kirpans anywhere in Canada, this argument cannot be sustained on a balance of probabilities.

Kirpans might be misused by non-Sikhs argued the Peel Board, citing statistics to demonstrate

that knives were “a prime instrument of school violence.” For its part, the Commission did not

dispute the weapons statistics. The Commission argued instead that the matter of risk was central

to the kirpan issue. Rabbi Plaut agreed risk was “the heart of the issue.”

Rabbi Plaut pointed out that the complainant and the respondent approached the kirpan

question from two different perspectives. On one hand, the Peel Board, making the assumption

that the risk was unacceptable, asked: “What will happen if the kirpan is used improperly?” By

contrast, the Commission asked: “Will it be used improperly?” 18 Drawing on the evidence of other Canadian school boards, the Commission concluded that a kirpan was not likely to be used improperly.

Rabbi Plaut then questioned whether comparative evidence was admissible in law. It was.

A review of legal precedent indicated that comparative evidence had been accepted by an adjudicator in the 1981 Board of Inquiry case of Pritam Singh v. Workmen’s Compensation

17 One Peel Board staff member argued that issues of violence should be examined for misuses of power. Said the observer: “You have to probe further to understand that what may have happened is the kids hurled racial insults, homophobic comments, or sexist comments . . . but you have to name it what it really is. It’s racism, it’s sexism, it’s homophobia. . . . issues of power.” Interview with Anonymous, Mississauga, July 7, 2004.

18 OHRC. Decision, 46, 47.

194

Board Hospital and Rehabilitation Centre, 2 C.H.R.R. (1981), D/459. A Khalsa Sikh’s right to wear a kirpan in hospital was protected by the Code , the adjudicator had ruled. Comparative

evidence from other hospitals was required, noted the adjudicator, in that “actions can not be

judged in a vacuum.” Rabbi Plaut observed that the Peel Board’s kirpan policy was “unique in

Ontario.” As evidence, the Commission cited an absence of kirpan incidents in other school

boards. No incidents meant no kirpan policies. “For such a policy to be found not to infringe the

Code ,” Rabbi Plaut opined, “it must be shown that it was necessary and that to do what all other

school regions are doing is deemed inadvisable for Peel and would impose upon it ‘undue

hardship.’ ” 19

Rabbi Plaut then sought further legal guidance in cases involving kirpans. He referred to the 1985 Tuli v. St. Albert Board of Education (1985), 8 C.H.R.R. D/3736 (Alta. Bd. of Inq.)

case. Rabbi Plaut found that case instructive because of its parallels to the Pandori case. School

trustees in Alberta passed a resolution to prevent a Sikh student from wearing a kirpan to school.

In turn, the Sikh student obtained a court injunction to prevent the resolution from going into

effect. When the case came before the Board of Inquiry, the student had already graduated. The

legal proceedings leading to the injunction culminated in a finding that no discrimination had

occurred and the case was dismissed. According to Rabbi Plaut, the superintendent’s testimony

was noteworthy. He pointed out that the superintendent voiced no concerns about misuse of the

kirpan. His concerns were school safety and insurance claims. The Board of Inquiry could not

19 OHRC. Decision, 48.

195

justify a ruling based on “hypothetical and imagined circumstances,” said Rabbi Plaut, but rather,

it required “cogent proof by a very high preponderance of probability.” 20

Legal precedents gave Rabbi Plaut to understand that context was a decisive factor in kirpan cases. He referred to the 1987 case of New York v. Partap Singh, N.Y.S. (2D) 412 (New

York City Civil Court 1987). At issue there was a Sikh’s right to wear his kirpan on a train.

According to Rabbi Plaut, the judge raised a critical question: “When does an individual’s first amendment right [to religious freedom] yield to the State’s duty to protect its citizens?” The

State’s duty to protect safety was paramount, said the judge. Granting exemptions to a Sikh, the

Court held, “would place an intolerable burden upon law enforcement officials.” 21 Rabbi Plaut

concluded that he need not be guided by that case because schools and trains were not

comparable. 22

Rabbi Plaut also referred to the 1986 case of Hothi et al. v. R. and Mitchell, [1985] 3

W.W.R. 256 (Man. Q.B.); (1985) 35 Man. R. (2 nd ) 159 (Man. C.A.); (1986) 43 Man. R. (2 nd ) 240

(S.C.C.). At issue in that case was the right of an accused Sikh to wear a kirpan in a courtroom.

The judge prohibited kirpans in the courtroom stating that “A weapon does not cease to be a

weapon because it is a religious symbol.” 23 The Court ruled that a judge had authority to prohibit

kirpans in courtrooms. The limit on freedom was reasonable within s. 1 of the Canadian Charter

of Rights and Freedoms. Rabbi Plaut concluded that he should not be guided by that case

because schools and courtrooms differ. The courtroom is an adversarial environment, while

20 OHRC. Decision, 49.

21 OHRC. Decision, 50.

22 San Grewal, “VIA Rail changes its policy on kirpans,” The Toronto Star , April 26, 2007, A26.

23 OHRC. Decision, 50.

196

schools involve partnerships. Court appearances are also temporary, while students attend school

for years.

According to Rabbi Plaut, the school context differed from other contexts. He

commented on the special status of schools with reference to the 1986 case of Regina v. J. M. G.

(1986), 56 O.R. (2d) 705 (Ontario Court of Appeal). That case put the schools’ special status into

perspective, said Rabbi Plaut. At issue was the principal’s right to search a student suspected of

marijuana possession. The Court found that a school principal is required to enforce “the

maintenance of a proper educational environment.” The maintenance of discipline “might

otherwise be deemed a diminution of civil rights and an offense under the Charter .” Rabbi Plaut understood that “principals are given special rights and duties.” But he also noted that the duties of the principal “must be weighed in the light of the Code. ”24

Religious Rights.

Rabbi Plaut examined cases dealing with Sikh religious rights other than wearing kirpans.

Those cases gave him to understand that religious rights were upheld in instances where safety concerns were satisfied. He referred to the 1988 case of Dashminder Singh Sebdev v. Bayview

Glen Junior Schools et al. (1988) 9 C.H.R.R. D/4881; Ont. Bd. of Inq. The Court gave Sikhs and

Orthodox Jews the right to wear religious head coverings to school despite prevailing dress code restrictions. Rabbi Plaut also referred to the 1980 Grievance Settlement Board case of Gurnam

Singh and the Crown in Right of Ontario, Ministry of Correctional Services, Grievance

Settlement Board, Nov. 6, 1980. At issue was a Sikh’s right to retain facial hair while wearing a safety mask. In that case, the Court did not support the Sikhs. It ruled that a person must be clean-shaven for reasons of safety. Rabbi Plaut found the ruling significant because the defense

24 OHRC. Decision, 53.

197

of undue hardship was applied. He concluded that “no vague reference to possible problems was

at issue but a very direct danger to the person.” 25

Kirpan Stabbings.

Rabbi Plaut also noted two unreported cases involving stabbing incidents with kirpans: the 1985 case of R. v. Gurprasad Dhamrait (May 7, 1985) (District Court of Ontario), unreported and the 1990 case of R. v. Jatinder Singh (1990) (District Court of Ontario), unreported. As he saw it, those two cases were exceptions to the long-standing good record of

Sikhs in Canada. 26 At the same time, Rabbi Plaut clarified that the misuse of a kirpan was not to

be tolerated and a sacred object had been desecrated. After setting out his legal analysis, Rabbi

Plaut gave his conclusion.

Rabbi Plaut’s Conclusion

In reaching his conclusions, Rabbi Plaut was mindful that he was mediating a clash of

rights: the religious freedom of Khalsa Sikhs versus the Peel Board’s right to maintain discipline

and maximize safety. In the end, he came down on the side of religious freedom. As noted by

Rabbi Plaut in his sixty page ruling, there was an absence of evidence indicating that a kirpan

had been misused in any Canadian school. The claim made by the Peel Board, that Sikhs

represented a special risk, was therefore dismissed as “devoid of any merit.” A securely fastened

kirpan was not easily removed by non-Sikhs. He also noted that knives, forks, baseball bats, and

other items easily used as weapons were readily accessible in all schools by a person bent on

25 OHRC. Decision, 54.

26 OHRC. Decision, 51.

198

violence. After weighing the evidence, Rabbi Plaut saw no logic in “sacrificing the rights of

some of the best elements in the school for the worst.” 27

It is unacceptable for the Peel Board to accommodate aggressive and psychotic students,

Rabbi Plaut wrote, while “a peaceful, religious, abstemious Sikh” is not permitted to attend school. Rabbi Plaut noted the lengths to which the Board went to accommodate challenging students. In Peel’s secondary schools, 100 counselors were hired to support 1000 students with behavioural difficulties while Peel’s elementary schools provided special classes for “the most emotionally disturbed” students. In one case, two teaching assistants supervised two particularly difficult students at all times during the school day. If public funds were used to safeguard difficult students, said Rabbi Plaut, public funds could also support Khalsa Sikh students. The expenditure to accommodate Sikh students could not be considered undue hardship under s.

10(2), he insisted.

The fact that Policy No. 48 was enacted in good faith did not make it reasonable within the meaning of s.10 (1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code . Indeed, it was just the opposite.

Rabbi Plaut stated, “Bona fides alone cannot discharge the onus of defense when prima facie discrimination has taken place.” Provisions of undue hardship and safety apply only if the infringement of the Code is both “ bona fide and reasonable,” Rabbi Plaut held. In the case of the kirpan, Rabbi Plaut postulated that the question would then be whether the rising climate of violence in society and the purported increase of violence in schools would justify every precaution, even at the expense of a few. 28

27 OHRC. Decision, 54, 55.

28 OHRC. Decision, 56, 57.

199

There were those people, he allowed, who opposed the idea that Sikhs be permitted to

carry a kirpan, often regarded as akin to a knife. But was public opinion sufficient cause to allow

the defense of undue hardship? No. “The legal remedy must fit the perceived danger and fulfill

the requirement of the law.” If the Peel policy was not reasonable within s.10 (1), did it meet the

standard of undue hardship under s.10 (2)? Rabbi Plaut was not persuaded that a kirpan posed

more than a vague risk. There was no evidence, he noted, of kirpan-related violence in any

Canadian school. What is more, Rabbi Plaut questioned the logic of singling out kirpans for

exclusion while many other potential weapons remained in schools.

According to Rabbi Plaut, the Peel Board’s intention to minimize risk ran afoul of the

rights of Sikhs to religious freedom enshrined in the Code. For the kirpan prohibition to stand,

the Board had to demonstrate that the climate of violence in Peel schools was such that religious

freedom needed to be abridged. 29 However, there was no evidence that restrictive measures were more necessary in Peel than in other school boards.

Rabbi Plaut agreed that school safety should be maximized. School principals are in the best position to monitor safety in their own schools. But Peel’s blanket ban on the kirpan was unwelcome, unnecessary, and unacceptable.

Rabbi Plaut’s Order

Since Rabbi Plaut found that the Peel Board’s amendment to Policy No. 48 prohibiting kirpans infringed the Code , he ordered that the offending portion be deleted from Peel policy and

the parent Handbook . Rabbi Plaut further asked the Board to make funds available to safeguard

religious freedom and safety.

29 OHRC. Decision, 55.

200

Rabbi Plaut’s ruling that Khalsa Sikhs should be entitled to wear kirpans to school was

not without limitations. He agreed that school principals have the right to monitor the appropriate

use of the kirpan, and over-ride a Sikh’s right to wear the kirpan if its uses became inappropriate.

For example, in the event that violence increased in schools as a result of kirpans, the principal

should contact superiors and put temporary measures in place to address the issues. Finally,

Rabbi Plaut ruled that Pandori was free to seek employment in the Peel Board without hindrance.

“No damages were asked,” said Rabbi Plaut, “and none are awarded.” 30

Public Response

Rabbi Plaut’s ruling received a mixed reaction. “Dozens of students will be wearing kirpans in Peel schools come September,” reported The Mississauga News , in a sensational tone. 31 Chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Catherine Frazee,

applauded the ruling as affirming religious freedom as a fundamental right. 32 She interpreted

Rabbi Plaut’s ruling as requiring that “Centres of leaning must provide leadership in

understanding and support of cultural programs.” 33 Peel Board’s Chairperson Carolyn Parrish,

quoted in The Toronto Star , called the ruling “a very reasonable compromise.” Parrish

appreciated Rabbi Plaut’s careful consideration of the issues. When asked by a CFRB radio host

about a possible appeal, Parrish was evasive. She simply stated that Rabbi Plaut “bent over

backwards to try and be as fair as he could be.” He also gave the Peel Board “something that we

30 OHRC. Decision, 60.

31 KC. Steve Pecar, “Kirpans allowed in schools,” The Mississauga News , Sunday July 8, 1990, 1.

32 Plaut Papers. File 311-17, News, CKEY July 6, 1990. Transcript by MediaReach, # 23431.

33 KC. Steve Pecar, “Kirpans allowed in schools,” The Mississauga News , Sunday July 8, 1990, 20.

201

tried to talk the Sikhs into eighteen months ago and couldn’t accomplish,” said Parrish. 34 His

ruling gave “a lot of credence” to safety concerns 35

Pandori was widely quoted as applauding the Plaut decision. According to Pandori, the

decision represented “an important day for Khalsa Sikhs in Ontario.” Sikhs no longer have to

hide in Peel schools, he said, as “many of the 40,000 Sikhs living in Peel Region are often forced

to do.” 36 The Kitchener-Waterloo Record quoted Pandori saying “Canadians respect minority

rights and traditions ” 37

One observer, writing in the Kingston Whig Standard, discussed the kirpan issue as an example of the challenges facing a multicultural society. Geologist Mark Mloszewski argued:

Trying to cope with difference between ourselves and others takes us into a psychological jungle. . . Over and over again we end up implying that it is all very well to wear a turban, have dark skin, be a Muslim or eat funny food, but it’s only a skin-deep masquerade. When it comes right down to it, everybody is, and ought to be the same: like us.

Living in a country such as Canada with a large immigrant population and a democratic constitution, Mloszewski contended, requires Canadians to work at accepting differences while distinguishing a “real from imagined threat.” According to Mloszewski: “The current bogey seems to be the Orthodox Sikh.” Multiculturalism is painful, he observed, and requires people to make adjustments. In making those adjustments, he said, it is necessary to ask questions such as:

34 Plaut Papers. File 311-17. Wayne McLean Show, CFRB Toronto, July 9, 1990. Transcript by Media Reach. No 23434, 3.

35 Nomi Morris and Camille Bains, “Ruling allows kirpans back in Peel classrooms,” The Toronto Star , July 7, 1990, A3.

36 KC. Steve Pecar, “Kirpans allowed in schools,” The Mississauga News , Sunday July 8, 1990, 20.

37 Plaut Papers. File 311-17. OHRC, “Sikhs cheer rule on kirpans in school,” Kitchener-Waterloo Record , July 7, 1990.

202

“Who adjusts? Who pays, in terms of cultural values? To what extent should old prejudices, even

existing laws, be modified to accommodate oddities resulting from multiculturalism?” 38

Some commentators questioned the limits of religious tolerance. If Sikhs were permitted

to carry knives, what other bizarre demands might be made under the guise of religious freedom?

Where should the line be drawn? “If Druids insisted on their ancient religious rights to appear

naked in public, they would be slapped in the cooler at the first flicker of shiny buns,” insisted

one letter-writer. 39 “What’s to stop a Satanist from bringing his religious weapons?” asked another person. 40

Some commentators wondered whether Rabbi Plaut’s ruling would be the last word on the kirpan issue. No sooner had Rabbi Plaut ruled than talk of an appeal surfaced. One editorial writer urged the Peel Board to demonstrate “common sense,” and avoid the temptation of a further ruling. As noted in The Mississauga News , the Board would be wasting taxpayers’ money just as Attorney General Ian Scott wasted money in an “absurd effort” to forestall Sunday shopping. The only beneficiaries of an appeal would be lawyers “who’d gladly charge hundreds of thousands of dollars a day.” The writer further argued that Rabbi Plaut’s decision was “an open-minded, progressive decision which deserves the support of all residents of the province.” 41

An editorial published by The Toronto Star suggested that “Peel should have used some

38 Plaut Papers, File 311-17. Mark Mloszewski, “Turbans and tradition,” Kingston Whig Standard , July 7, 1990 (no page).

39 Letter to the Editor, “A puzzling decision on kirpans in schools,” The Toronto Star , July 17, 1990, A14.

40 Plaut Papers. File 311-17. Andrew Joseph, “Peel board to challenge kirpan ruling,” The Toronto Star , July 25, 1990, A7.

41 KC. Editorial, “Time to accept ruling and get on with business,” The Mississauga News , July 8, 1990. (no page).

203

[common sense] in the first place to avoid discriminating against teachers and students.” 42 The

Toronto Sun urged Peel Board trustees to “concentrate on real problems.” The decision of the

Ontario Human Rights Commission “is hardly an issue that deserves angry, alarming

demonstrations.” 43

For their part, Peel Board trustees were divided on an appeal. Parrish, conceding kirpans posed some danger, was opposed to an appeal. Discussions with the Peel Board’s lawyer gave

Parrish to understand that the estimated cost of any appeal approached $350,000. 44 Parrish did not approve of spending taxpayers’ money on a case she felt the Board would “almost certainly lose.” On the other hand, Vice-chair Gary Heighington insisted that he would not accept the decision of a “quasi-judicial body.” The case should be judged by an “actual court of the land.”

Numerous telephone calls of complaint and petitions against the Plaut ruling convinced him that

Peel residents expected the Board to continue fighting. According to Heighington, neighbouring school boards had not helped Peel’s case by “knuckling under the pressure of the Sikh community.” 45

The Peel Board of Education’s Decision to Appeal

While the kirpan decision was being commented upon in the media, Peel Board trustees prepared to vote on an appeal. At the Board’s regular meeting on July 24, 1990, two petitions were received by the Board regarding the move. Several constituents also made presentations.

42 Editorial, “Symbol of faith,” The Toronto Star , July 12, 1990, A26.

43 Plaut Papers. File 311-17. “The cutting edge,” The Toronto Sun , July 11, 1990, 10.

44 Plaut Papers. File 311-17. Wayne McLean Show, CFRB Toronto, July 9, 1990. Transcript by Media Reach. No. 23434, 2.

45 Carolyn Abraham, “Peel educators say Sikhs must ‘adjust’ way of life,” The Toronto Star , July 12, 1990, W1.

204

One petition containing approximately 2,000 signatures of Peel residents demanded that the

Board appeal Rabbi Plaut’s decision. A second petition, in the form of an individual letter,

echoed the same sentiment. 46

Pandori appeared before the Board requesting that the decision, which he called “a good

compromise,” not be appealed. Pandori again explained the kirpan’s significance and suggested

that in light of Rabbi Plaut’s ruling, now was the time for the Peel community to “communicate

and work together for understanding and respect, so that people of all faiths can live in

harmony.” 47 Pandori’s presentation elicited no response. Instead, the chairperson simply

indicated that the matter of an appeal would be addressed later in the meeting. Linda Humes, a

spokesperson for Concerned Parents of Peel, then addressed the Board urging an appeal. Humes,

who read from a pre-circulated brief, argued that:

nowhere in the United States’ armed forces, police forces or school system are Kirpans allowed, despite the ‘fierce democracy’ in that country. She suggested that Khalsa Sikhs, if the religious requirement to wear kirpans is inflexible, should start their own schools. 48

As for the cost of an appeal, Humes opined that Peel citizens would willingly support the expenditure because of safety concerns. Humes was asked whether her group had consulted a lawyer about its interpretation of Canadian law. Her reply was not noted in the Board’s minutes.

Further questions were raised about the group’s plan to raise money in support of an appeal and

46 Peel Board of Education, Regular Meeting of the Board - Minutes, Item 7, Petitions, 1990-07- 24, 564.

47 Peel Board of Education, Regular Meeting of the Board- Minutes, Item 10, Harbhajan Singh Pandori, President, Ontario Khalsa Darbar Inc. re Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Decision re Kirpans, 1990-07-24, 571.

48 Peel Board of Education, Regular Meeting of the Board - Minutes, Item 12, Linda Humes, Concerned Parents of Peel, re Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Decision re Kirpans, 1990-07-24, 572.

205

how the group’s petitions had been distributed. Questions finished, the chairperson again

indicated that the kirpan matter world be addressed later in the meeting.

Board Vice-chairperson Heighington moved that the report of the Ontario Human Rights

Commission regarding the Kirpan Policy be received by the Board. He then moved that Rabbi

Plaut’s ruling be appealed to the Supreme Court of Ontario. Heighington argued that a

compromise had not been reached. The Board, he continued, considered the size of kirpan

required by Khalsa Sikhs unacceptable. As far as he was concerned, a kirpan of one to three

inches would have been acceptable. A larger kirpan, however, was a weapon and fell under the

Board’s ban on weapons in schools. He proposed that the courts decide the issue and insisted that

ratepayers in his area supported an appeal. There was also need for haste. The chairperson

reminded the Board that an appeal must be launched within thirty days of the Ontario Human

Rights Commission decision. 49

After Heighington’s presentation, the Board’s lawyer responded to questions including ones about the likelihood that an appeal would be successful or whether, in the end, the Board might have to appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal or to the Supreme Court of Canada. He also asked what might be an acceptable length for a kirpan and if there was to be an appeal, what recourse there was for the Board should Sikhs not conform to guidelines set down by the Ontario

Human Rights Commission.

Those Board members in favour of an appeal cited numerous calls received in support of an appeal, the insufficient consideration given school safety in the Commission ruling, the

49 Peel Board of Education, Regular Meeting of the Board - Minutes, Item 16, Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Decision re Kirpan Policy, 1990-07-24, 576.

206

immaturity of children, and lawsuits against the Peel Board that could arise in the event of an

incident with a kirpan. Those trustees opposed to an appeal protested:

its being morally wrong to appeal the decision, as religious tolerance and understanding are underlying principles of the public school system, and that appealing the decision will cause further division in the community; the order of the Ontario Human Rights Commission did set restrictions on the Kirpan; Dr. Plaut’s order is a compromise to the Peel Board and the Sikh community; the costs to appeal will be high. 50

The Peel Board’s minutes noted that Trustee Kent requested a recorded vote on a possible appeal. The result of that vote was eleven to ten in favour of an appeal. Parrish was quoted in

The Toronto Star as saying that the presence of approximately twelve Sikhs who sat at the front

of the meeting room wearing their kirpans outside their clothing may have hurt the anti-appeal

cause. 51

Following the vote, the Peel Board questioned its lawyer about a stay of the

Commission’s order. He stated that a judicial application for a stay might be necessary. The

Board then resolved “to apply for an order to stay the application of the order of the Ontario

Human Rights Commission, pending the results of the appeal.” 52

The mainstream press attacked the Board’s decision to appeal Rabbi Plaut’s decision. The

Globe and Mail noted with sarcasm that “taxpayers must be impressed to see their money spent

so frivolously and in such a bad cause.” 53 A Toronto Star editorial urged Board trustees to

50 Peel Board of Education, Regular Meeting of the Board - Minutes, Item 16, Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Decision re Kirpan Policy, 1990-07-24, 576-577

51 Andrew Joseph, “Peel board resigned to kirpans this fall,” The Toronto Star , July 26, 1990, A6.

52 Peel Board of Education, Regular Meeting of the Board - Minutes, Item 16, Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Decision re Kirpan Policy, 1990-07-24, 577.

53 Plaut Papers. File 311-17. “Turbans in the RCMP, kirpans in the schools,” The Globe and Mail ,

207

reverse “their ignorant decision.” 54 Even the Board’s lawyer said that the Board was unlikely to

win the appeal. The biggest issue was evidence, he explained, and Rabbi Plaut addressed

evidence in detail.55 Parrish also understood that the chance of winning an appeal was no more

that “a snowball’s chance in a forest fire.” Parrish further noted that the safety issue was being

overshadowed by an explosion of anti-Sikh invective she described as “racist, intolerant and

frightening.” 56

Appeal

At the regular meeting of the Board on April 9, 1991, just prior to the announcement of the Peel Board’s decision to appeal, Pandori appeared unannounced and asked to speak.

Overriding trustee objections, Chairperson Kent allowed Pandori to address the Board. Pandori requested that the Board not appeal the Divisional Court’s kirpan decision. He suggested that the

Board work co-operatively with the Sikh community rather than continuing to waste taxpayers’ money. 57 Chairperson Kent accepted the motion to reconsider the appeal. The motion was defeated eleven to ten.

Two decades later, Sikh spokesperson T. Sher Singh recalled that he was not surprised by the Board’s decision to appeal the case. After trying to negotiate with Board officials with regard to kirpans before their decision to ban kirpans, Singh characterized Peel officials as unable or

July 27, 1990, A12.

54 Editorial, “Too little faith,” The Toronto Star , July 27, 1990, A18.

55 Plaut Papers. File 311-17. First News, Global, July 25, 1990. Transcript by MediaReach, No. 23940.

56 Plaut Papers. File 311-17. Newsroom Today, CHCH-Hamilton, July 25, 1990. Transcript by MediaReach, No. 23900.

57 Peel Board of Education, Regular Meeting of the Board - Minutes, Item 17, Delegation - Harbhajan Singh Pandori, re Kirpans, 1991-04-09, 324.

208 unwilling to understand the kirpan issue except as a problem of knives in schools. The Board’s decision to launch an appeal convinced Singh that the Peel Board also “had no regard for public money.” Reflecting back, Singh recalled:

It became a joke everywhere in the community, in the mainstream community and amongst lawyers, anybody, no matter which level of court ruled, they would appeal it further. Why? Because they had no regard for public money. They weren’t using their own money. 58

It took almost two years, but on April 26, 1991 the Ontario Court, General Division upheld Rabbi Plaut’s ruling. The Board had appealed on three grounds:

Schools are “special places” and the application of the Human Rights Code must be interpreted in light of the special setting of schools; the Board’s policy is reasonable in the circumstances; and, the Board would suffer undue hardship if deprived of its policy. 59

On the first ground, it was held that there was no reason for giving a restricted application of the

Code to schools in that the Board of Inquiry headed by Rabbi Plaut had addressed concerns related to the school environment. On the second ground, the Court found that the Board of

Inquiry “dealt with the evidence exhaustively.” The Court further noted that the Board of Inquiry

“addressed itself to the proportionality between the objective of safety in the schools and the requirements of the freedom of religion.” The Court found no error in principle. In regard to the third ground, the Court was not satisfied that there had been an error in respect of the question of the magnitude of risk. In addition, the Court pointed out that the Board of Inquiry dealt with the undue hardship issue only as an alternative conclusion.

58 Interview with T. Sher Singh, Guelph, May 1, 2007.

59 SCO, File #793/90. Decision , heard April 2, 1991, 7-10.

209

In short, there was “ample evidence” to support the findings of the Board of Inquiry. The

Board of Inquiry made no error in law in its interpretation of the Ontario Human Rights Code

and no error in principle in its application of the Code . It was agreed that the order would not go

into effect until the end of the school year. The Court fixed costs against the Peel Board at

$3,000.00. The Board of Inquiry’s order stood. 60

Peel Board Chairperson Janet McDougald later reflected “I don’t think we were discriminatory or prejudiced in any intentional way. We just didn’t understand.” In retrospect,

McDougald contends that Rabbi Plaut made the right decision. “We have never had an incident within our schools with regard to the inappropriate use of the kirpan.” 61 Ontario Human Rights

Commission Counsel Anthony Griffin also did not see the Peel Board officials as having been

consciously racist in the kirpan case. The kirpan case “prods the soft underbelly of tolerance,”

Griffin said. Elaborating, he opined that Peel Board officials demonstrated what he called “a

small r racism, a failure to understand, and a very profound insensitivity” to the religious rights

of Khalsa Sikhs. 62

Response

For her part, Trustee Parrish expressed regret that Concerned Parents of Peel managed to persuade more than half of the Peel Board trustees to pursue an appeal she considered “a futile, destructive, and wasteful commitment of time, money and energy.” Legal advice indicated there was no chance of winning, Parrish insisted. Furthermore, Rabbi Plaut had already addressed the

60 SCO, File #793/90, Decision , heard April 2, 1991 10.

61 Interview with Janet McDougald, Mississauga, August 23, 2004.

62 The views expressed are those of Mr. Griffin and do not necessary represent the views of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Personal communication with Tony Griffin, August 15, 2007 and March 21, 2010.

210

Board’s safety concerns at the heart of the kirpan matter. Meanwhile, “more than half a million

Ontario taxpayer dollars are doomed to be delivered from education to pipe dream litigation.”

Further appeals, she argued, would only lead to prolonged tension between Sikhs and others in

the Peel community and the appearance of bigotry on the part of the Peel Board. 63 Trustee

George Carlson agreed. Continuing the fight, he argued, would have been “wasteful and

fruitless–not to mention detrimental to building strong relations within our multicultural

communities.” 64

On August 13, 1991 The Toronto Star reported that a three judge panel had ruled that the

Peel Board could not appeal the decision handed down in April by the Ontario Court, General

Division. 65 In September, The Toronto Star noted that the Board had spent $313, 557 on a four year long unsuccessful fight to prohibit kirpans from Peel schools. 66 As noted in The Globe , the

Court of Appeal agreed with the Human Rights Commission that the ban on kirpans was discriminatory. 67

63 Carolyn Parrish, Trustee, Peel Board of Education (Letter to the Editor), “Time to set the record straight on issue of kirpans in schools,” The Toronto Star , April 18, 1991, A6.

64 George Carlson, Trustee, Peel Board of Education (Letter to the Editor), “Enough time, money has already been spent in fight against kirpans,” The Toronto Star, April 18, 1991, A6.

65 Krishna Rau, “Court denies kirpan appeal,” The Toronto Star , August 13, 1991, A7.

66 Caroline Mallan, “Board’s kirpan fight cost $313,557,” The Toronto Star , September 19, 1991, BR3.

67 “Peel board refused kirpan appeal,” The Globe and Mail , August 14, 1991, A8.

In a memorandum from the Operations Department, Superintendent David Weldon advised Peel Board’s principals and superintendents of the procedure to be followed regarding kirpans until new direction was received from the Board on August 28, 1991. Said Weldon, “ Meanwhile, no publications , e.g. school discipline statements, student handbooks or parent letters etc. concerning the old Discipline Policy and Procedures will be distributed by any school prior to your receiving new direction .” Weldon insisted there was no legal alternative. “Dave Weldon-Kirpan” Issue. Peel Board of Education, Memo from D.G. Weldon, superintendent of operations, to Secondary Principals, Elementary

211

Peel Board’s Chairperson Bill Kent, who replaced Parrish as Board chairperson, called

the kirpan challenge justified because “elected representatives of the people chose to pursue the

issue.” 68 Despite the still swirling controversy, the Board’s kirpan conflict was finally exhausted

in the courts. As far as one writer was concerned, judicial rulings should have been unnecessary.

The kirpan fight should have ended with the Commission decision:

There was no question that the ban would be viewed as a lack of understanding and tolerance to different cultural and religious practices. It didn’t matter if some parent believed the kirpan could be used as a weapon. The issue became a case of discrimination. 69

Finally, in 1992, the operating procedure on the wearing of kirpans was set for approval. The executive superintendent of operations reminded Peel Board administrators of the need for sensitivity as stressed by the Human Rights Commission. No reference was to be made in newsletters or behaviour codes to kirpans. Expectations regarding kirpans would be communicated to Khalsa Sikhs at the time of their school registration. 70 Reflecting back on

Rabbi Plaut’s decision two decades later, former Peel Board Chairperson Parrish recalled:

I’m very happy with the [OHRC] decision. I still am. Till this day we’ve never had an incident in the Peel Board. And I like to think that there are a lot of kids

Principals, Superintendents of Schools, RE:1991-92 School Discipline Statements, August 13, 1991. Freedom of Information Request #07-1001 - April 10, 2007

68 Caroline Mallan, “Board’s kirpan fight cost $313,557,” The Toronto Star , September 19, 1991, BR3.

69 Plaut Papers. File 311-17. “The fight’s over”(Newspaper article, source not identified).

70 “Dave Weldon-Kirpan” Issue. Peel Board of Education, Memo from S. Birthelmer, executive superintendent of operations, to Secondary Principals, Elementary Principals, Superintendents of Schools, RE: Operating Procedure - Operations 13 Wearing of Kirpans, June 16, 1992. Freedom of Information Request #07-1001 - April 10, 2007.

212

that are comfortable in their own skin because they are able to express their religious affiliation. 71

For Sikhs, commentator Satwinder Gosal stated that the significance of Rabbi Plaut’s decision lay not in its conclusions but in its impact on the community. According to Gosal, Rabbi Plaut’s ruling was one thing. The community living with the decision was another. As a case in point, he paid attention to the United States Supreme Court Decision of Brown v. Board of Education , 347

U.S. 483 (1954). That court ruling made segregation in schools illegal but insidious forms or

racism, even in schools, continued. What of the 6000 person petition gathered by the non-Sikh

community in Peel in protest of the kirpan ruling? That petition, he argued, indicated many Peel

residents were not ready to see Sikhs allowed to practise the dictates of their faith. Also, the Peel

Board had appealed the Board of Inquiry decision despite legal advice to the contrary. He

regarded that strategy as evidence of the Peel Board’s unwillingness to accept the Sikh

community. Gosal concluded that Sikhs needed to invest greater effort in public outreach if they

were to achieve community acceptance. 72

Strategic Planning Directions for Renewal in the 1990s

While the kirpan case wound its way through the justice system, life continued in Peel.

Part of that life was the continual influx of immigrants. The Peel Board was especially impacted

by immigration. Just prior to the release of Rabbi Plaut’s decision in July 1990, the Board’s

Strategic Planning Committee presented an update to the Peel Board Trustees. In 1990 Peel was

Canada’s largest school board with 92, 000 students and 163 schools. Fully 24 percent of

71 Interview with C. Parrish, Mississauga, March 7,2007.

72 Satwinder. S. Gosal, “The Quest for Justice: Enforcing the Right to Wear the 5 K’s,” in Sikhs in Ontario (Ontario Council of Sikhs), 172.

213 students were non-English speakers, 33 percent identified as visible minorities, and 20 percent were born outside of Canada. In the previous decade, the student population had increased by

10,000. By 2000, the Peel Board anticipated approximately 110, 000 full-time students. No longer was the Board serving a primarily Anglo-Saxon, Christian population, and leaders were

“anxious to build a new, more relevant system for the 1990's.” Change was clearly a

“fundamental part of the fabric of the experience of the Peel school system.” It was noted in the report that critical issues arise from demographic change, including the Peel Board’s relationship to the provincial government, and the Board’s mandate to respond to local stakeholders. 73 The report left little doubt that during the next decade the Peel Board will need to accommodate demographic change.

During the 1980s and 1990s Peel Board administrator and Associate Director David

Leeder was much concerned about the impact of immigration in Peel. The schools of Peel, he recalls, underwent “vast cultural changes,” as the client population changed. Parts of Mississauga and Brampton, that were once “very Anglo-Saxon white,” were remade. In his opening remarks to the Peel Board’s Annual Organizational Meeting in December 1991, Chairperson Kent stated:

Over the past ten years in particular the make-up of our communities has changed dramatically. The influx of people from many different countries and with different language, religious and cultural backgrounds has had a profound impact on our communities in Peel. 74

A review of the Peel Board’s minutes for 1991 indicates that it was continually pressed to address ongoing issues of diversity. Correspondence was received from the Ottawa Board of

73 Peel Board of Education, Regular Meeting of the Board - Minutes, Appendix 2, Strategic Planning by the Peel Board of Education - Directions for Renewal (June 26, 1990), 1990-06-26, p. 10.

74 Peel Board of Education, Annual Organizational Meeting, 1991-12-02, Remarks by William Kent, Chair of the Peel Board of Education, 3.

214

Education asking Peel to support Ottawa and other school boards requesting “special funding

from the Ministry of Education for school boards dealing with the needs of immigrant/refugee

children.” 75 In response to a letter from the executive director of the Coalition for Religious

Freedom in Education requesting religious education and alternative schools, Chairperson Kent

replied that the Peel Board did not support stretching scarce public funds to support private and

religious schools. Rather, the Board was committed to:

providing an educational program which is consistent with our pluralistic society and which recognizes the rights of all faiths and communities. We believe that the needs of all students can best be met within the public education system where students of varied backgrounds and beliefs learn together and thus come to appreciate their differences and similarities. 76

Later that month, the Peel Board resolved to declare March 21, 1991 “Let’s Eliminate Racial

Discrimination Day.” 77 Its Community Relations Advisory Committee identified the need to connect anti-racism initiatives with other Board policies. It was suggested that “an historical perspective on the development of the Board’s policies relating to equal opportunity, multiculturalism and race relations” be provided to the Committee. 78 At a February 1991

meeting, Superintendent Weldon introduced the Multicultural Team from the Board’s Operations

Department and highlighted their activities which included liaising with community groups,

75 Peel Board of Education, Regular Meeting of the Board - Minutes, Item 27 Correspondence from Ottawa Board of Education re Costs of Services for Immigrant Students, 1991-01-08, 83.

76 Peel Board of Education, Regular Meeting of the Board - Appendix III, Letter to Mrs. Erika Dick, Executive Direction, Coalition for Religious Freedom in Education, from William Kent, Chair, Peel Board of Education, 1991-01-08.

77 Peel Board of Education, Regular Meeting of the Board, 1991-01-22, Item 17, “Let’s Eliminate Racial Discrimination Day”, 125.

78 Peel Board of Education, Community Relations Advisory Committee, 1991-01-28, Item 11, “Let’s Eliminate Racial Discrimination Day”, 144.

215

communicating with parents, and providing professional development for Peel staff. 79 During the

question period, one trustee indicated that the Peel Multicultural Council had expressed its

concerns about the lack of teacher role models for Peel’s visible minority students. 80 The

Community Relations Advisory Committee also discussed an upcoming Multicultural and Race

Relations Mini Conference and a planned visit to the Sikh Temple in Malton on the November

15, 1991 Professional Development Day. 81

1990 to 1995: Anti-Racism and Ethnocultural Equity Policy

What was the relationship between the kirpan matter and educational changes during the

1990s? It can be argued that the kirpan case was a significant, if indirect, antecedent to development of Peel Board’s equity documents, Managing and Encouraging and Respectful

Environments and The Future We Want . According to the associate director, the kirpan matter was solely a safety issue, rather than a catalyst for policy change, completely unrelated to the equity initiatives of the 1990s. Since the school shootings of 1975, Board officials were determined to ensure against violence on their properties. Looking back, Board Multicultural and

Race Relations Officer Maurice Hudson agreed: the kirpan was regarded as a safety threat. Time, not changes in policy, allowed for the public to become better-informed about Sikhism and, as a result, their fears became “less heightened.” Tony Pontes also saw little, if any, connection between the kirpan case and the development of equity policy in the 1990s. “Had it not

79 Peel Board of Education, Community Relations Advisory Committee, 1991-02-25, Item 11, Overview of Equal Opportunity, Multiculturalism, and Race Relations, 189.

80 Peel Board of Education, Community Relations Advisory Committee, 1991-02-25, Item 12, Question Period, 190.

81 Peel Board of Education, Community Relations Advisory Committee, 1991-10-28, Item 7, Dates of Interest, 699.

216

happened,” Pontes insisted, “the same policies and changes in attitudes and beliefs would have

occurred.” 82

Others saw a more direct link between the kirpan issue and later Board responses to

population diversity. For her part, Multicultural Officer Zubeda Vahed understood the kirpan

case as a “watershed moment for the [Peel] Board, for the communities, and for the way that the

Board did business.” According to Vahed, key Peel Board staff took guidance from the kirpan

case:

Post, what I call the “kirpan debacle,” other issues began to become very, very evident. And I think that one of the lessons that we learnt in the Board at every level was that we needed to increase our understanding of our faith communities, our racial communities, all of our communities for staff and students in the board. 83

As Peel’s population grew and diversified, she noted, “we started to grapple with formulating policies, training, working with increased partnerships with communities.” Policy/Program

Memoranda 119, 108 and 112 were examples of the “legalese items” coming through the

Ministry of Education in the 1990s. Court challenges further reinforced the notion that the Peel

Board needed to “have very clear pieces in place.” Said Vahed:

We came to a point where we had policies, procedures, programs that seemed to be all over the place. And I think The Future We Want was an attempt of

82 Interview with Tony Pontes, Brampton, January 29, 2007.

83 Interview with Zubeda Vahed, Mississauga, June 11, 2004.

217

solidifying some of those policies, some of the understanding, some of the programming. 84

Astute Board officials would learn from the kirpan case that a school board cannot formulate policy in isolation from the broader social and political context. The kirpan case also highlighted knowledge the role of the court system as arbitrator in matters of equity in the schools. How did that awareness impact equity policy in the Peel Board after the kirpan case?

In 1991 Peel Vice-principal Maurice Hudson was appointed multicultural and race relations officer while Vahed was on secondment to the Ministry of Education. 85 In that role,

Hudson claimed he gained “a much broader view” of the Peel system. He became increasingly convinced that Peel schools required appropriate resources to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse and growing student population. For his part, Hudson was dismayed to find “racist documents” being taught as classics in Peel schools. A concerted effort was necessary, he recalled, to provide materials that “reflect the worth and dignity of all the kids and staff.”

What is more, he said, the Peel Board’s teaching staff did not reflect the student population. “Just a handful of teachers who were not of European background” taught in the Peel system in the early-1990s. Only one principal of colour was employed in the secondary schools.

For that matter, Hudson had been the only vice-principal of colour in the secondary school panel.

Peel students, he insisted, needed diverse role models. According to Chairperson Kent, there was no consensus in the Peel community on “what the education system should be.” On December 10

1992 Peel resident Cleveland Erskine led a delegation to the Peel Board regarding the impact of

84 Interview with Zubeda Vahed, Mississauga, June 11, 2004.

85 Peel Board of Education, Community Relations Advisory Committee, 1991-09-23, Item 6, Introduction of Race Relations and Multicultural Officer, 631.

218

racism on visible minorities. Erskine told the Board of his experiences with racism in Canada as

an immigrant from Jamaica. All sectors of society should “be given an opportunity to make a

contribution.” The Board, he argued, should face its school problems and find solutions. 86

It was not long before population diversity translated into political muscle which, in turn,

“stimulated government action.” Hudson concluded that the government “had to respond to the

cry or the needs of the growing population that represented non-Europeans.” Inequities were

noted in government reports, said Hudson, “in terms of government employment, populations

and schools.” In response, the provincial New Democratic government mandated an Anti-racism

and Ethnocultural Equity Policy for school boards. 87 “The NDP sort of garnered the idea that schools would be required to look at a number of elements and set out plans to make change,” recalled Hudson. Change would “have taken longer” he noted, “if the legislation was not enacted.”

One superintendent speculated that the Board took steps to demonstrate that it was serious about addressing issues of diversity in the Peel system. Chris Bridge recalled that in the mid-1990s “the Board made a couple of hiring decisions that I think were directly related to reducing that tension in the community.” The appointments, he felt, were the Board’s “final response to the notion of we have to solve some of these issues in the community, and we have to be seen as solving some of these tension issues in the community.” 88 During that period,

Harold Brathwaite was appointed Peel’s director of education. Brathwaite’s appointment was

86 Peel Board of Education, Regular Meeting of the Board, 1991-12-10, Item 10, Delegation: Cleveland Erskine re Race Relations in Mississauga, 40.

87 In 1993, the Ontario Ministry of Education released Policy/Program Memorandum 119 requiring all school boards to develop an anti-racism and ethnocultural policy. McCaskell, 195.

88 Interview with C.W. Bridge, Brampton, October 5, 2004.

219

critical, said Hudson, because he had the “will to make something happen” locally. With the

involvement of various stakeholders, development of the Anti-Racist and Ethnocultural Equity

Policy got off the ground in Peel. According to Hudson, the consultation process resulted in the identification of areas of deficiency and proposals for change. The Board’s policy then became official in March 1995.

While the preparatory work was important, said Hudson, it was also “very strenuous.” He was given to understand that “change brings discomfort to a lot of people.” Some Peel staff, he observed, remained uncomfortable “around the whole notion of equity.” Others, those less privileged, he said, “welcomed the notion of change where they would be given fair and equal opportunity and access to resources and promotions.” 89

One contentious issue was the terminology used to discuss concepts of equity. The term

“anti-racist education,” he observed, was particularly unsettling for some people. Reflecting

back, Hudson argued that the term “anti-racist” was repulsive for many people. According to

Hudson, people asked why he should use the term “anti-racist education” rather than

“multicultural or whatever.” An anti-racist education, Hudson repeatedly explained, is inclusive

education. 90 Students require a culturally satisfying environment for learning. Without an inclusive environment, he argued, “we are not really educating all our kids.” “True anti-racist education means that you take a stand around everything from the sharing of resources and

89 Interview with Maurice Hudson, Mississauga, September 1, 2004.

90 For a discussion of anti-racism education see, for example, Barb Thomas, “Principles of Anti- Racist Education” Currents , Fall 1984, 20-24 from AO, Peel School Board, Students Wearing Kirpans; George J. Sefa Dei and Agnes Calliste, eds., Power, Knowledge and Anti-Racism Education (Halifax: Fernwood Publishing, 2000); Frances Henry and Carol Tator, “Chapter 8, Racism in Canadian Education,” The Colour of Democracy. Racism in Canadian Society (Toronto: Thomson Nelson, 2006); George J. Sefa Dei, “Challenges for Anti-Racist Educators in Ontario Today,” Orbit , vol. 33, no.3, 2003, 2-5; Jasmin Zine, “The Challenge of Anti-Islamophobia Education,” Orbit , vol. 33, no. 3, 2003, 39-41.

220

understanding of true equity which is not the same for everyone; it’s what everybody needs,”

said one Peel Board superintendent. 91 Equally important, Hudson contended, is the participation

of a diverse staff “with a strong understanding of anti-racism and equity regardless of their racial

background.”

How successful was the Peel Board in addressing issues of diversity? According to

Hudson, it was less successful than it should have been. Many well-written equity documents

faltered on their way to implementation. Often, when a document is written, “people will

embrace it and praise the wonderful words.” After a time, it “gathers dust on shelves in

principals’ offices.” According to Hudson, it is difficult “to implement policy of this magnitude

in a Board of this size without the full co-operation and support of all involved.” That “level of

co-operation and support is certainly not there,” said Hudson, “beyond the lip-service.” 92

Long-time Peel Board employee, Garry Campbell worked in various capacities on issues related to improving student behaviour and managing school climate. Campbell observed what he called, “collisions of the belief structures.” The Peel Board’s Multicultural Officer Zubeda

Vahed, was a case in point. As multicultural officer, said Campbell, Vahed represented the diverse cultural community before the Board and was herself a member of a minority community. Vahed could say “there is racism or that people are treated differently. . . because she walked in those shoes.” But that was not the experience of nearly all the Peel Board.

Campbell observed a collision between the collective structure of the Board and the minority experience. On one side, when it came to inequalities, the Board was of a mind that “this doesn’t happen” and certainly did not happen to them. On the other hand, there were calls for remedial

91 Interview with Bridget Harrison, Mississauga, July 22, 2004.

92 Interview with Maurice Hudson, Mississauga, September 1, 2004.

221

action from individuals, insisted Campbell, “whether it be with women, gender-based issues,

promotions, and senior levels of the board.” 93

Not everyone agreed with Campbell. “I think there’s been a lot of good people who believed very, very strongly in equity and the need for it to be addressed,” said the associate director. Leadership at the level of the Ministry of Education was more problematic. When the

New Democratic government was voted out, the provincial anti-racism initiative “was killed after a while.” It was clear that the Progressive Conservative government of Mike Harris had little empathy for equity initiatives. Indeed, Leeder observed, school boards witnessed “a de- emphasis on issues of equity through the late 90s.” In the Toronto Board, for example, “the number of people working in the equity field decreased.” Yet, the Peel Board continued its focus on equity said Leeder. He later recalled:

In fact that became obvious that we were one of the few boards that continued on. Multiculturalism and equity was not, during the late 1990s and into 2000 during the Harris days. . . on the front burner in a lot of areas. But it was here [in the Peel Board]. . . the driving force was simply that our population was changing and we had to meet the needs of those kids. 94

93 Interview with Gary Campbell, Mississauga, August 31, 2004.

94 Interview with David Leeder, Mississauga, August 10, 2004.

Chapter 6: Concluding Thoughts

Has the Peel kirpan case had a lasting impact? Perhaps so. Even as the provincial government shifted dramatically to the political right, the Peel Board, chastened by its kirpan experience and gradual recognition that demographic change in Peel also represented a change in

Peel politics, developed two equity documents. One position paper-- Manifesting Encouraging

and Respectful Environments -- was written by the Diversity Initiative Work Team, a committee

mandated to address issues such as racism and sexual harassment in Peel schools. That document

took its lead from curricular initiatives, the Ontario Human Rights Code , the Peel Board’s

Human Rights Policy and other Board documents. The second document-- The Future We Want --

was written later by the Social Justice Education Group. That second resource document built on

the ideas expressed in Manifesting Encouraging and Respectful Environments , providing a

teaching context for its implementation.

How and when were those documents developed? In the latter-1990's, said Zubeda

Vahed, the Peel Board made resources available to solidify equity policy with the hiring of Mary

Ann MacArthur and later Mary Samuel. Both came to the Board with Ontario Human Rights

Commission experience. As knowledgeable as she had become, said Vahed, her own perspective was that of an educator. According to Vahed, both MacArthur and Samuel brought a human rights perspective to the Board’s equity work. Their expertise, she insisted, “gave strength” to the equity agenda. Another observer put it this way:

Mary Anne MacArthur is a hugely important person in the development of equity initiatives in this board, because. . . she approached it from a, “You are going to

222 223

be sued if you don’t do this” perspective which is the only way people would listen. 1

Even if the Board did not approach equity work as moral principle, but rather out of fear it was

“going to get [its] ass sued,” the Manifesting Encouraging and Respectful Environments document was “hugely important” in that it provided a foundation for “equity work that began to be done at that point.” 2

Despite demographic changes in Peel and the tensions related to the kirpan issue, work on the Peel Board equity documents did not begin as a “pure equity initiative.” David Pedwell recalled that in the spring of 1996, the Peel Board’s Associate Director approached him to discuss proactive approaches to counteract school violence. “There was one serious physical assault and one serious sexual assault,” Pedwell explained. “We wanted to get to the bottom of those [incidents]” and explore the underlying trends. After investigating the incidents, Pedwell concluded both were assertions of “power.” 3

In the fall of 1996, Pedwell formed a committee to address issues of violence in schools

with representation from the Peel Board’s equity division, administrators, and the social work

and psychology divisions. 4 The committee began discussing the issue as one of power. About

1 Interview with Anonymous, Mississauga, July 7, 2004.

2 Interview with Anonymous, Mississauga, July 7, 2004.

3 Interview with David Pedwell, Brampton, June 24, 2004.

Equity Officer Adam Peer noted that the incidents involved sexual and racial harassment. According to Peer, Peel principals were asking for help in addressing these issues. Interview with Adam Peer, Toronto, June 29, 2004.

4 According to Bridget Harrison, the group comprised “highly opinionated, strong people who would have had a proven track record on speaking out on these issues, about tolerance for gays, lesbians, making sure that in their own hiring practices, in their own promotion practices, the way they practised

224

one year later, Mary Anne MacArthur was hired by the Board as a human rights officer.

According to Pedwell, she brought “an ability to talk and write about issues of equity and

power.” The committee then moved “from talking about power to talking about the ‘isms,’” with

the support of the associate director of education and the director of education in Peel.

Approximately thirty-five meetings were held. Eventually, the first of two equity documents--

Manifesting Encouraging and Respectful Environments –was completed. 5

All the while, Pedwell kept principals appraised of the committee’s work through that

drafting process. Even so, some committee members questioned whether Peel principals knew

“what racism looks like, what sexism looks like, what homophobia looked like.” 6 According to

Pedwell, some principals “felt that they were doing it [the equity work] already, which of course they weren’t. They were doing a bit of racism, a bit of something else, but they weren’t doing it fully enough.” 7 According to one observer, the committee included particular “isms” in the

document to assist principals with issues of racism, sexism and homophobia in the schools. Other

“isms” such as ageism, ableism, and faith as an ism were also included. 8 Some commentators

understood the significance of faith as an ism in terms of the kirpan case. Said Bridget Harrison:

What we’ve learned over time is that all of what they refer to now as “the isms” are all interrelated. You only have to scratch a sexist, a very little bit and find that very close to the surface you’ll find a racist and you only have to scratch a racist very little and you’ll find very close to the surface is a sexist because it is around their stuff in their schools that it would be very clear to everybody on that staff what was acceptable and what was not acceptable.” Interview with Bridget Harrison, Mississauga, July 22, 2004.

5 Interview with Anonymous, Mississauga, June 30, 2004.

6 Interview with Anonymous, Mississauga, June 30, 2004.

7 Interview with David Pedwell, Brampton, June 24, 2004.

8 Interview with Anonymous, Mississauga, June 30, 2004.

225

issues of sharing power. . . of truly seeing other people as having equal access and equal support. And not around the nice, pretty soft words of tolerance and acceptance. 9

Not all Peel staff appreciated the equal weight given “the isms” or encouraged the focus on equity work. On the contrary, Adam Peer recalled, some people had “very strong feelings about us not doing the work.” One incident that led Peer to doubt the Board’s sincerity was its evasive attitude about the suicide of a gay secondary school student. According to Peer, it was not until patent incidents of homophobia occurred in the form of “gay bashing” that the Board acknowledged homophobia as the problem. Peer believed that Peel Board officials did not want

“to talk about it [the suicide]. . . all the way up the hierarchy.” A second incident seemed to confirm the Board’s inconsistent approach to equity. According to Peer, the Ontario Secondary

School Teachers Federation sponsored an equity conference held one Saturday morning at the

Board’s office. There was a “huge brouha,” he recalled, when a session on homophobia was included. Conference organizers guarded the doors, he said, to keep “screaming trustees out so that students could listen to the sessions.” 10

When the Manifesting Encouraging and Respectful Environments document was being piloted in a few Peel schools, Pedwell believed that it would not be easily implemented. Pedwell was given to understand that principals did not want to receive the Manifesting Encouraging and

Respectful Environments document and have to implement it. “So we struck a deal” said

Pedwell, “that if I produced a friendly document, [then] they would implement it.” The friendly document became The Future We Want , which was “the Manifesting Encouraging and

9 Interview with Bridget Harrison, Mississauga, July 22, 2004.

10 Interview with Adam Peer, Toronto, June 29, 2004.

226

Respectful Environments document intermeshed with the Ontario curriculum.” “As a Board, we

always had high expectations for behaviour,” said Pedwell. “The equity documents were built on

a foundation of those standards.” 11 School violence was the initial impetus behind the equity documents, agreed the associate director. But that initiative became enlarged. According to the associate director, “When people like Mary Anne and others start looking with a lens it becomes a broader issue of respect for rights.” 12

How forceful were the policy documents in effecting change? Said Garry Campbell, there

is a “difference between what we believe as a corporation and what is there.” 13 Ironically, during

the official launch of The Future We Want in 2000, the Peel Board again faced allegations of inequity. According to Peer, a Peel teacher was photographed attending Gay Pride festivities with her same-sex partner. The teacher’s photograph was then published in a local newspaper.

Some students saw the photograph in the newspaper and questioned the teacher about her partner. She responded “the way any heterosexual staff member would have answered.” When parents found out about the discussions, there was a “furor.” For their part, said Peer, school officials were not supportive of their employee. The teacher then filed a grievance with the

Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario. Meanwhile, equity supporters questioned why the

Board had responded “in this homophobic fashion.”

Soon after that incident, the Board held an official launch for The Future We Want . The

Board’s first black director of education, Harold Brathwaite spoke. When Brathwaite finished his speech, Peel staff raised questions about the Board’s seeming lack of support for the gay teacher.

11 Interview with David Pedwell, Brampton, June 24, 2004.

12 Interview with David Leeder, Mississauga, August 10, 2004.

13 Interview with Gary Campbell, Mississauga, August 31, 2004.

227

“Harold was only supposed to speak for fifteen minutes,” said Peer, “and I give him credit

because an hour and a half later he was still there answering questions.” Peer felt that the

controversy “sort of derailed the whole point of the evening.” According to another

commentator, Brathwaite played a critical role as a supporter of the Peel Board’s equity

documents. Reflecting back, she expressed disappointment about the implementation of the

documents in the Peel system:

I heard Harold Brathwaite say, “Everything we do, from now on in the Peel Board, has to be filtered first, through the eyes of The Future We Want .”. . . So I was thrilled--cautiously thrilled. And, as it turned out, with good reason because the implementation of The Future We Want has nowhere near lived up to that expectation. 14

How can the system be made better? As noted in The Future We Want, many of the most significant changes in history have resulted from actions by individuals who believed they could make a difference. 15 For her part, Harrison argued that having a policy framework in place

makes a “huge” difference for equity seekers in the Peel Board because a person is no longer just

“an individual out there hanging in the wind. . . looking for support from powerful individuals,

which is probably how we had to do things as women, or as ethnic minorities some time ago.” 16

Looking back on his experience as equity officer, Peer concluded that change was slow “unless

we get sued or taken to the Commission.” 17 “Change happens in this country through

14 Interview with Anonymous, Mississauga, July 7, 2004.

15 Peel District School Board, The Future We Want: Building an Inclusive Curriculum , August 2000, 159.

16 Interview with Bridget Harrison, Mississauga, July 22, 2004.

17 Interview with Adam Peer, Toronto, June 29, 2004.

228

legislation,” agreed another person. In order to effect change, an individual has to “press human

rights complaints through the Board, through the Ontario Human Rights Commission, through

whatever avenue.” 18 In the course of her career, Harrison has observed that some policy issues

are tested in the lower courts and some eventually reach the Supreme Court of Canada. In those

cases, she noted, a final decision is made and legislators say, “I guess that’s it. We’re not going

to go back and revisit that. It’s done.” 19

According to Harrison, the [Peel] Board was not unwise in taking the kirpan case into court for a legal decision. Said Harrison:

“It cost them money. But then it’s decided. . . because the collision was going to come for a lot more boards than Peel. We may have been the first, but it was certainly going to come for any other board [with] Khalsa Sikh students [and] Khalsa Sikh teachers. 20

18 Interview with Anonymous, Mississauga, July 7, 2004.

19 Interview with Bridget Harrison, Mississauga, July 22, 2004.

In her discussion of the Canadian Charter, Radha Jhappan argues that legal decisions are not necessarily the final pronouncement. While Courts interpret the law, elected legislators can change laws and revise the Constitution. Jhappan notes that Canadian courts are required to ensure policy is consistent with fundamental values enshrined in the Constitution. 243 For a discussion of the strengths and limitations of the Charter , see Radha Jhappan, “Charter Politics and the Judiciary” in Canadian Politics in the 21 st Century , ed. Michael Whittington and Glen Williams (Scarborough: Nelson Thomson Learning, 2000).

20 Interview with Bridget Harrison, Mississauga, July 22, 2004.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

A. Document Collections Donna Bailey Papers [Personal collection] David Pedwell Papers [Personal collection] Court case documents: Sukhdev Singh District Court of Ontario, Brampton Hundal and the Peel Board of Education (File #7685/88) Lesley Barmania Papers [Personal collection] Linda Galen Papers [Personal collection] Peel Board of Education Papers Keel Cottrelle Archives, Toronto Ontario Human Rights Commission Papers Archives of Ontario Peel District School Board Papers H.J.A. Brown Education Centre, Mississauga Plaut Papers Library and Archives Canada Court case documents: Peel Board of Supreme Court of Ontario, Toronto Education and Ontario Human Rights Commission - Notice of Judicial Review (File#1170/89) Court case documents: Peel Board of Supreme Court of Ontario, Toronto Education and Ontario Human Rights Commission- Notice of Appeal (File#793/90) Zubeda Vahed Papers [Personal collection]

229 230

B. Interviews Anonymous June 30, 2004, Mississauga Anonymous July 5, 2004, Mississauga Anonymous July 6, 2004, Mississauga Anonymous July 7, 2004, Mississauga Anonymous July 21, 2004, Mississauga Anonymous August 11, 2004, Toronto Anonymous August 17, 2004 Mississauga Anonymous September 2, 2004, Mississauga Anonymous December 1, 2006, Mississauga Anonymous June 11, 2007, Toronto Anonymous December 12, 2007, Toronto Lesley Barmania August 23, 2004, Mississauga John Bateman August 16, 2004, Mississauga C.W. Bridge October 5, 2004, Brampton. Garry Campbell August 31, 2004, Mississauga George Carlson April 25, 2007, Mississauga Paula DeCoito March 21, 2007, Mississauga Barbara Dixon July 12, 2004, Toronto Linda Galen August 25, 2004, Mississauga Bridget Harrison July 22, 2004, Mississauga Maurice Hudson September 1, 2004, Mississauga Don Lawson April 12, 2007, Georgetown David Leeder August 10, 2004, Mississauga Janet McDougald August 23, 2004, Mississauga Michael Miller April 17, 2007, Mississauga Pardeep Nagra June 21, 2007, Brampton Jennifer O'Neill August 5, 2007, Brampton Harbhajan Singh Pandori December 28, 2006, Mississauga Elizabeth Parchment September 3, 2003, Mississauga C. Parrish March 7, 2007, Mississauga Adaoma Paterson August 16, 2004, Mississauga David R. Pedwell June 24, 2004, Brampton Adam Peer June 18, 2004, Toronto Tony Pontes January 29, 2007, Brampton Chet Singh March 1, 2004, Toronto T. Sher Singh May 1, 2007, Guelph William Springle March 21, 2007, Brampton Ruth G. Thompson August 25, 2004, Mississauga Zubeda Vahed June 11, 2004, April 25, 2007, Mississauga David Weldon February 28, 2007, Mississauga Rick Williams September 12, 2004, Mississauga

231

C. Newspapers and Magazines The Brampton Guardian Brampton The Brampton Times Brampton Canadian Jewish News Don Mill The Daily Times Brampton The Gazette Montreal The Globe and Mail Toronto Kingston Whig Standard Kingston Kitchener-Waterloo Record Kitchener-Waterloo Maclean’s Toronto The Mississauga News Mississauga The Sikh News and Views Markham Toronto Life Toronto The Toronto Star Toronto The Toronto Sun Toronto

D. Radio Media First News Global Toronto Newsroom Today CHCH Hamilton Wayne McLean Show CFRB Toronto

E. Canadian Statutes Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B of the Canada Act, 1982 (U.K.), c.11.

F. Other Published Materials Plaut, W. Gunther. More Unfinished Business . Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997.

Plaut, W. Gunther. Unfinished Business : Lester & Orpen Dennys, 1981.

232

G. Case Reports Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys v. Singh Multani , 2004 CanLII 31405 (QC C.A.)

Harbhajan Singh Pandori and OHRC v. Peel Board of Education , Court File #793/90 (Supreme Court of Ontario - Divisional Court)

Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys (2006) 1 S.C.R. 256

Nijjar v. Canada 3000 Airlines Ltd., (1999) 36 C.H.R.R. D/76

Ontario Human Rights Commission (1981). Pritam Singh and the Workmen’s Compensation Hospital and Rehabilitation Centre, “Board of Inquiry”, Decision.

Ontario Human Rights Commission (1990). Harbhaian Singh Pandori and the Ontario Human Rights Commission and The Peel Board of Education, “Board of Inquiry”, Decision #90-008. Toronto. Also known as Pandori v. Peel Board of Education (1990), 12 C.H.R.R. D/364, aff’d (1991), 3. O.R. (3rd) 53

Peel Board of Education v. Ontario Human Rights Commission , (1991) 3 531 [Ontario Court (General Division) Divisional Court]

Peel Board of Education v. Ontario Human Rights Commission , Court File #1170/89 (Supreme Court of Ontario - Divisional Court)

Sukhdev Singh Hundal v. Peel Board of Education , Court File # 7685/88 (District Court of Ontario - Brampton)

Tuli v. St. Albert Protestant Board of Education (1985), 8 C.H.R.R. D/3736, at D/3745.

H. Peel Board of Education Reports Anti-Racism and Ethnocultural Equity Policy and Implementation Plan, March 31, 1995 .

Faith as an "Ism". Issue Paper #5, Fall 2002.

The Future We Want: Building an Inclusive Curriculum , 2000.

The Future We Want. Resource Guide , 2002.

Love, A.J. ESL/ESD Program Review , 1996.

Manifesting Encouraging and Respectful Environments, 2000.

Pathway Schools. Pathways to System Success. Elementary and Secondary Social Risk Index , 2003.

233

I. Government Reports Lewis, S.(1992). Stephen Lewis Report on Race Relations in Ontario.

Ontario Human Rights Commission. “Policy on Creed and the Accommodation of Religious Observances,” 1996.

Ontario Legislature Debates (Hansard). Mr. R. F. Johnston, Member, December 14, 1988 Accessed August 4, 2010. http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/house-proceedings/house_detail.do?Date=1988-12- 14&Parl=34&Sess=1&locale=en#P7_168 .

Ontario Ministry of Education. “The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 1-8: English as a Second Language and English Literary Development--a Resource Guide, 2001.” Toronto, 2002.

Ontario Ministry of Education. “Policy/Program Memorandum No. 108. Opening or Closing Exercises in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools.” 1998.

Ontario Ministry of Education. “Policy/Program Memorandum No. 112,” 1990.

Ontario Ministry of Education. “Policy/Program Memorandum No. 119,” Antiracism and Ethnocultural Equity Policy, 1993.

Ontario Ministry of Education. "Policy/Program Memorandum No. 120," 1994.

Ontario Ministry of Education. “A Resource Guide for Antiracist and Ethnocultural-Equity Education,” 1992.

Ontario. Provincial Advisory Committee on Race Relations. “The Development of a Policy on Race and Ethnocultural Equity.” Report of the Provincial Advisory Committee on Race Relations, 1989.

Samuel, T. John. "Third World Immigration: Multiculturalism and Ethnicity in Canada." 1-20. Winnipeg: Employment Immigration Canada, 1988.

234

J. Non-Governmental Reports and Papers Beck, Brenda E.F. "Asian Immigrants and Canadian Multiculturalism: Current Issues and Future Opportunities." Paper presented at the Visible Minorities and Multiculturalism: Asians in Canada (1977, 1978), University of New Brunswick, University of Guelph, 1980.

Bowerman, Jennifer K. "East Indians in Alberta: A Human Rights Viewpoint." Paper presented at the Visible Minorities and Multiculturalism: Asians in Canada (1977, 1978), University of New Brunswick, University of Guelph, 1980.

Buchignani, Norman L. "Accommodation, Adaptation, and Policy: Dimensions of the South Asian Experience in Canada." Paper presented at the Visible Minorities and Multiculturalism: Asians in Canada (1977, 1978), University of New Brunswick, University of Guelph, 1980.

Canadian School Boards Association. "Forum Report." Paper presented at the CSBA Forum on the Language Training and Settlement Needs of Immigrant and Refugee Children and Youth, Ottawa, March 15-16, 1991.

CHASS. (2002). Canadian Census Analyser. Computing in the Humanities and Social Services, University of Toronto, Toronto.

D'Costa, Ronald. "Canadian Immigration Policy: A Chronological Review with Particular Reference to Discrimination." Paper presented at the Canada 2000: Race Relations and Public Policy, Ottawa, 1987.

DeCoito, Paula. "A Social Profile of the Visible Minority Population in Peel Region." Mississauga: The Social Planning Council of Peel, 2000.

Dwivedi, O. P. "Moral Dimensions of Public Policy and Race Relations." Paper presented at the Canada 2000: Race Relations and Public Policy, Ottawa, 1987.

Findlay, Peter C. "Multiculturalism in Canada: Ethnic Pluralism and Social Policies." Paper presented at the Education of Immigrant Students: Issues and Answers, Toronto, 1974.

Gupta, Mohini. "Dilution of the Ethnicity, Festivals and Folklore of Hindus in Canada." Paper presented at the Work, Ethnicity and Oral History (1986), Baddeck, Nova Scotia, 1988.

Hirabayashi, Gordon, and P. A. Saram. "Some Issues Regarding Ethnic Relations Research." Paper presented at the Visible Minorities and Multiculturalism: Asians in Canada (1977, 1978), University of New Brunswick, University of Guelph, 1980.

Indra, Doreen M. "Changes in Canadian Immigration Patterns over the Past Decade with Special Reference to Asia." Paper presented at the Visible Minorities and Multiculturalism: Asians in Canada (1977, 1978), University of New Brunswick, University of Guelph, 1980.

235

Kehoe, Jack. "Equality Now! The Report and the Response." Paper presented at the Partnerships in Education, Toronto, 1984.

Li, Peter S. "Constructing Immigrant's Work Worlds from Oral Testimonies." Paper presented at the Work, Ethnicity and Oral History (1986), Baddeck, Nova Scotia, 1988.

Mallea, John R. "Multicultural Education: An Alternative Theoretical Framework." Paper presented at the Partnerships in Education, Toronto, 1984.

Manley-Casimir, Michael E., and Terri A. Sussel. "Courts in the Classroom." Paper presented at The Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Catalyst for Educational Reform, Simon Fraser University 1983.

McLaughlin, Milbrey, and Joan Talbert. "Reforming Districts: How Districts Support School Reform. A Research Report." Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. University of Washington, 2003.

Pentney, William F. "Race Relations: The Legislative Base." Paper presented at the Canada 2000: Race Relations and Public Policy, Ottawa 1987.

Pitman, Walter. "Now Is Not Too Late." 303. Toronto: Submitted to the Council of Metropolitan Toronto by Task Force on Human Relations, 1977.

Raj, Samuel. "Some Aspects of East Indian Struggle in Canada, 1905-1947." Paper presented at the Visible Minorities: Asians in Canada (1977, 1978), University of New Brunswick, University of Guelph, 1980.

Roy, Patricia E. "The Illusion of Toleration: White Opinions of Asians in British Columbia, 1929-37." Paper presented at the Visible Minorities and Multiculturalism: Asians in Canada (1977, 1978), University of New Brunswick, University of Guelph, 1980.

Scott, Gilbert H. "Keynote Address: Conference Themes and the Concept of Multiculturalism." Paper presented at the Work, Ethnicity and Oral History (1986), Baddeck, Nova Scotia, 1988.

Tepper, Elliot L. "Demographic Change and Pluralism." Paper presented at the Canada 2000: Race Relations and Public Policy, Ottawa, 1987.

Thorburn, Hugh G. "The Political Foundations of Canada's Pluralist Society." Paper presented at the Canada 2000: Race Relations and Public Policy, Ottawa, 1987.

Ujimoto, K. Victor. "Theories of Race Relations: An Overview." Paper presented at the Canada 2000: Race Relations and Public Policy, Ottawa, 1987.

Walker, James W. St. G. "Race" Policy in Canada: A Retrospective." Paper presented at the Canada 2000: Race Relations and Public Policy, Ottawa, 1987.

236

Wilson, J. Donald. "Some Observations on Recent Trends in Canadian Educational History." Paper presented at the An Imperfect Past: Education and Society in Canadian History, Vancouver, 1983.

Secondary Sources

A. Internet Carabram http://carabram.org/

Carassauga http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carassauga

Ontario Legislature Debates (Hansard) http://www.ontla.on.ca/

Ontario Ministry of Education http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/

Rabbi W. G. Plaut http://www.holyblossom.org/rabbi_plaut.htm

Statistics Canada http://www.statcan.gc.ca/start-debut-eng.html

The Toronto Star http://www.thestar.com

University of Toronto (Statistics Canada Information) http://prod.library.utoronto.ca:8090/datalib/codebooks/c/cc81/dict81.pdf

Wikipedia (Numckas) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunchaku

B. Dissertations, Theses and Papers Fumia, Doreen Mary. "Competing for a Piece of the Pie: Equity Seeking and the Toronto District School Board in the 1990s." Ontario Institute For Studies in Education of the University of Toronto, 2003.

Sable, Martin. "Keeping the Faith: The Jewish Response to Compulsory Religious Education in Ontario's Public Schools, 1944-1990." University of Toronto - OISE, 1999.

Young, Tricia Linda. "Antiracism and Ethnocultural Equity Policies in Ontario Schools: An Historical Examination." History of Education, University of Toronto, 1994.

237

C. Books and Articles Abella, Irving, and Harold Troper. None Is Too Many. Canada and the Jews of Europe 1933- 1948 . Toronto: Key Porter Books Limited, 2000.

Abu-Laban, Yasmeen, and Christina Gabriel. Selling Diversity. Immigration, Multiculturalism, Employment Equity, and Globalization . Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2002.

Adeyanju, Charles T., and Nicole Neverson. ""There Will Be a Next Time: Media Discourse About an "Apocalyptic" Vision of Immigration, Racial Diversity, and Health Risks." Canadian Ethnic Studies 39, no. 1-2 (2007).

Agnew, Vijay. Resisting Discrimination. Women from Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean and the Women's Movement in Canada . Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996.

Alladin, Ibrahim. Racism in Canadian Schools . Toronto: Harcourt Brace & Company Canada Ltd, 1996.

Anderson, Alan B. "Implications of the Changing Demographic Profile, Multiculturalism and Immigration Policies for Canadian Ethnic Research." In Immigrants and Refugees in Canada: A National Perspective on Ethnicity, Multiculturalism and Cross-Cultural Adjustment, edited by Satya P. Sharma, Alexander M. Ervin and Deirdre Meintel, 17-36. Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan, Universite de Montreal, 1991.

Anderson, Kay J. "The Idea of Chinatown: The Power of Place and Institutional Practice in the Making of a Racial Category." In Immigration in Canada: Historical Perspectives , edited by Gerald Tulchinsky, 223-48. Toronto: Copp Clark Longman Ltd., 1994.

———. Vancouver's Chinatown. Racial Discourse in Canada, 1875-1980 . Montreal: McGill- Queen's University Press, 2006.

Angelo, Michael. The Sikh Diaspora: Tradition and Change in an Immigrant Community . Edited by Franklin Ng, Asian Americans: Reconceptualizing Culture, History, Politics . New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1997.

Anisef, Paul, Kenise Murphy Kilbride, ed. Managing Two Worlds: The Experiences & Concerns of Immigrant Youth in Ontario . Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press Inc., 2003.

Axelrod, Paul. "Historical Writing and Canadian Education from the 1970s to the 1990s." History of Education Quarterly 36, no. 1 (1996): 19-38.

———. The Promise of Schooling . Edited by Craig Heron and Franca Iacovetta, Themes in Canadian Social History . Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997.

Azmi, Shaheen. "Muslim Educational Institutions in Toronto, Canada." Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs 21, no. 2 (2001): 259-72.

238

Bacharach, S.B. "Organization and Political Dimensions for Research on School District Governance and Administration." In Organizational Behaviour in Schools and School Districts , edited by Samuel B. Bacharach. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1981.

Backhouse, Constance. Colour-Coded. A Legal History of Racism in Canada, 1900-1950 . Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999.

Bal, Manohar Singh. "Sikh Symbols - the Five K's." In Sikhs in Ontario , edited by Judith Bali and Manohar S. Bal. Toronto: Ontario Council of Sikhs, 1993.

Ball, Stephen J. "Orthodoxy and Alternative." In The Micro-Politics of the School . London: Methuen, 1987.

Bancroft, George W. "Teacher Education for the Multicultural Reality." In Education of Immigrant Students: Issues and Answers , edited by Aaron Wolfgang, 164-83. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1975.

Barrier, N. Gerald. "The Fairfax, Virginia Gurdwara Case and Sikh Identity." In Sikh Identity: Continuity and Change , edited by Pashaura Singh and N. Gerald Barrier, 365-78. New Delhi: Ajay Kumar Jain for Manohar Publishers & Distributors, 1999.

Bascia, N. "Pendulum Swings and Archeological Layers: Educational Policy and the Case of ESL." In The Erosion of Democracy in Education: From Critique to Possibilities , edited by J. Portelli and P. Solomon, 245-68. Calgary: Detselig, 2001.

Bascia, Nina. "Caught in the Crossfire: Restructuring, Collaboration, and the "Problem" School." Urban Education 31, no. 2 (1996): 177-98.

Bascia, Nina. "Teacher Unions and the Teaching Workforce: Mismatch or Vital Contribution?" In Developing the Teacher Workforce , edited by M. Smythe and D. Miretzky, 326-47. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004.

Bascia, N. "Women Teachers, Union Affiliation, and the Future of North American Teacher Unionism." Teaching and Teacher Education 14, no. 5 (1998): 551-63.

Bascia, N., and Noreen Jacka. "Falling in and Filling In: ESL Teaching Careers in Changing Times." Journal of Educational Change 2, no. 4 (2001): 325-46.

Bascia, N., and Beth Young. "Women's Careers Beyond the Classroom: Changing Roles in a Changing World." Curriculum Inquiry 31, no. 3 (2001).

Basran, Gurcharn S., and B. Singh Bolaria. The Sikhs in Canada: Migration, Race, Class, and Gender . New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003.

239

Beck, Clive. "Is Immigrant Education Only for Immigrants?" In Education of Immigrant Students: Issues and Answers , edited by Aaron Wolfgang, 5-18. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1975.

Bedard, Gabriel. "Deconstructing Whiteness: Pedagogical Implications for Anti-Racism Education." In Power, Knowledge and Anti-Racism Education , edited by G.J.S. Dei and Agnes Calliste, 41-58. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing, 2000.

Benedict, Ruth. "Racism; the Ism of the Modern World." In Racism; Key Concepts in Critical Theory , edited by Leonard Harris, 31-49. New York: Humanity Books, 1999.

Berry, J.W., and J.A. Laponce. "Evaluating Research on Canada's Multiethnic and Multicultural Society: An Introduction." In Ethnicity and Culture in Canada , edited by J.W. Berry and J.A. Laponce. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994.

Biles, John, Erin Tolley, and Humera Ibrahim. "Does Canada Have a Multicultural Future?" Canadian Diversity 4, no. 1 (2005).

Bissoondath, Neil. "A Question of Belonging: Multiculturalism and Citizenship." In Belonging: The Meaning and Future of Canadian Citizenship , edited by William Kaplan. Montreal: McGill- Queen's University Press, 1993.

Blais, Jean-Guy , and Soundiata Diene Ouedraogo. "A Cross-Sectional Sketch of a Few Demographic Characteristics of Teachers in Canada." In Educators' Discourses on Student Diversity in Canada: Context, Policy, and Practice , edited by Diane Gerin-Lajoie. Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Inc., 2008.

Bonnett, Alastair, and Bruce Carrington. "Constructions of Anti-Racist Education in Britain and Canada." Comparative Education 32, no. 3 (1996): 271-88.

Bramadat, Paul. "From the Backdrop to the Foreground: Understanding Religion in Canadian Society." Canadian Diversity 2, no. 1 (2003).

Bramadat, Paul, and David Seljak, eds. Religion and Ethnicity in Canada . Toronto: Pearson Education Canada, Inc., 2005.

Brampton Heritage Board. Heritage Brampton: An Illustrated Review of Some Fine Old Buildings in the City-1978 . Brampton: City of Brampton Heritage Board, 1979.

Brampton, Inspired Capacity . Shelburne, Ontario: Charles Owen and Company Inc., 2003. Brampton's 100th Anniversary as an Incorporated Town 1873-1973 . Charters Publishing Company Limited, 1973.

240

Brouwer, Ruth Compton. "A Disgrace to 'Christian Canada': Protestant Missionary Concerns and the Treatment of South Asians in Canada, 1908-1940." In A Nation of Immigrants , edited by Franca Iacovetta, 361-83. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998.

Brown, A., and M. A. Zuker. "Pupils and the Law." In Education Law , 204-80. Toronto: Thomson Canada Limited, 2002.

Brown, Robert Craig. "Full Partnership in the Fortunes and in the Future of the Nation." In Ethnicity and Citizenship: The Canadian Case , edited by Jean Laponce and William Safran, 9- 25. London: Frank Cass & Co. Ltd., 1996.

Bruno-Jofre, Rosa, and Dick Henley. "Public Schooling in English Canada." Canadian Ethnic Studies XXXII, no. No. 1 (2000): 38-53.

Buchignani, Norman, and Doreen M. Indra. "Key Issues in Canadian-Sikh Ethnic and Race Relations." In The Sikh Diaspora: Migration and the Experience Beyond Punjab , edited by N. Gerald Barrier and Verne A. Dusenbury, 141-84. Delhi: Chanakya Publications, 1989.

Buchignani, Norman L. "South Asian Canadians and the Ethnic Mosaic: An Overview." Canadian Ethnic Studies 9, no. 1 (1979): 48-68.

Buchignani, Norman, and Paul Letkemann. "Ethnographic Research." In Ethnicity and Culture in Canada: The Research Landscape , edited by J. W. Berry and J. A. Laponce, 203-37. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994.

Bumsted, Jack. "Visions of Canada: A Brief History of Writing on the Canadian Character and the Canadian Identity." In A Passion for Identity: Canadian Studies for the 21st Century , edited by David Taras and Beverly Rasporich, 17-35. Toronto, 2001.

Burnet, Jean. "The Policy of Multiculturalism within a Bilingual Framework." In Education of Immigrant Students: Issues and Answers , edited by Aaron Wolfgang, 205-14. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1974.

Carr, Paul R. "Transforming the Institution or Institutionalizing the Transformation? : Anti- Racism and Equity in Education in Toronto." McGill Journal of Education 34, no. no1 (1999): 49-77.

Carrington, Alastair Bonnett & Bruce. "The Other Canadian 'Mosaic'--'Race' Equity Education in Ontario and British Columbia." Comparative Education 33, no. 3 (1997): 411-31.

Chadney, James G. "The Formation of Ethnic Communities." In The Sikh Diaspora: Migration and the Experience Beyond Punjab , edited by N. Gerald Barrier and Verne A. Dusenbery, 185- 99. Delhi: Chanakya Publications, 1989.

241

Chessum, Lorna. "'Sit Down, You Haven't Reached That Stage yet': African Caribbean Children in Leicester Schools 1960-74." History of Education 26, no. 4 (1997): 409-29.

Clarkson, Beth. "600 Is Too Many." Ryerson Review of Journalism , no. Spring 2000: 6-9.

Clune, William. "Three Views of Curriculum Policy in the School Context: The School as Policy Mediator, Policy Critic, and Policy Constructor." In The Contexts of Teaching in Secondary Schools: Teachers' Realities , edited by M. McLaughlin, J. Talbert and N. Bascia, 256- 70. New York: Teachers College Press, 1990.

Cooper, Bob. County to Keystone. Reflections of Peel 1974-1999 : Regional Municipality of Peel, 2000.

———. County to Keystone: Reflections of Peel 1974-1999 . Brampton: Regional Municipality of Peel, 2000. Cornbleth, Catherine, and Dexter Waugh. The Great Speckled Bird . New York: St. Martin's Press Inc., 1995. Coulter, Rebecca Priegert. "Gender Equity and Schooling: Linking Research and Policy." Canadian Journal of Education 21, no. 4 (1996): 433-52.

Crowson, Robert L., and William Lowe Boyd. "Urban Schools as Organizations: Political Perspectives." In The Politics of Urban Education in the United States , edited by James G. Cibulka, Rodney J. Reed and Kenneth K. Wong, 87-103. Washington, D.C.: The Falmer Press, 1991.

Cryderman, Brian K., Chris N. O'Toole, and Augie Fleras. Police, Race and Ethnicity: A Guide for Police Services . Third edition ed. Markham: Butterworth Canada Ltd., 1998.

Cummins, Jim. "Minority Status and Schooling in Canada." Anthropology & Education Quarterly Vol. 28, no. 3 (1997): 411-30.

Curtis, Bruce. Building the Educational State: Canada West, 1836-1871 . Edited by Ivor F. Goodson, Studies in Curriculum History Series . London, Ontario: The Althouse Press, 1988.

Darling-Hammond, L. "The Limits of Education Bureaucracy." In The Right to Learn: A Blueprint for Creating Schools That Work , 37-68. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997.

Davies, Donna, ed. Settling the Hills: Historical Reflections, Caledon East and District . Toronto: eastendbooks, 2000.

Davies, Scott. "From Moral Duty to Cultural Rights: A Case Study of Political Framing in Education." Sociology of Education Vol. 72, no. 1 (1999): 1-21.

Dehli, Kari. "Travelling Tales: Education Reform and Parental 'Choice' in Postmodern Times." Journal of Education Policy 11, no. 1 (1996): 75-88.

242

Dehli, Kari, and Harry Smaller. "Introduction." Ontario History LXXXV, no. Number 4 (1993): 284-89.

Dei, G.J.S. Anti-Racism Education: Theory and Practice . Halifax, Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing, 1996.

———. "Narrative Discourses of Black African-Canadian Parents and the Canadian Public School System." Canadian Ethnic Studies XXV, no. 3 (1993): 45-65.

Dei, G.J.S. and Leeno Karumanchery. "School Reforms in Ontario: The "Marketization of Education" and the Resulting Silence on Equity." The Alberta Journal of Educational Research XLV, no. 2 (1999): 111-31.

Dei, G.J.S., and Leeno L. Karumanchery. "School Reforms in Ontario: The "Marketization of Education" and the Resulting Silence on Equity." In The Erosion of Democracy in Education. Critique to Possibilities , edited by J. Portelli and P. Solomon. Calgary: Detselig Enterprises Ltd., 2001.

Dei, George J. Sefa. "Towards an Anti-Racism Discursive Framework." In Power, Knowledge and Anti-Racism Education , edited by George J. Sefa Dei and Agnes Calliste, 23-40. Halifax: Fernwood, 2000.

Dickinson, Greg M., and W. Rod Dolmage. "Education, Religion, and the Courts of Ontario." Canadian Journal of Education 21, no. 4 (1996): 363-83.

Driedger, Leo, and Angus Reid. "Public Opinion on Visible Minorities." In Race and Racism, Canada's Challenge , edited by Leo Driedger and Shiva S. Halli. Montreal: McGill/Queen's University Press, 2000.

D'Souza, Mario O. "Religious Particularism and Cultural Pluralism: The Possible Contribution of Religious Education to Canadian Political Identity." Religious Education 95, no. 3 (2000): 234-49.

Dusenbery, Verne A. "'Nation' or 'World Religion'?: Master Narratives of Sikh Identity." In Sikh Identity: Continuity and Change , edited by Pashura Singh and N. Gerald Barrier, 127-44. New Delhi: Ajay Kumar Jain for Manohar Publishers & Distributors, 1999.

———. "The Poetics and Politics of Recognition: Diasporan Sikhs in Pluralist Polities." American Ethnologist Vol. 24, no. 4 (1997): 738-62.

Dussel, Ines. "School Uniforms and the Disciplining of Appearances: Towards a History of the Regulation of Bodies in Modern Educational Systems." In History, the Problem of Knowledge, and the New Cultural History of Schooling: Critical Essays on Knowledge and Schooling , edited by Thomas S. Popkewitz, Barry M. Franklin and Miguel A. Pereyra, 207-41. New York: RoutledgeFalmer, 2001.

243

Ervin, Lorna, and David MacLennan. "Introduction." In Sociology of Education in Canada , Intro pg 1-25. Toronto: Copp Clark Longman Ltd., 1994.

Fleming, W. G. Education: Ontario's Preoccupation . Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1972.

Fleras, A., and J.L. Kunz. "Multicultural Canada." In Media and Minorities Representing Diversity in Multicultural Canada , 3-28. Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing Inc., 2001.

Fong, Melanie, and Larry O. Johnson. "The Eugenics Movement: Some Insights into the Institutionalization of Racism." Issues in Criminology 9, Fall (1974): 89-115.

Francis, Diane. Immigration: The Economic Case . Toronto: Key Porter Books, 2002.

Gaffield, Chad. Language, Schooling, and Cultural Conflict: The Origins of the French- Language Controversy in Ontario . Kingston: Mc-Gill Queen's University Press, 1987.

Gagan, David. Hopeful Travellers: Families, Land, and Social Change in Mid-Victorian Peel County, Canada West . Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981.

Garcea, Joesph. "The Construction and Constitutionalization of Canada's Citizenship Regime: Reconciliation of Diversity and Equality." Canadian Diversity 2, no. 1 (2003).

Ghosh, Ratna, and Ali A. Abdi. Education and the Politics of Difference: Canadian Perspectives . Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press Inc., 2004.

Gibson, Margaret A. Accommodation without Assimilation. Sikh Immigrants in an American High School . London: Cornell University Press, 1988.

Gidney, R.D. From Hope to Harris: The Reshaping of Ontario's Schools . Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated, 1992.

Gosal, Satwinder S. "The Quest for Justice: Enforcing the Right to Wear the 5 K's." In Sikhs in Ontario , edited by Judith Bali and Manohar Singh Bal, 130-72. Toronto: Ontario Council of Sikhs, 1993.

Grant, Nigel. "Some Problems of Identity and Education: A Comparative Examination of Multicultural Education." Comparative Education Vol. 33, no. 1 (1997): 9-28.

Halli, Shiva S., Leo Driedger, and Frank Trovato, eds. Ethnic Demography . Edited by David B. Knight, The Carleton Library Series . Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1990.

Harper, Helen. "Difference and Diversity in Ontario Schooling." Canadian Journal of Education 22, no. 2 (1997): 192-206.

244

Hawkins, Freda. Canada and Immigration: Public Policy and Public Concern . Edited by J. E. Hodgetts. Second Edition ed, Canadian Public Administration Series . Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1988.

———. Critical Years in Immigration: Canada and Australia Compared . Second edition ed. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1991.

Head, Wilson A. "Historical, Social, and Cultural Factors in the Adaptation of Nonwhite Students in Metropolitan Toronto Schools." In Multiculturalism in Canada: Social and Educational Perspectives , edited by Ronald J. Samuda, J. W. Berry and Michel Laferriere, 266- 79. Toronto: Allyn and Bacon Inc., 1984.

Heck, Ronald H. Studying Educational and Social Policy . London: Lawrence Erlbraum Associates, Publishers, 2004.

Helweg, Arthur W. "Transmitting and Regenerating Culture: The Sikh Case." In Sikh Identity: Continuity and Change , edited by Pashaura Singh and N. Gerald Barrier, 299-314. New Delhi: Ajay Kumar for Manohar Publishers & Distributors, 1999.

Henry, Frances, Carol Tator, Winston Mattis, and Tim Rees. The Colour of Democracy: Racism in Canadian Society . Third Edition ed. Canada: Thompson, 2006.

Herman, Didi. Rights of Passage: Struggles for Lesbian and Gay Legal Equity . Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994.

Hirji, Shemina, and June Beynon. "Teachers of Punjabi Sikh Ancestry: Their Perceptions of Their Roles in the British Columbia Education System." The Alberta Journal of Educational Research XLVI, no. 3 (2000): 250-66.

Houston, Susan E., and Alison Prentice. "Towards a Government School System." In Schooling and Scholars in Nineteenth-Century Ontario , 97-123. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1988.

Howe, R. Brian, and David Johnson. Restraining Equality. Human Rights Commission in Canada . Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000.

Iannaccone, Laurence, and Frank W. Lutz. "The Crucible of Democracy: The Local Arena." In The Study of Educational Politics , edited by Jay D. Scribner and Donald H. Layton, 39-52. Washington, D.C.: The Falmer Press, 1994.

Ignatieff, Michael. The Rights Revolution , CBC Massey Lectures Series . Toronto: House of Anansi Press Limited, 2000.

245

Israel, Milton, and N.K. Wagle, eds. Polyphony: The Bulletin of the Multicultural History Society of Canada . Edited by Gabrielle Scardellato. Vol. 12 Double Issue. Toronto: Multicultural History Society of Ontario, 1991.

Jackson, Robert. "Multiculturalism and Religious Education: Some Observations from Britain." Canadian and International Education 24, no. 2 (1999): 1-30.

James, Carl E., and Joy Mannette. "Rethinking Access: The Challenge of Living with Difficult Knowledge." In Power, Knowledge and Anti-Racism Education , edited by G.J.S. Dei and Agnes Calliste, 73-92. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing, 2000.

Jhappan, Radha. "Charter Politics and the Judiciary." In Canadian Politics in the 21st Century , edited by Michael Whittington and Glen Williams. Scarborough, Ontario: Nelson Thomson Learning, 2000.

Johnston, Hugh. The Voyage of the Komagata Maru: The Sikh Challenge to Canada's Colour Bar . Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1989.

Judge, Paramjit S. Punjabis in Canada: A Study of Formation of an Ethnic Community . Delhi: Chanakya Publications, 1994.

Kalbach, Madeline A., and Warren E. Kalbach, eds. Perspectives on Ethnicity in Canada: A Reader . Toronto: Harcourt Canada, 2000.

Kalin, Rudolph, and J. W. Berry. "Ethnic and Multicultural Attitudes." In Ethnicity and Culture in Canada: The Research Landscape , edited by J. W. Berry and J. A. Laponce, 293-321. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994.

Katz, Michael B. "The Origins of Public Education: A Reassessment." History of Education Quarterly 16, no. 4 (1976): 381-407.

Kavanagh, Annette, Helen Roy, and Lorraine Williams. Yesterday Today . Brampton: Brampton Heritage Board, 1982.

Kehoe, John. "Racism in Canadian Schools: Untested Assumptions." Canadian Journal of Education 21, no. 4 (1996): 453-57.

Kelley, Ninette, and Michael Trebilcock. The Making of the Mosaic. A History of Canadian Immigration Policy . Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998.

Khan, Azfar. "In the Maelstrom of Hope and Despair; the Prospects for South Asian Migration to Canada." In The Silent Debate: Asian Immigration and Racism in Canada , edited by Aprodicio Laquian, Eleanor Laquian and Terry McGee, 97-112. Vancouver: Institute of Asian Research, 1997.

246

Khayatt, Madiha Didi. Lesbian Teacher: An Invisible Presence . Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992.

Knowles, Valerie. Strangers at Our Gates: Canadian Immigration Policy, 1540-1990 . Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1992.

Krotki, Karol J., and Colin Reid. "Demography of Canadian Population by Ethnic Group." In Ethnicity and Culture in Canada: The Research Landscape , edited by J. W. Berry and J. A. Laponce, 17-59. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994.

Kukathas, Chandran. "Are There Any Cultural Rights?" Political Theory Vol. 20, no. No. 1 (1992): 105-39.

Kurian, George. "Socialization of South Asian Immigrant Youth." In Immigrants and Refugees in Canada: A National Perspective on Ethnicity, Multiculturalism and Cross-Cultural Adjustment , edited by Satya P. Sharma, Alexander M. Ervin and Deirdre Meintel, 47-75. Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan, Universite de Montreal, 1991.

Kymlicka, Will. Finding Our Way: Rethinking Ethnocultural Relations in Canada . Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Kymlicka, Will. Multicultural Odysseys. Navigating the New International Politics of Diversity . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

———. "Multiculturalism and Minority Rights: West and East." Journal on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe , no. 4 (2002).

———. "The Uncertain Futures of Multiculturalism." Canadian Diversity 4, no. 1 (2005). Labatt, Mary. Always a Journey: A History of the Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario 1918-1993 . Toronto: Federation of Women Teachers Associations of Ontario, 1993.

Laczko, Leslie S. "Feelings of Fraternity Towards Old and New Canadians: The Interplay of Ethnic and Civic Factors." In Ethnicity and Citizenship: The Canadian Case , edited by J. A. Laponce and William Safran, 45-63. London: Frank Cass & Co. Ltd., 1996.

Laquian, Aprodicio, and Eleanor Laquian. "Asian Immigration and Racism in Canada- a Search for Policy Options." In The Silent Debate: Asian Immigration and Racism in Canada , edited by Aprodicio Laquian, Eleanor Laquian and Terry McGee, 3-28. Vancouver: Institute of Asian Research, 1997.

Lenskyj, Helen Jefferson. "Going Too Far? Sexual Orientation(S) in the Sex Education Curriculum." In Sociology of Education in Canada , edited by Lorna Ervin and David Maclennan, 278-89. Toronto: Copp Clark Longman Ltd., 1994.

247

Levin, B., Riffel, J.A. "Changing Schools in a Changing World." In The Sharp Edge of Educational Change: Teaching, Leading and the Realities of Reform , edited by N. Bascia, A. Hargreaves, 178-94. London: The Falmer Press, 2000.

Levin, Benjamin, and J. Anthony Riffel. Dealing with Diversity: Some Propositions from Canadian Education (Volume 2 Number 2) Education Policy Analysis Archives, 1994 [cited December 22 2006]. Available from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v2n2.html .

Ley, David. "Between Europe and Asia: The Case of the Missing Sequoias." Ecumene 2, no. 2 (1995).

Li, Peter S. Destination Canada: Immigration Debates and Issues . Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2003.

———, ed. Race and Ethnic Relations in Canada . Don Mills: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Loverseed, Helga V. Brampton. An Illustrated History . Burlington, Ontario: Windsor Publications (Canada) Ltd., 1987.

Lynch, James. Education for Citizenship in a Multicultural Society , Cassell Education Series . London: Villiers House, 1992.

Magsino, Romulo. "Denominational Rights in Education." In Courts in the Classroom: Education and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms , edited by Michael E. Manley-Casimir and Terri A. Sussel. Calgary: Detselig Enterprises Limited, 1986.

———. "Study of Religions for Citizenship: Why Not?" Canadian Diversity 2, no. 1 (2003). Malen, Betty. "The Micropolitics of Education: Mapping the Multiple Dimensions of Power Relations in School Polities." In The Study of Educational Politics , edited by Jay D. Scribner and Donald H. Layton. Washington, D.C.: The Falmer Press, 1994.

Manzer, Ronald. Public Schools and Political Ideas: Canadian Educational Policy in Historical Perspective . Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994.

Marshall, Catherine, and Cynthia Gerstl-Pepin. Reframing Educational Politics for Social Justice . Boston: Pearson, 2005.

Martell, George. A New Education Politics: Bob Rae's Legacy and the Response of the Ontario Secondary School Teacher's Federation . Edited by Satu Repo. 6 vols. Vol. 6, Our Schools/ Ourselves Monograph Series: No. 19 . Toronto: James Lorimer &Company Ltd., Publishers, 1995.

Martin, Shane P. "The Problem of Multicultural Education." Multicultural Education Journal 11 (1993): 9-20.

248

Mattingly, Paul H., and Marilyn Tobias. "Race, Gender, and Equity Policy: The Case of the National Institute of Education." History of Education Quarterly Vol. 39, no. 4 (1999): 397-426.

McCaskell, Tim. Race to Equity . Toronto: Between the Lines, 2005.

McDonald, Ric. Mississauga: City of Excellence . Canada: Community Communications, Inc., 1997.

McDonnell, L., and R. Elmore. "Getting the Job Done: Alternative Policy Instruments." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 9, no. 2 (1988): 133-52.

McIntosh, Peggy. "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack." Independent School Winter (1990).

McKague, Ormond, ed. Racism in Canada . Saskatoon: Fifth House Publishers, 1991. McLaughlin, M. "Learning from Experience: Lessons from Policy Implementation." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 9, no. 2 (1987): 171-78.

McLeod, K. "The Multicultural Experience." In Teaching Teachers: The Faculty of Education, University of Toronto 1906-1996 , edited by D. Booth and S. Stiegelbauer, 50-75. Hamilton: Caliburn, 1996.

McLeod, Keith A. "A Short History of the Immigrant Student as "New Canadian"." In Education of Immigrant Students: Issues and Answers , edited by Aaron Wolfgang, 19-31. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1975.

McLeod, W. H. Exploring Sikhism. Aspects of Sikh Identity, Culture, and Thought . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

———. "The Turban: Symbol of Sikh Identity." In Sikh Identity: Continuity and Change , edited by Pashaura Singh and N. Gerald Barrier, 57-67. New Delhi: Ajay Kumar for Manohar Publishers and Distributors, 1999.

Mensah, Joseph. Black Canadians: History, Experiences, Social Conditions . Halifax: Fernwood Publishing, 2002.

Mercer, John. "Canadian Cities and Their Immigrants: New Realities." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences Vol. 538, Being and Becoming Canada (1995): 169- 84.

Miller, J. R. "Unity/Diversity: The Canadian Experience." Dalhousie Review 55 (1975): 63-82. Morgan, Gareth. "Interests, Conflict ,and Power: Organizations as Political Systems." In Images of Organization , 153-213. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc., 1997.

249

Nayar, Kamala Elizabeth. The Sikh Diaspora in Vancouver: Three Generations Amid Tradition, Modernity, and Multiculturalism . Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004.

Novoa, Antonio. "Texts, Images, and Memories: Writing "New" Histories of Education." In History, the Problem of Knowledge, and the New Cultural History of Schooling: Critical Essays on Knowledge and Schooling , edited by Thomas S. Popkewitz, Barry M. Franklin and Miguel A. Pereyra, 45-66. New York: RoutlegeFalmer,

O'Hara, Dale. Acres of Glass . Toronto: eastendbooks, 2007.

Okin, Susan Moller, and with respondents. Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? Edited by Joshua Cohen, Matthew Howard and Martha C. Nussbaum. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999.

Olssen, Mark, John Codd, and Anne-Marie O'Neill. Education Policy: Globalization, Citizenship and Democracy . London: SAGE Publications Ltd., 2004.

Osborne, Ken. "Democracy, Democratic Citizenship, and Education." In The Erosion of Democracy in Education , edited by J. Portelli and P. Solomon. Calgary: Detselig Enterprises Ltd., 2001.

———. Education: A Guide to the Canadian School Debate--or Who Wants What and Why? Toronto: Penguin Books, 1999.

Palmer, Howard. "Reluctant Hosts: Anglo-Canadian Views of Multiculturalism in the Twentieth Century." In Immigration in Canada: Historical Perspectives , edited by Gerald Tulchinsky, 297- 333. Toronto: Copp Clark Longman Ltd., 1994.

Pask, E. Diane. "The Charter, Human Rights, and Multiculturalism in Common-Law Canada." In Ethnicity and Culture in Canada: The Research Landscape , edited by J. W. Berry and J. A. Laponce, 124-52. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994.

Patrias, Carmela, and Ruth A. Frager. "This Is Our Country, These Are Our Rights': Minorities and the Origins of the Human Rights Campaigns." Canadian Historical Review , no. 82 (2001): 1-25.

Pennacchio, Luigi G. "Toronto's Public Schools and the Assimilation of Foreign Students, 1900- 1920." The Journal of Educational Thought 20, no. 1 (1986): 37-47.

Popkewitz, Thomas S. "The Production of Reason and Power." In History, the Problem of Knowledge, and the New Cultural History of Schooling: Critical Essays on Knowledge and Schooling , edited by Thomas S. Popkewitz, Barry M. Franklin and Miguel A. Pereyra, 151-83. New York: RoutledgeFalmer, 2001.

250

Ramcharan, Subhas. "Special Problems of Immigrant Children in the Toronto School System." In Education of Immigrant Students: Issues and Answers, edited by Aaron Wolfgang, 95-106. Toronto: The Ontario Institute of Studies in Education, 1975.

Rasporich, Anthony W. "Ethnicity in Canadian Historical Writing 1970- 1990." In Ethnicity and Culture in Canada: The Research Landscape , edited by J. W. Berry and J. A. Laponce, 153-78. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994.

Renteln, Alison Dundes. "Visual Religious Symbols and the Law." American Behavioral Scientist 47, no. 12 (2004): 1573-96.

Riendeau, Roger E. Mississauga: An Illustrated History . Canada: Windsor Publications Ltd., 1985.

Ross, Nicola. Caledon . Erin: Boston Mills Press, 1999.

Roy, Patricia E. "The Fifth Force: Multiculturalism and the English Canadian Identity." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences Vol. 538, no. Being and Becoming Canada (1995): 199-209.

———. "The Illusion of Toleration: White Opinions of Asians in British Columbia." In Visible Minorities and Multiculturalism: Asians in Canada , edited by K. Victor Ujimoto and Gordon Hirabayashi. Toronto: Butterworths, 1980.

Royal, Stuart. Our Brampton . Burlington: Interkom Creative Marketing, 2000. Sable, Martin. "George Drew and the Rabbis: Religious Education in Ontario's Public Schools." Canadian Jewish Studies 4 (1998): 25-53.

Samuda, Ronald J., John W. Berry, and Michel Laferriere, eds. Multiculturalism in Canada: Social and Educational Perspectives . Toronto: Allyn and Bacon, 1984.

Schoenfeld, Stuart. "Transnational Religion, Religious Schools, and the Dilemma of Public Funding for Jewish Education: The Case of Ontario." Jewish Political Studies Review 11, no. 3-4 (1999): 115-39.

Seward, Michael J., and Randall White. On the Road in the GTA: An Eclectic Guide to the Exurban Sprawl of Greater Toronto . Toronto: eastendbooks, 2003.

Shariff, Shaheen. "Balancing Competing Rights: A Stakeholder Model for Democratic Schools." Canadian Journal of Education 29, no. 2 (2006).

251

Sharma, Satya P. "South Asian Visa Students in a Western Canadian University: A Study in Process of Adjustment and 'Marginal' Cultural Adaptation." In Immigrants and Refugees in Canada: A National Perspective on Ethnicity, Multiculturalism and Cross-Cultural Adjustment , edited by Satya P. Sharma, Alexander M. Ervin and Deirdre Meintel, 76-97. Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan, Universite de Montreal, 1991.

Singh, Basil R. "Responses of Liberal Democratic Societies to Claims from Ethnic Minorities to Community Rights." Educational Studies 25, no. 2 (1999): 187-204.

Singh, Narindar. Canadian Sikhs: History, Religion and Culture of Sikhs in North America . Nepean, Ontario: Canadian Sikhs' Studies Institute, 1994.

Singh, Patwant. The Sikhs . London: John Murray (Publishers) Ltd., 1999.

Skeoch, Alan. Mississauga-Where the River Speaks . Mississauga: Mississauga Library System, 2000.

Smith, Allan. "Metaphor and Nationality in North America." Canadian Historical Review 51, no. 3 (1970): 247-75.

Stamp, Robert. "Canadian Education and National Identity." Journal of Educational Thought 5, no. 3 (1971): 133-44.

Stamp, Robert M. The Schools of Ontario, 1876-1976 , The Ontario Historical Studies Series . Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982.

Stein, Janice Gross, David Robertson Cameron, John Ibbitson, Will Kymlicka, John Meisel, Haroon Siddiqui, and Michael Valpy, eds. Uneasy Partners: Multiculturalism and Rights in Canada : Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2007.

Stewart, David W. Immigration and Education: The Crisis and the Opportunities . New York: Lexington Books, 1993.

Stockey, and Zeckhauser. "Thinking About Policy Choices, Models: A General Discussion, and the Model of Choice." In A Primer for Policy Analysis , 3-44. New York: W.W. Norton, 1978.

Stoffman, Daniel. Who Gets In: What's Wrong with Canada's Immigration Program, and How to Fix It . Toronto: Macfarlane Walter & Ross, 2002 . Stone, Deborah. Policy Paradox. The Art of Political Decision Making . New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.,

Sweet, Lois. God in the Classroom: The Controversial Issue of Religion in Canada's Schools . Toronto: McClelland & Stewart Inc., 1997.

252

Tatla, Darshan S. "Sikhs in Multicultural Societies." International Journal on Multicultural Societies 5, no. 2 (2003): 177-92.

Tator, Carol, and Frances Henry. "Multicultural Education: Translating Policy into Practice." 1- 151. Toronto: Equal Opportunity Consultants, 1991.

Taylor, Alison. "'Fellow Travellers' and 'True Believers' : A Case Study of Religion and Politics in Alberta Schools." Journal of Education Policy 16, no. No. 1 (2001): 15-37.

Taylor, S., F. Rizvi, B. Linguard &M. Henry. Educational Policy and the Politics of Change . London: Routledge, 1997.

Tepper, Elliot. "Immigration Policy and Multiculturalism." In Ethnicity and Culture in Canada: The Research Landscape , edited by J. W. Berry and J. A. Laponce, 95-123. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994.

Thiessen, Dennis, Nina Bascia, and Ivor Goodson, eds. Making a Difference About Difference . Toronto: REMTEL/Garamond Press, 1996.

Thomas, B. "Principles of Anti-Racist Education." Currents Fall 1984 (2002): 20-24.

Thompson, John Herd, and Morton Weinfeld. "Entry and Exit: Canadian Immigration Policy in Context." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences Vol. 538, no. Being and Becoming Canada (1995): 185-98.

Troper, Harold. "Canada's Immigration Policy since 1945." International Journal Spring, no. 1993 (1993): 255-81.

Troper, Harold, and Morton Weinfeld, eds. Ethnicity, Politics, and Public Policy. Case Studies in Canadian Diversity . Toronto: University of Toronto Press Inc., 1999. Tulchinsky, Gerald. "Introduction." In Immigration in Canada. Historical Perspectives , edited by Gerald Tulchinsky. Toronto: Copp Clark Longman Ltd., 1994.

Tyack, David. "Public School Reform: Policy Talk and Institutional Practice." American Journal of Education 100, no. 1 (1991): 1-19.

———. Seeking Common Ground: Public Schools in a Diverse Society . Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2003.

Tyack, David, and Larry Cuban. Tinkering toward Utopia: A Century of Public School Reform . Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995.

Valk, John. "Religion and the Schools: The Case of Utrect." History of Education Quarterly 35, no. 2 (1995): 159-77.

253

Vinovskis, Maris A. History and Educational Policymaking . New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999.

Walker, James W. St. G. "Race," Rights and the Law in the Supreme Court of Canada. Historical Case Studies . The Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History and Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1997.

Watkinson, Ailsa. Education, Student Rights, and the Charter . Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: Purich Publishing Ltd., 1999.

Wayland, Sarah. "Religious Expression in Public Schools: Kirpans in Canada, Hijab in France." Ethnic and Racial Studies 20, no. 3 (1997): 545-61.

Werner, W., ed. Curriculum and Uncertainty . Edited by R. Ghosh & and D. Ray, Social Change and Education in Canada (2nd Edition) . Toronto: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1991.

White, Graham, ed. The Government and Politics of Ontario . Fifth Edition ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997.

White, Randall. Ontario since 1985 . Toronto: eastendbooks, 1998.

Wilson, J. Donald. "Multicultural Programs in Canadian Education." In Multiculturalism in Canada: Social and Educational Perspectives , edited by Ronald J. Samuda, J. W. Berry and Michel Laferriere, 62-77. Toronto: Allyn and Bacon, 1984.

Wright, O.M. "Multicultural and Anti-Racist Education. The Issue Is Equity." In Weaving Connections: Educating for Peace, Social and Environmental Justice , edited by T. Goldstein and D. Selby, 57-97. Toronto: Sumach Press, 2000.

Zine, Jasmin. "Muslim Youth in Canadian Schools: Education and the Politics of Religious Identity." Anthropology & Education Quarterly 32, no. 4 (2001): 399-423. 1