Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
I guess it takes more brain power to understand the difference between the 2 sides than you have
Psychologists have studied the conservative and liberal mind and found major differences between the 2
for instance:
One side has empathy for others, the other side doesn't have empathy for anyone outside their tribe
one side is comfortable with change, the other isn't
one side believes that they are their brothers keeper, the other side believes in survival of the fittest, if you aren't fit enough, then you can go screw yourself
Maybe you just fear change, you seem fixed on Wrong information (Hillary and both sides are the same) and can't seem to change no matter how many times someone proves you wrong
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Fear's post went right over the top of Fry's head as usual .......
|
|
Contractor
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
As a growing number of former Republican government officials sound the alarm regarding Trump, there's an erie silence in the halls of Congress from both detractors and defenders.
Behind closed doors, the cenarios of transition are being strategized between Justice and the legislative. The mechanics get very messy if there's a hint of involvement by Mike Pence. Take notice if Paul Ryan suddenly makes an attempt to look Presidential.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
Trump to Comey
"I need loyalty, I expect loyalty"
"Let it go, let Flynn go"
Does he think he's a mafia boss?
Did he ever bother to try and understand how our Gov. works? no
Jeff Sessions, Jarred Kushner, and Michael Flynn failed to disclose on their Security Clearance forms that they had met with Russian Diplomats, which has been confirmed to take place.
a Felony with a Five Year Prison term
are Republicans immune to the Rule of Law?
Yes, they think it's their law, so they didn't do anything wrong
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
No. Tahoe
|
|
Obviously, it's obstruction of justice and he should be impeached.
But, he won't. Not yet. That'll come later.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Does he think he's a mafia boss?
He IS the mafia boss.
You seem clueless about everything ...
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
Trump is not the Boss, he does what he's told.
|
|
Fritz
Social climber
Choss Creek, ID
|
|
Re WB's post:
Jun 7, 2017 - 05:50pm PT
Does he think he's a mafia boss?
He IS the mafia boss.
OMG! I actually agree with a Werner post. Likely for the first & last time.
Go smoking duck go!
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
Sands Motel , Las Vegas
|
|
The smoking duck just won a free pair of cement shoes with sticky rubber from uncle vinny....
|
|
Contractor
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
Angus King has two more sets of balls to hang in his trophy case right next to Comey's (look up that previous testimony).
He's the mean Grandpa you were terrified to disappoint.
I pray for the day he gets a shot at Trump.
|
|
7SacredPools
Trad climber
Ontario, Canada
|
|
Nah000 That was an excellent post about Bill 89 in Ontario. The far right is going nuts here. End Times a comin'.
|
|
10b4me
Mountain climber
Retired
|
|
Our Israeli and Saudi 'ally' terrorists
Anybody still deny that the Saudis, and Israelis are the prime backers of ISIS?.
|
|
Fritz
Social climber
Choss Creek, ID
|
|
SomebodyAnybody! re your post:
Chainsaw? A whole lot to unpack in your tirade, but I'll just focus on one of them:
I lost my home in Davis as home prices skyrocketed due to government monopolies on development.
You own a home, home prices skyrocket, thereby increasing your equity in said home, making you instantly wealthier. What's the problem?
Or am I misreading this and you couldn't afford your home, didn't make your mortage payments, got foreclosed, and after you'd already "lost your home" then prices went up, thereby "pricing you out" of the area?
Either way, your tirade seems entirely misplaced. You either got richer while owning a home as prices went parabolic, or you had already lost the house, which you couldn't afford, before prices went up. Your story doesn't really add up.
You make some very good points. I supect Chainsaw might have his own saw to grind about his own problems, that he choses to blame on our society & government.
And where better to share your own problems, than Supertopo political threads?
|
|
nah000
climber
now/here
|
|
7sacredpools: thanks.
that said, i regret saying as much as i did, as it appears some of what i said was completely mistaken regarding the actual intent/wording of the law. it appears the whole "ontario is going to grab yo' kids" trope is primarily an american alt-right and christian right fabrication.
i base the statement above on first, the lack of any other news source or authority reporting it either generally, nor specifically in the manner that the american right tilting media is reporting it, and secondly and more importantly due to actually attempting to work through the bill myself.
if you love wonkery here's your chance to be bored...
i was genuinely curious as per what the act itself says...
because the irony was when i googled bill 89 here were the news articles that came up:
christian post: june 4: Ontario Passes Law Allowing Gov't to Seize Children From Parents Who Oppose Gender Transition
heat street: june 5: Canada’s New Law Lets Government Take Children Away If Parents Don’t Accept Their Gender Identity
the daily caller: june 5: Ontario Makes Disapproval Of Kid’s Gender Choice Potential Child Abuse
the blaze: june 5: New law allows government to take children away if parents don’t accept kids’ ‘gender identity’
lifesite: june 5: Petition calls for repeal of ‘totalitarian’ bill allowing children to be taken from Christian homes
brietbart: june 6: New Ontario Law Enables Gov’t to Seize Children from Parents Opposing Gender Transition
media research centre: june 6: Canada To Parents: Accept Your Kid's Gender Identity, Or Lose Them
gospel herald: june 6: Bill 89: Canada’s New Law Allows Gov't to Seize Children from Homes That Don’t Support LGBTQI
russian times: june 6: New Ontario law allows govt to seize children if parents oppose their 'gender identity'
new american: june 7: Ontario Passes Law to Take Children From Parents Who Oppose “Gender Expression”
american thinker: june 7: Ontario Passes Law to Take Children From Parents Who Oppose “Gender Expression”
the american conservative: june 7: When They Come To Take Your Kids Away
canada free press: june 7: Parents to Lose Children to Government Gender Zealots
that is the complete first page of non-repeated news articles thanks to google.
and so you know i didn't cherry pick, all i typed into google search was "bill 89 ontario".
on the first two pages, the only two "actual news" articles were from the toronto star back in may and those were both commenting that the bill was not strong enough in its protections of children due to the wording that was being used.
but based on the christian, russian, canadian right and american alt right news media the consensus seems obviously clear: the ontario government intends to snatch up queer kids from good hard working christian parents.
and this is where i'm going to go on a short tilt... ie. consider this a trigger warning for all conservative "snowflakes"...
for fUcks sakes, get your heads out of your fake media and go read actual source material... aka in this case, the actual bill.
because, as i read a sampling of the news articles, i noticed there seemed to be no quotes from the bill itself. nor in the articles that i perused did i see any quotes attributed to canadian legal authorities...
so i looked the bill itself up. it's on the web plain as day for anybody to read for themselves:
Ontario's Bill 89
and then i did a "find" search.
not including the explanatory preamble there were four instances where the phrase "gender identity and gender expression" was actually used in the many many pages long bill.
they were as follows:
1. under paramount purpose:
1 (1) The paramount purpose of this Act is to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children.
Other purposes
(2) The additional purposes of this Act, so long as they are consistent with the best interests, protection and well-being of children, are to recognize the following:
1. While parents may need help in caring for their children, that help should give support to the autonomy and integrity of the family unit and, wherever possible, be provided on the basis of mutual consent.
2. The least disruptive course of action that is available and is appropriate in a particular case to help a child, including the provision of prevention services, early intervention services and community support services, should be considered.
3. Services to children and young persons should be provided in a manner that,
i. respects a child’s or young person’s need for continuity of care and for stable relationships within a family and cultural environment,
ii. takes into account physical, emotional, spiritual, mental and developmental needs and differences among children and young persons,
iii. takes into account a child’s or young person’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression,
so... in sum... the first instance basically says the paramount purpose is to promote well being of children. and to do this the first purpose is for the autonomy of the family unit, including mutual consent, to be wherever possible pursued; the second purpose is to pursue the least disruptive course of action; and the final purpose is that services to children should be provided in a manner that among a whole list of other things takes into account a kids gender id and gender expression.
ok. interesting start. i'm definitely missing where ontario social services is being directed carte blanche to take queer children away from hard working christian families...
is one aspect of the bill that a childcare worker is directed to conside gender id and gender expression? sure.
is that made to be of paramount importance? not the way the bill is written above.
so let's move on. must be deeper in the bill...
2. under definitions:
(3) Where a person is directed in this Part to make an order or determination in the best interests of a child, the person shall,
(a) consider the child’s views and wishes, given due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;
(b) in the case of a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child, consider the importance, in recognition of the uniqueness of First Nations, Inuit and Métis cultures, heritages and traditions, of preserving the child’s cultural identity and connection to community, in addition to the considerations under clauses (a) and (c); and
(c) consider any other circumstance of the case that the person considers relevant, including,
(i) the child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs,
(ii) the child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development,
(iii) the child’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression,
hmmm... so a person when making orders or determination is among other things to consider the child's views and wishes, dependent on their age and maturity, and among a whole list of items consider the child's gender id and gender expression.
that same list says that a person making orders needs to consider a kids colour, ancestory, creed, disability, etc. and etc.
ie. again nowhere does it even come close to explicitly saying that of paramount importance is that queer kids be taken away from parents who have traditional views.
ok. only two more instances...
3. under placement:
(2) The society having care of a child shall choose a residential placement for the child that,
(a) represents the least restrictive alternative for the child;
(b) where possible, respects the child’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression;
so that seems completely tame. just says when placing a kid in another home among many other things their gender id and expression should, where possible be considered...
boo!
and finally...
4. under best interests of children:
(2) Where a person is directed in this Part to make an order or determination in the best interests of a child, the person shall,
(a) consider the child’s views and wishes, given due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;
(b) in the case of a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child, consider the importance, in recognition of the uniqueness of First Nations, Inuit and Métis cultures, heritages and traditions, of preserving the child’s cultural identity and connection to community, in addition to the considerations under clauses (a) and (c); and
(c) consider any other circumstance of the case that the person considers relevant, including,
(i) the child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs,
(ii) the child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development,
(iii) the child’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression,
ok. amongst pages and pages and pages, those were the total usages of the word "gender".
which means, the general understanding i was left with, is that the directive of the bill is to balance a bunch of conflicting considerations including autonomy of the family, non-invasive action wherever possible and yes... drumroll please... they should "consider" the child's own views and wishes regarding their own gender identity and expression.
wow, what a completely grey and boring bill, that attempts to parse a complicated and grey world.
and the american right fake news has turned it into black and white bull shIt.
now... i am not naive. i get that this law can be misused.
as all laws can.
is it possible that the alt right's interpretation will become de facto practice with queer kids being ripped from the arms of their loving christian families?
sure, it's always possible.
but... and this is a big but.
there is nothing that explicitly lays that out as the intent.
in fact the intent as written is to wherever possible not make invasive action and is to respect the autonomy of the family...
there is also no evidence that the right's boogeyman has happened or will happen.
and finally there did not appear to be, as far as i could see, any legal authorities in canada that seem to be worried about the [mostly american] right's fears as being possible.
and the other irony was that when i went on a couple trans sites, there were complaints that the bill didn't really protect trans kids as the only consistent directive was for social workers to make "considerations" with regards to gender id and expression...
i guess we'll have to see.
but it looks, to my reading, like a completely grey bill attempting to parse a very grey world.
it's unfortunate, based on what i am seeing, that the [mostly american] right, is in this case, creating and then co-opting an issue that doesn't even exist, in a country other than their own...
in the process enflaming emotions in individuals due to issues that aren't actually currently in existence...
and so, in this case, to the christian post/heat street/daily caller/blaze/lifesite/brietbart/media research centre/gospel herald/russian times/new american/american thinker/american conservative "news sources"... all i have to say is a genuine fUck you...
given their unsourced and then incestuous misinformation they are a marauding pariah consistently preying on and then profiting from the genuine fears and rage of what are in general a segment of the disempowered...
|
|
drF
Trad climber
usa
|
|
Fear's post went right over the top of Fry's head as usual .......
Actually right THRU Fry's head. Like the Lincoln tunnel.
All he's got is a crankloon cartoon world of lies and foolishness.
worth a hearty guffaw
|
|
Yury
Mountain climber
T.O.
|
|
Nah000, I agree that preamble of this law is very nice.
However you need to take Ontario context into consideration.
Majority of Ontario parents (who have school age or younger children) are pissed off by relentless propaganda of homosexuality in Ontario schools (even without new laws) by Kathleen Wynne.
So they are concerned when they see "gender self-identification" phrase in this law and are afraid that it can be used as described in the sources found by you.
So devil is in the details and this law is seen by many parents as one more tool to drive her agenda.
And yes, "gender self-identification" can be used as a reason to snatch a young child from the parents (according to this law).
|
|
nah000
climber
now/here
|
|
^^^^
thanks for the response. i don't live there so a few questions, if you're interested...
"Majority of Ontario parents (who have school age or younger children) are pissed off"
do you have a source for this? i don't live there so don't know, but on surface "the majority of" aspect seems hard to believe... ie. is it an actual majority, or just a vocal minority? neither of which proves or disproves anything, just curious...
"by relentless propaganda of homosexuality"
any publicly available examples of what this "relentless propaganda" entails?
"And yes, "gender self-identification" can be used as a reason to snatch a young child from the parents (according to this law)."
so from their [and i'm assuming your] perspective the crux of this comes down to the idea that a parent should have ultimate dominion over a dependent child's gender identification and self expression until they are at the age of majority?
i'll be up front and it should be transparent that i'm pretty suspicious of this line of claims.
it is reminiscent to me of the christian right and their trying to force abstinence education with an otherwise lack of sex education down everyone's throats, in the process consistently and inevitably increasing the number of teenage pregnant moms and dads.
and so i suspect, without doing research, that your reference to "relentless propaganda" actually amounts to an in total few days of education, regarding the variety of human flora and fauna, over the course of twelve years of grade school...
but will attempt to keep an open mind...
|
|
Yury
Mountain climber
T.O.
|
|
nah000: "Majority of Ontario parents (who have school age or younger children) are pissed off"
do you have a source for this? I am not aware of such results published by any official organization.
My opinion is based on 1) quite a few conversations with Christian, Muslim and Jewish parents and 2) responses on social media.
"by relentless propaganda of homosexuality"
any publicly available examples of what this "relentless propaganda" entails? I do not have any school age child, so I can provide only examples communicated to me by other parents. These parents do not like:
1) textbooks for junior school describing how good is to have two fathers.
2) ability of homosexual family to adopt children
"And yes, "gender self-identification" can be used as a reason to snatch a young child from the parents (according to this law)."
so from their [and i'm assuming your perspective] the crux of this comes down to that a parent should have ultimate dominion over a dependent child's gender identification and self expression until they are at the age of majority? Not really. As you noticed age is not mentioned at all in this clause.
These parents are concerned that three or four years old children can be removed from their families.
I do believe that "children protection services" have too much rights right now.
Do you remember a case when last year a couple of children playing a block away from their house was kidnapped/snatched/captured by social workers? (it happened somewhere in Connecticut or nearby)
To me this is an ultimate example of what's wrong with such "protection of children" by the government.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!