CAS says children should not be involved in G20

108 posts / 0 new
Last post
Michelle
CAS says children should not be involved in G20

This is a great article about how the CAS will be present and "on call" during the G8/G20 protests in Toronto.

I'm so annoyed at this comment by their spokesperson:

Quote:

While Fleming did note that he respects the right to protest, he feels children should not be involved at the G20.

"You never know what these things will turn out to be. As a parent I'd have concerns. I'd have good intentions but not everyone has the same thoughts. I would think twice before taking my kids. The protests have been known to become violent and that would be a concern for anyone there."

And I loved John Clarke's response:

Quote:

"Movements of resistance should involve children," says Clarke. "They are involved in the issues. The immediate assumption is that children should be kept out of politics, but they will not be insulated from the agenda of austerity that the G20 and its local representatives are developing and beginning to implement. Their voices have to be heard as part of the community that is fighting back."

I totally agree.  I consider political action and protest to be an essential part of my child's education as an active and engaged citizen.  It is hands-on -- he makes signs and it involves physically going to a place where the activity is happening, and physical activity once he gets there.  It's concrete -- he sees people gathered and hears what they have to say and why.  He learns the issues -- he is apparently the most well-informed child in his class about politics and current events. 

He learns social skills -- at one protest that radiorahim and I were marshalling (the Prorogue ones), we brought my son to the marshall training and the protest, and he was given a marshall armband and told that he was a "junior marshall" or "assistant marshall."   And he is learning that being an engaged citizen means more than just hitting the voting booth once every few years.  He is learning to get involved in the community.

He goes to protests, he goes to meetings (although I limit those just because I don't want to bore him or turn him off).  I make sure that when we go, there is no danger there -- I'm obviously not going to expose him to tear gas and such.

And the protest being organized by labour on Saturday at Queen's Park is being billed as family-friendly, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with bringing your kids out and having them experience the power of people coming together for their political causes. 

I resent the fact that this CAS guy is trying to scare parents out of providing their children with this incredible learning experience.

skdadl

A late-sixties memory: one of the ways we knew that the anti-war movement had suddenly reached the tipping-point and was going to win was the growing presence in marches of young families, people pushing strollers, people you wouldn't have thought of as political activists before. When you see that, you know that you actually do have the people with you, which is supposed to be what we want. It's also what we need.

And then there are the sweet li'l ole people. Like me. There are actually quite a lot of us around, and wouldn't a cop look silly giving me a hard time?  Wink

Aalya Aalya's picture

Michelle, I blogged about this earlier. While I fully agree with John Clarke, who I respect, that children ought to be a part of movements of resistance, does that mean they should always be in the streets?

For this one, I'm keeping my very active two-year-old away because I have taken her to several demos and my experience is that at this age, it is simply impossible to keep her in one spot, in one piece, and keep my attention focused on what is happening around us. Such is the nature of our current protesting which, with all due respect, skadl, is not the anti-war marches of the sixties. I don't fancy bringing my tiny daughter into a situation where she could be tear-gassed or have her internal organs damaged by a water cannon just to teach her a civics lesson or to make a point. I did, however, show her that I was making a cool poster for our G8 outreach effort. She's a toddler and still learning about not making a mess and about sharing (hey, she's way ahead of Harper and his cronies).

Maybe your son is older and can appreciate armbands and such. I look forward to bringing my daughter out more often when it is a little easier to keep her safe. When she's old enough to make her own choices, I look forward to seeing her at my side in community involvement. Hopefully I and others will have taught her that this is important. But I don't think anybody ought to judge or sneer at parents who are only trying to be responsible and look out for their little ones. Not everybody is comfortable bringing their kids to street protests and protests aren't the only way to show kids the importance of speaking up. I fully support parents' choices to be involved in other ways.

Refuge Refuge's picture

I am not going to any of the protests, mainly because of the level of care required for my son right now but my mom involved me in protests and I look forward to doing the same, most protests are family friendly and I have been to enough to know in advance if the intention is not family friendly or if it is starting to turn.  I can only think of one instance where things were "family friendly" and then turned on a dime to get violent and that was at a open air concert, not a protest.  Should children not go to open air concerts either?

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

The citizen protests and actions are very likely well organized enough to have different kinds of events and, going by past experience, are able to tell prospective participants which ones are more dangerous than others, which ones more family friendly, etc. 

 

SparkyOne

Refuge wrote:

 Should children not go to open air concerts either?

Depends who is playing. Sarah Mclachlan or rage against the machine.

 

I would bring a child to a rally against Ann Coulter. Not to a protest with possible smash happy cops on giant horses sniper rifles and tear gas.

Michelle

Aayla, I hear you.  My rule as a parent is that I take him to the protests that I feel are extremely important and shouldn't be missed, and I get him involved so that he doesn't feel bored or resentful.  Thus the one where he was made an honourary "marshall" (which he thought was pretty cool), or another one where he made his own sign (and got interviewed by the media because of it), etc.

I don't drag him out to every protest in the world or anything - I don't want him to hate it!  And I want him to enjoy his childhood too, of course. :)  In fact, this weekend we're going to be out of town and he won't be going to this one, which is fine.  We'll be going to the "Shout Out" on Friday instead, which hopefully he'll enjoy.

But there have also been times where we go out and then if he gets bored or is really not enjoying it, we just leave.  Or duck into a pizzeria and grab him a slice.  Or whatever. 

And you're absolutely right that there is an age-appropriate factor involved.  A two year-old is going to find some stuff boring, so I probably wouldn't bring a two year-old either!  :)  My son has been going to protests since he was 5, but again, I'm choosy about which ones so that he doesn't get bored or annoyed, I involve him as much as possible, and I don't take him anywhere I think there might be danger.

The reason I'm annoyed about what the CAS guy is saying is because it's like he's saying children have no place at protests or getting involved at this level.  I completely disagree.  There is lots of room for children in the political and citizen engagement process.  As parents, we just have to find ways to make their involvement age-appropriate and concrete, keep them out of danger, and make sure we're not turning them off by forcing them to constantly do stuff they don't want to do.

I think we've struck a good balance with my son, and as a result, he is quite politically and socially engaged with the world, and world events, around him.

Refuge Refuge's picture

SparkyOne wrote:

Refuge wrote:

 Should children not go to open air concerts either?

Depends who is playing. Sarah Mclachlan or rage against the machine.

 

I would bring a child to a rally against Ann Coulter. Not to a protest with possible smash happy cops on giant horses sniper rifles and tear gas.

It was Edenfest.  Granted not all the performers were family friendly but most were and there was camping, etc.  Concert goers were very respectful of the families who sat on picnic blankets towards the back.  There were a lot of families there.  It turned on a dime when the grand finale was cancelled, though.

Try going to a protest in Toronto without cops on horses.  I remember going to the elementary teachers strike protest in Toronto with my mom in the 90s.  She laughed when she saw the riot cops and wondered what they thought a bunch of primary school teachers were going to do.

Michelle

BTW, Aayla, I'm sorry if you thought I was judging or sneering.  I definitely wasn't.  In your place, I probably wouldn't bother bringing a 2 year-old who might get bored or lost either!  And certainly I wouldn't bring my son anywhere that I thought he might get hurt.  For instance, I think one group is talking about marching down to the fence.  My personal decision is that I would not bring my son on that march - I'd stick with the more family-friendly march from Queen's Park to Trinity-Bellwoods, well away from the police goonsquad with their stupid toys.

I totally respect your decision with regards to what you are involving your daughter in and what you're not.  You sound like an awesome parent to me! :)

Tommy_Paine

 

 

Well, in truth no one knows how it will turn out when the CAS gets involved in families either.

 

 

Sineed

A rally at Queen's Park sounds okay - my kids have been to a couple of protests, the most recent, against the diesel trains they want to run through our neighbourhood in order to make Toronto a friendly location to host the Pan Am games.

But I'd as soon have them stay away from the fence. 

Ripple

No one ever raises these concerns when my kids go to a Canucks game.  I wonder if CAS was present downtown at the Olympic men's hockey final - because things definitely could have gone south if Canada had lost.  If so, it certainly wasn't reported.

We absolutely involve our kids in our political activities - I believe to my core that my kids' safety is tied to the safety of the kids in Grassy Narrows, Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Congo.  It is "age appropriate" but my 4 year old understands a fair bit - sharing, bullying, privilege, poverty.

Ripple

double post

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

skdadl wrote:
And then there are the sweet li'l ole people. Like me. There are actually quite a lot of us around, and wouldn't a cop look silly giving me a hard time?  Wink

Indeed. I sometimes wish I lived near the Centre of the Universe to participate in these things, but the feeling quickly passes.Laughing

Bacchus

Tommy_Paine wrote:

 

 

Well, in truth no one knows how it will turn out when the CAS gets involved in families either.

 

 

Having had them foisted on me when my child was born due to a vengeful hospital and a snobbish prick of a doc, yeah I know how it will turn out

SparkyOne

Ripple wrote:

No one ever raises these concerns when my kids go to a Canucks game. 

But would you bring your child to a soccer game in England where the opposing teams pretty much hate each other and riots are to be expected?

Refuge Refuge's picture

After seeing this video (I also posted it in another thread but for simplicity sake I will repost here) I have now changed my mind about bringing my child to any G20 / G8 protests.  Not because I am afraid of what might happen when you mix protestors and cops but only because the cops are insane.  They don't want kids there because they know THEY are the ones that are going to get violent with no warning, not the protestors getting violent with no warning.

In this case mine and my child's welfare will have to take precedence over my need to face the wrongs of the world.

http://vimeo.com/12883752

ETA: the video shows cops so obviously running in and grabbing protestors who are just milling around doing nothing but hanging out.

Michelle

radiorahim and I were talking about the same thing this weekend when we were camping with my son, Refuge.  We kept thinking, thank god we did this instead of going.  If my son had been with his father this weekend, we probably would have gone, but there's no way we're going to expose our kid to the fucking nutcase cops in Toronto.

I heard on Facebook that the cops raided a place where organizers were holding a daycare.  Anyone have more info on that? 

We just got back from Mississauga and it took us two hours to drive back.  We listened to CP24 on the radio the whole way because, shockingly, they had the best coverage on the radio dial, and they were very critical, too.  But I guess that's what happens when the cops start detaining arresting not only completely peaceful protesters, but also innocent bystanders and members of the mainstream media as well!

What really struck us is that the only way the media people could get out of being arrested is by letting the police remove them from the place where the action was taking place.  And a guy named Sammy Katz (not sure who he is, but CP24 kept interviewing him, and he was not a protester, just taking pictures) told CP24 that he was one of the 200 people being detained by cops and that he had stopped taking pictures because everyone who had a camera out taking pictures was being arrested.

Once again for significance: everyone taking pictures was being arrested.

Including the media.

It's a fucking police state, people.  And I would normally roll my eyes at using "police state" as hyperbole, but this is classic police state stuff - arresting completely peaceful protesters for assembling, and arresting everyone, including mainstream media, who tries to record it, and forcing the media to get out of camera-range.

Star Spangled C...

Michelle wrote:

What really struck us is that the only way the media people could get out of being arrested is by letting the police remove them from the place where the action was taking place.  And a guy named Sammy Katz (not sure who he is, but CP24 kept interviewing him, and he was not a protester, just taking pictures) told CP24 that he was one of the 200 people being detained by cops and that he had stopped taking pictures because everyone who had a camera out taking pictures was being arrested.

 

According to his bio on Twitter, Sammy Katz is the Managing Director of the Canadian Network for Israel Affairs.

Michelle

Makes sense - he said in the news report that he had met with Stephen Harper last week to talk to him about the supposed rise of anti-semitism at York University.

And even HE was saying that the police repression was ridiculous today at Queen and Spadina.  Even HE was being victimized by the police.

Goes to show you that they weren't targeting protesters but instead just anyone who happened to be around and taking pictures.

Star Spangled C...

Almost none of the people detained were protesters. They detained a bunch of Argentina fans on their way back from watching the game at a bar. They detained people walking their dogs. There were fucking PUPPIES detained for 4 hours in the freezing rain!

Michelle

Someone think of the puppies! ;) 

Seriously, though.  Someone think of the democracy.  And the puppies, of course.

Star Spangled C...

I'm trying to get a handle on what's guiding the police policy here. Apparently, if you're a black bloc anarchist, you can smash windows and burn cars and the police will do nothing. On the other hand, if you're a peaceful citizen just trying to walk home, you get detained in an intersection in the freezing rain for hours.

Michelle

Oh, I know.  You see, they had to justify the billion dollars.  So they leave police cars conveniently abandoned in the middle of the protest and they all go away while a few morons smash windows and burn the cars.  Who knows, maybe the morons were police themselves.  Wouldn't put it past them.  But even if they weren't, it would have been more than easy for them to contain the supposed black bloc - there are ten thousand fucking police in the city, and they couldn't deal with a handful of window smashers?

But the thing is, they didn't want to stop them.  That way, they not only have the justification for their earlier police state tactics (which they were using long before the black bloc stuff, e.g. in Allan Gardens where they were illegally searching and detaining people), but also to detain and arrest community organizers for no reason whatsoever like folks from No One Is Illegal, and crack the heads and arrest peaceful protesters today at Queen and Spadina.

 

trippie

No, the bourgeoisie don't want your children at the protests getting in harms way. They just want them to grow up and become fodder for their military exploits.

 

Besides, how can the police beet down on people when there are children around.

 

Bacchus

And now, at the next summit (which is NOT really where are the deals are done, they were done in advance) there will be more cops, more weapons and sooner or later, they will be allowed to use live rounds ala Bloody Sunday

Aalya Aalya's picture

Hey, I popped in to thank Michelle for the kind words and the dialogue and find an excellent discussion of the cop violence. I'm glad the thread went this way. I think I should have mentioned earlier that it certainly wouldn't be the protesters I was concerned about for my daughter's sake, but rather the Robocops and their high-tech gadgets for hurting people.

As we have seen, there's been no way to avoid police thuggery in these protests, even in a supposedly "family-friendly" area. I am worried about the parental status of all the people who were arrested. Some of those people had to have had kids. Do you think the CAS will take their children? Imagine what that will do to parents who want to be involved in the future. Marches with young babies in strollers, like skdadl talked about, will be a thing of the past.

I am highly suspicious of the whole burning cars fiasco too. Sadly, that is all I am hearing about. Not the issues. The spectacle seems to be short-circuiting the whole logical connections process and that really pisses me off.

 

ennir

See the fist, hear the boots, it is a show of force.  I heard Harper say the violence justifies the billion dollars, could anything have been more predictable?  It is a war and they control the strategy and outcome as long as we play by their rules.  They have brute force, we do not and so we have no choice but to use our wits.

The black block, they are witless, should be denounced, they only benefit those who would oppress us, as I have said before it have been a powerful statement to have no protesters on the street except for the black block/provocateurs.  What possible excuse could there have been for not catching them?  Or perhaps they would not show without the cover peaceful protesters provide, cowards that they are, alternately if they were provocateurs would they have still showed up? 

Even so I think they blew it, I think ordinary Canadians will be shocked to see the violence done to peaceful protesters and I don't think they really comprehend the power of the internet and the fact that every peaceful protester has family and friends that will learn of this.

Oh and by the by Harper also mentioned that we will have to give up our sovereignty, or some part of it,  just a reality check regarding the global economy.  Welcome to the new world order.

Michelle

I completely agree, rinne.

Nice to see you back, Aalya. :)

Sky Captain Sky Captain's picture

And yet, you guys wanted to have your kids going to this thing (G20 summit)? For my part (42-year old Afro-Canadian male) I stayed the frack out of Dodge and didn't even take a walk in the downtown area-mostly because I knew that one look at me by the cops would see me imprisoned in a second. I would think that most protests these days would see a lot of cops around, mostly to smash heads, and that some  of those heads might be that of little kids.

 

I think that kids should be able to select when they want to be involved in the affairs of the world, and not have Mommy or Daddy just take them to a protest because 'it's the right thing to do.' The scenario sounds to me a lot like that of one of the characters in the comic strip Dykes To Watch Out For-always taking his little girl out to every protest, even though the tyke probably wants to go swimming or some other fun thing that little kids do in the summertime. That to me is a bit off.

I'm not saying that they should or can't get involved at some point, but a little understanding and discretion should be used.

Unionist

Sky Captain wrote:

I think that kids should be able to select when they want to be involved in the affairs of the world, and not have Mommy or Daddy just take them to a protest because 'it's the right thing to do.'

Hmm. What if your 7-year-old desperately wants to attend the protest, but you don't (for the very understandable reasons you presented in your post). Would you send her alone, or with friends?

 

Sky Captain Sky Captain's picture

I don't know, Unionist, you tell me: How many kids of 7 go to protests, or are interested in them? Most kids that age are, as I said, doing kid things-protesting is furthest from their minds at that time.

Again, knowing the way that the cops acted at this protest, would you let yours go? And if your kid's a person of colour, what do you do? Do you forbid them to go, knowing that the police will most likely knock them senseless even if they never even provoked the police? Or do you let them go anyway, believing that protesting is something that must be done, no matter what? Give me a good answer-better yet, give the people from CAS a good answer to that.

Maysie Maysie's picture

The Tamil protest in Toronto in 2009, is one example of a community coming together, with children, older folks, everyone. 

 

Unionist

Sky Captain wrote:

I don't know, Unionist, you tell me: How many kids of 7 go to protests, or are interested in them?

Ah, I see. So much for "kids should be able to select when they want to be involved in the affairs of the world".

Quote:
Most kids that age are, as I said, doing kid things-protesting is furthest from their minds at that time.

My youngest child participated in a mass demonstration against health care cutbacks just before her sixth birthday. She has remembered that event all her life. It was not her choice. We brought her there.

Quote:
Again, knowing the way that the cops acted at this protest, would you let yours go?

"Let yours go?" What happened to "kids should be able to select..."?

Quote:
And if your kid's a person of colour, what do you do?

I don't know. Teach them to avoid trouble at all costs? Stop them from going even if they want to? I can't put myself in those shoes.

There's a balance to be struck between protecting our children's health and safety, and trying to teach them important human values (such as the absolute unconditional need to protest and resist injustice throughout their lives). Occasionally the balance may be hard to find. If you're asking me specifically about the CAS, I would have had more respect for their statement if they had added:

Quote:
"By the way, we vigorously condemn the authorities, from Harper and McGuinty on down, for their brutal and unprovoked attacks against peaceful protesters and against the fundamental principles which we are trying to imbue our children with."

In the absence of such a sentiment, their warning to parents to leave the kids at home during protests merely exposes them as being allies of those same brutal authorities. They should be condemned as being the enemies of the real interests of children.

Caissa

As a parent you make your choices. We took our sons to a large protest at the age of 6 and 11 protesting the provincil governments attempt to turn our university campus into a polytechnique. A safe family friendly protest. Would I take them to a G8/G20 protest? no.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Sky Captain wrote:

Again, knowing the way that the cops acted at this protest, would you let yours go? And if your kid's a person of colour, what do you do? Do you forbid them to go, knowing that the police will most likely knock them senseless even if they never even provoked the police? Or do you let them go anyway, believing that protesting is something that must be done, no matter what? Give me a good answer-better yet, give the people from CAS a good answer to that.

If the behaviour of the police is the issue, one good answer for CAS is that they need to get the police under control, not the innocent parents out to defend democracy. 

Because really, that's what this is about, isn't it? Keeping the parents of those children at home, minding them.

Besides, cute kids at protests make for sympathetic images in the media. Don't really want that, do we?

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

Sky Captain wrote:

I don't know, Unionist, you tell me: How many kids of 7 go to protests, or are interested in them? Most kids that age are, as I said, doing kid things-protesting is furthest from their minds at that time.

 

 

 I know 7 year old who has become really concerned about an issue and actually asked his Mom questions about how he could could get the people he thinks need to listen to hear what he wants to say.  The little dude saw something on the news about a protest and asked his Mom if he could do something like that for want he is concerned about.    He actually wants to get other people to do it to cause he figures that the more people that do what he wants to do then the more the people might listen and asked Mom for help to do that.  Mom was pretty shocked when that conversation happened.   He doesn't come from a protesting family and the only protest he's ever been to was one when he was six months old.    Now his Mom is trying to figure out the way forward because she doesn't want to quash his desires and the concerns he is expressing about the world.  She's surprised and glad he's like this but also doesn't want to push things either.   She's trying to figure out how she can support and guide him without taking over.  She also has to somehow manage expectations because right now the kid figures that his concern about what is wrong is so obvious that once he just talks to people about it and people know,  the whole world will back it up.   

Guess my point is there are kids, even 7 year olds who do think about these sorts of things. 

Sky Captain Sky Captain's picture

Unionist wrote:
I don't know. Teach them to avoid trouble at all costs? Stop them from going even if they want to? I can't put myself in those shoes.

There's a balance to be struck between protecting our children's health and safety, and trying to teach them important human values (such as the absolute unconditional need to protest and resist injustice throughout their lives). Occasionally the balance may be hard to find. If you're asking me specifically about the CAS, I would have had more respect for their statement if they had added:

Quote:
"By the way, we vigorously condemn the authorities, from Harper and McGuinty on down, for their brutal and unprovoked attacks against peaceful protesters and against the fundamental principles which we are trying to imbue our children with."

In the absence of such a sentiment, their warning to parents to leave the kids at home during protests merely exposes them as being allies of those same brutal authorities. They should be condemned as being the enemies of the real interests of children.

Oh yeah, because by simply being concerned with the welfare of the kids instead of what Mommy and Daddy want-along with not saying that Harper is an asshole-makes them bad, bad people. 'Do your job, but go after somebody else, and never mind me or my kid-I'm all right, Jack.' Never mind that the interests of a child might be seperate from that of a parent (remember 'Your children are not your children, they have their own thoughts, wants, and needs?')

The thing is, the CAS is doing its job, irregardless of who's in power at this point, and who's sending cops after people in protests. How you look at them is your problem, not mine or theirs.

ElizaQ wrote:
I know 7 year old who has become really concerned about an issue and actually asked his Mom questions about how he could could get the people he thinks need to listen to hear what he wants to say.  The little dude saw something on the news about a protest and asked his Mom if he could do something like that for want he is concerned about.    He actually wants to get other people to do it to cause he figures that the more people that do what he wants to do then the more the people might listen and asked Mom for help to do that.  Mom was pretty shocked when that conversation happened.   He doesn't come from a protesting family and the only protest he's ever been to was one when he was six months old.    Now his Mom is trying to figure out the way forward because she doesn't want to quash his desires and the concerns he is expressing about the world.  She's surprised and glad he's like this but also doesn't want to push things either.   She's trying to figure out how she can support and guide him without taking over.  She also has to somehow manage expectations because right now the kid figures that his concern about what is wrong is so obvious that once he just talks to people about it and people know,  the whole world will back it up.   

Guess my point is there are kids, even 7 year olds who do think about these sorts of things.

 

Good for this youing man: I'm glad that can do so. However, what I said to Unionist still stands. And I hope that no harm comes to the young man in the course of his activisim. Also, I hope that he can do the traditional thing of voting, canvassing for candidates as well.

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

Sky Captain wrote:

 

Good for this youing man: I'm glad that can do so. However, what I said to Unionist still stands. And I hope that no harm comes to the young man in the course of his activisim. Also, I hope that he can do the traditional thing of voting, canvassing for candidates as well.

 

 Well at the rate he's going once he learns or figures out the whole voting thing he's going to be choked that he has to wait for 11 years to vote himself.  :)  

 

Sky Captain Sky Captain's picture

ElizaQ wrote:
Well at the rate he's going once he learns or figures out the whole voting thing he's going to be choked that he has to wait for 11 years to vote himself.  :)

In the meantime, he can learn to work within the system by challenging people who are not fit for office and getting them out (a certain book named [url=http://www.amazon.com/How-Stupid-White-Office-Anti-Politics/dp/193236008... to Get Stupid White Men Out of Office[/url] will help in that regard.)

PraetorianFour

Police [not always well trained] horny to smash some heads.
Men and Women who consider violence and destroying things prime ways to protest and show anger.
Professional rioters who come in from outside of the country just to cause shit.
Police dressed up as protestors to instigate violence and justify violent reactions.
Police allowing cars to be set on fire on purpose.

And parents want to bring their children to THAT?

 

And who's fault is it when a child accidentally gets trampled or hurt? Surely not the parents who chose to put their children in a powder keg of violence.

 

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

How better to prove you don't condone the violence?

Isn't that the challenge the right always issues to the left?

This is just another of the hypocrisies of the right that the left must always face.

PraetorianFour

You prove you don't condone violence by bringing a child to a protest where everyone KNOWS violence will break out?

That's like putting a  child into a tiger cage to protest cruelty to animals.

Unionist

Sky Captain wrote:

Good for this youing man: I'm glad that can do so. However, what I said to Unionist still stands.

You don't mean this part really, now do you:

Sky Captain wrote:
I think that kids should be able to select when they want to be involved in the affairs of the world...

 

Unionist

PraetorianFour wrote:

You prove you don't condone violence by bringing a child to a protest where everyone KNOWS violence will break out?

 

So tell me P4 - if "everyone KNOWS violence will break out", is it proper for adults to go there?

 

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

PraetorianFour wrote:

You prove you don't condone violence by bringing a child to a protest where everyone KNOWS violence will break out?

That's like putting a child into a tiger cage to protest cruelty to animals.

Your response is highly offensive. Why should it be natural to assume protest will be violent in a democracy that guarantees freedom of speech and assembly?

More to the point, the more people of good faith that attend such protests, the less likely it is that violence will break out. The majority of police are decent people. A child in their midst will provoke better behaviour. Same of the more radical protesters.

Or is violence your personal preference?

PraetorianFour

Unionist wrote:

PraetorianFour wrote:

You prove you don't condone violence by bringing a child to a protest where everyone KNOWS violence will break out?

 

So tell me P4 - if "everyone KNOWS violence will break out", is it proper for adults to go there?

 

If an adult chooses to attend that's their choice. It's considerably different when it's an 8 year old don't you think?

 

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

PraetorianFour wrote:

You prove you don't condone violence by bringing a child to a protest where everyone KNOWS violence will break out?

That's like putting a child into a tiger cage to protest cruelty to animals.

Your response is highly offensive. Why should it be natural to assume protest will be violent in a democracy that guarantees freedom of speech and assembly?

Or is violence your personal preference?

Nice try. We're talking about the G20 protest, was there any doubt in anyones mine that SOMEONE would start violence there? be it the police or select group of protestors? You can play coy if you want, by all means act surprised that the cops were way overzealos.

Violence at the G20 summit? What really? Who'd have thought!   Well, I'm still going to bring my kid to prove a point, and if they get hurt it's not MY fault [which will be a good consolidation when I'm sitting in CHEO].

I find parents putting their children in dangerous situations highly offensive. I won't mention using children to "try and make cops nicer".

remind remind's picture

PraetorianFour wrote:
You prove you don't condone violence by bringing a child to a protest where everyone KNOWS violence will break out?

That's like putting a  child into a tiger cage to protest cruelty to animals.

Good grief, apparently your stated decision a while back to read and learn was not successful, because that is a pretty nasty and offensive juxtaposition, that is not even close to being accurate, as a compare.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Everyone agrees that G20 meetings are dangerous places for citizens to be anywhere near to.  Why is that? I go to protests regularly and there are more often than not children especially at peace marches. So we are saying that the G20 meetings are inherently different and the difference is that the police have proven time and time again that when dictators visit Canada our citizens will be beaten if they protest. Vancouver 1997 the APEC summit was my first experience with the phenomena.  Our state apparatus will not allow our citizens to tell foreign despots what we think of them and anyone who tries will pay the price.

 

Unionist

P4, your thesis that "everyone KNOWS violence will break out" is identical to that of Harper, the cops, the MSM, and the tiny handful of carburners and windowsmashers. They all have one aim in common: Ordinary folks should play it safe, be frightened, not get involved, stay home. That's the message I get from your excessive care for the kids too. That's why you didn't answer my question directly, as to whether anyone, adults included, should go where they "KNOW" there's going to be violence.

See, there's no reason for there to be violence at a G8/G20 protest or anywhere else. And there's no reason on earth why parents should be told to not bring their kids to lawful, peaceful protest assemblies. Once the authorities (including the CAS) validate that kind of fear, they are stating that there is no democracy in Canada. When there's no democracy, people should be in the streets - not at home - and "what about the children" is nothing but camouflage of the real problem.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

PraetorianFour wrote:

Nice try. We're talking about the G20 protest, was there any doubt in anyones mine that SOMEONE would start violence there? be it the police or select group of protestors? You can play coy if you want, by all means act surprised that the cops were way overzealos.

Violence at the G20 summit? What really? Who'd have thought!   Well, I'm still going to bring my kid to prove a point, and if they get hurt it's not MY fault [which will be a good consolidation when I'm sitting in CHEO].

I find parents putting their children in dangerous situations highly offensive. I won't mention using children to "try and make cops nicer".

Wow.

Given your ignorant distortions and your complete lack of common courtesy, it's no wonder you're used to people resorting to violence around you.

Pages

Topic locked