CAS says children should not be involved in G20

108 posts / 0 new
Last post
PraetorianFour

Unionist wrote:

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.

 

Honest question Unionist, did you believe there was a possibility that the G20 would have been pulled off with zero violence?

PraetorianFour

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

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.

I'll have you know I'm very courteous.

PraetorianFour

kropotkin1951 wrote:

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.

 

I can't disagree with you Kropotkin, but others here will disagree that G20 places are dangerous.   Why is it a dangerous place when the other peace marches you've been to have been peaceful?   The G20 is like the superbowl of protests.  All eyes are on it. It's the big leagues. It's logically going to attract EVERYONE, from peaceful respectful protesters like yourself to the select few trouble makers who, amid the legimitate protestors, just wanna break shit and act out.   Include in that all the police with that disgusting law they tempoairily passed. 

Again people can be coy and play the game "why ever would there be violence when we're a democracy and cherish free speech! <big sly grin>".

It's fun to play devils advocate? [ I can't think of the proper term sorry] but in the end when all is said and done bringing your kids to the G20 [Not just a peace march, the G20 where there has always been violent clases, it's not really a surprise]  is putting them in a situation where there is a very real possibility of violence.

remind remind's picture

P4, in actual fact CAS should level these type threats to people who are sding their children to churches, given more children have been injured at churches than at any given protest.

Unionist

PraetorianFour wrote:

Honest question Unionist, did you believe there was a possibility that the G20 would have been pulled off with zero violence?

First answer these two questions:

1. How many people were injured?

2. How many of that number were injured by police?

Unless by "violence", you mean the assholes who broke windows and burned cars... I don't think that children were endangered by those provocations.

remind wrote:
P4, in actual fact perhaps CAS should level these threats about people sending their children to churches, given more children have been injured at churches than at any given protest.

Hear, hear!! Best answer yet to the CAS. Thanks for that, remind.

 

Sky Captain Sky Captain's picture

Unionist wrote:

PraetorianFour wrote:

Honest question Unionist, did you believe there was a possibility that the G20 would have been pulled off with zero violence?

First answer these two questions:

1. How many people were injured?

2. How many of that number were injured by police?

Unless by "violence", you mean the assholes who broke windows and burned cars... I don't think that children were endangered by those provocations.

remind wrote:
P4, in actual fact perhaps CAS should level these threats about people sending their children to churches, given more children have been injured at churches than at any given protest.

Hear, hear!! Best answer yet to the CAS. Thanks for that, remind.

 

Bullshit/FAIL.

If sombody is being beaten by the Sunday school teacher, or being molested by the priest(s), or the parents are using the church as an excuse to abuse their kids then the CAS should be called in. Anything else is just your ranting against the church for no good reason other then that you hate them, and it makes you no better than the teabaggers who rant against 'socialism' when you do it.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Nope. Bad analogy. The corollary would be telling parents that they should avoid sending their children to church because it is dangerous.

Good if you would read the whole thread before commenting, this is about the CAS warning people not to send their children to a demonstration, not about having the CAS move in after something has happened.

Sky Captain Sky Captain's picture

Cueball wrote:

Nope. Bad analogy. The corollary would be telling parents that they should avoid sending their children to church because it is dangerous.

Good if you would read the whole thread before commenting, this is about the CAS warning people not to send their children to a demonstration, not about having the CAS move in after something has happened.

But I did read the whole article, and the other posts, and I think what the CAS is saying is quite well founded, seeing as they are the agency entrusted with helping kids when they are endangered. Which makes this thread basically a kneejerk response to a true concern. One already stated above by Aalya.

remind remind's picture

no actually the true concern should that which really does harm children. I.e. church

eta exactly cue cross posted as went for another slice of pizza

Cueball Cueball's picture

Then you aren't very good at reading comprehension, because this is about pre-emptive warnings being given by the CAS, not about the CAS being called in to investigate abuse, after there is evidence of abuse. For example, this is like warning parents not to send their children to Catholic church because there is a verified history of violence and sexual assault in the priesthood, and therefore abuse is "possible", as opposed to the CAS being called in to investigate a complaint, after there is evidence of abuse.

PraetorianFour

Bringing children to a peaceful protest = bringing children to Sunday church.

Bringing children to the G20 = Bringing children to the chapel at Neverland Ranch.

 

CAS gets used as a revenge tool way too much, takes away a lot of their effectiveness.

 

This quote however seems bang on.

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."

Seems like good advice.

Quote:

1. How many people were injured?

I'm not sure. Even without children being injured specifically, cops were arresting EVERYONE they could get their hands on.  Do you want to put your kid in a situation where you get arrested by the cops, right infront of them, for making eye contact with one of them or wearing a backpack or whatever?  What happens to your kid when you get wrongly [not that it mattters at the time] arrested?  Think that would be a little traumatising?  I do.

Quote:

2. How many of that number were injured by police?

When children are involved does it really matter who is injuring them? If your daughter or son was hurt does it change anything whether it's a cops rubber bullet or a random rock thrown?

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

PraetorianFour wrote:

 

When children are involved does it really matter who is injuring them? If your daughter or son was hurt does it change anything whether it's a cops rubber bullet or a random rock thrown?

 

Or a priest's touch or sermon.  Try and stay consistent if you must go there.  From the evidence I've seen and experienced you must agree.  No?

Fidel

There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware
I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture
RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

LOLZ, it's been awhile since I watched that.

Unionist

Sky Captain, just so everything is open and transparent, I've flagged your post as "offensive" for reasons which anyone can figure out after reading it. If you're incapable of responding in a courteous fashion to Cueball's very salient point, perhaps silence would be the best option.

As for the CAS, if they want to get involved in politics by "warning" parents to keep their kids away from protests, they should not be unduly surprised when decent and justice-loving people suggest that they fuck off.

 

Sky Captain Sky Captain's picture

Cueball wrote:

Then you aren't very good at reading comprehension, because this is about pre-emptive warnings being given by the CAS, not about the CAS being called in to investigate abuse, after there is evidence of abuse. For example, this is like warning parents not to send their children to Catholic church because there is a verified history of violence and sexual assault in the priesthood, and therefore abuse is "possible", as opposed to the CAS being called in to investigate a complaint, after there is evidence of abuse.

I'm  fine, as is my comprehension, but I'm just tired of your anti-religious screed being used in a place where it has no revalence simpily because you don't like the church or CAS. The issue being discussed here is the well being of the kids-CAS's job-not how the church may or may not be harming them. If you're so pissed off about both institutions, maybe you have a problem that needs to be resolved with your shrink/thearapist about the church, or maybe you have something to hide from CAS regarding children you're afraid will be found out one day.

RevolutionPlease wrote:
Or a priest's touch or sermon.  Try and stay consistent if you must go there.  From the evidence I've seen and experienced you must agree.  No?

 

Do you need an answer to this one? SORRY, WE DISAGREE!

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

I just discovered this thread. What's interesting is the premise being put forward by the CAS and echoed a few posts down by Aalya, and that is the fear of violence is not from the protestors or even the Black Bloc, but the police. Imagine, in our society, law abiding citizens participating in peaceful protest feel the need to protect their children from the police and to the extent that the CAS believes exposing one's children to the police may be a case of parental negligience.

Sky Captain Sky Captain's picture

Unionist wrote:

Sky Captain, just so everything is open and transparent, I've flagged your post as "offensive" for reasons which anyone can figure out after reading it. If you're incapable of responding in a courteous fashion to Cueball's very salient point, perhaps silence would be the best option.

As for the CAS, if they want to get involved in politics by "warning" parents to keep their kids away from protests, they should not be unduly surprised when decent and justice-loving people suggest that they fuck off.

Excuse me, sir, but the point is not salient, it's just evasive, much like you've evaded the points of mine and others simply because both of you have a problem with CAS's mission. You seem to be wanting to live through the next generation rather than letting them be whan they want to be, and  because I've objected to that, now you're angry. Well, tough. Not all life is about politics-sometimes it's about living and doing something completely selfish (at least what you and the others cosider selfish.) CAS is just looking out for that point of view in it's own (admitedly fumbling) way; they're not saying that public protest is wrong, just that it's not safe at this point and time; certainly it's not safe for young kids. Again, if the CAS's mission pisses your zealous butt off, that's your problem, not theirs or anybody else with the same concerns. Sombody above just stated what the reasons are for not doing so-use whatever reason you have and understand that. Or not, as it seems: either way, I've said my piece. I guess you're going to find what I've said here offensive, too?

Merowe

Sky Captain wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Sky Captain, just so everything is open and transparent, I've flagged your post as "offensive" for reasons which anyone can figure out after reading it. If you're incapable of responding in a courteous fashion to Cueball's very salient point, perhaps silence would be the best option.

As for the CAS, if they want to get involved in politics by "warning" parents to keep their kids away from protests, they should not be unduly surprised when decent and justice-loving people suggest that they fuck off.

Excuse me, sir, but the point is not salient, it's just evasive, much like you've evaded the points of mine and others simply because both of you have a problem with CAS's mission. You seem to be wanting to live through the next generation rather than letting them be whan they want to be, and  because I've objected to that, now you're angry. Well, tough. Not all life is about politics-sometimes it's about living and doing something completely selfish (at least what you and the others cosider selfish.) CAS is just looking out for that point of view in it's own (admitedly fumbling) way; they're not saying that public protest is wrong, just that it's not safe at this point and time; certainly it's not safe for young kids. Again, if the CAS's mission pisses your zealous butt off, that's your problem, not theirs or anybody else with the same concerns. Sombody above just stated what the reasons are for not doing so-use whatever reason you have and understand that. Or not, as it seems: either way, I've said my piece. I guess you're going to find what I've said here offensive, too?

Bit of a storm in a teapot. At any demonstration I've been to people of all walks of life attend and that is an extremely important point, to be held onto and defended. There is always ample warning of the onset of violence, and people with children can easily avoid incident by staying back from the frontlines. If violence erupts they're far enough away to get clear.

There is something really sinister about this CAS twerp's idiotic remarks - and the church metaphor is entirely apt. If the culture has degraded to the point where it is not safe to exercise our democratic rights, because of police violence, then we'd damned well better bring along the kiddies, and the pets, and gran from the old folks home in her wheelchair too. Unless we want to gift them with a society where the public space isn't safe anymore and public behaviour is DICTATED by state violence, that space needs to be vigorously and constantly maintained by the citizenry. Use it or lose it, and if we want it for the kids, then they need to show up too, within practical constraints obviously.

I personally upbraided - gently - my teenage daughter for spending the weekend away instead of hitting the streets, where she stood to learn a thing or two about the society we live in.

This CAS dipshit is just counselling some wretched, arse-crawling submission to authority - which carries all sorts of dubious subtexts which make his own legitimacy highly suspect IMHO - and serves to further the Harper agenda. I think that is what is so downright offensive about his transgression.

'They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist ...' Well, THEY had no qualms, and they ended up taking the children too.

Unionist

Excellent, Merowe.

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

Sky Captain wrote:

Cueball wrote:

Then you aren't very good at reading comprehension, because this is about pre-emptive warnings being given by the CAS, not about the CAS being called in to investigate abuse, after there is evidence of abuse. For example, this is like warning parents not to send their children to Catholic church because there is a verified history of violence and sexual assault in the priesthood, and therefore abuse is "possible", as opposed to the CAS being called in to investigate a complaint, after there is evidence of abuse.

I'm  fine, as is my comprehension, but I'm just tired of your anti-religious screed being used in a place where it has no revalence simpily because you don't like the church or CAS.

What anti-religious screed? Hilarious, I am agnostic.

This means I think that the idea that the CAS should premptively warn people from going to church, is just as ridiculous as the CAS warning people from going to public gatherings with political intent. Both, in my view, are breaches of their political neutrality, and the right of people to practice their conscience.

The comparison is dead on target.

The CAS should only become involed when there is direct evidence of specific abuse, not based on vague conjectures about what "might" happen. Children might get run over crossing the street -- does this mean that the CAS should be issuing general warnings to parents living in cities?

oldgoat

Quote:
If you're so pissed off about both institutions, maybe you have a problem that needs to be resolved with your shrink/thearapist about the church, or maybe you have something to hide from CAS regarding children you're afraid will be found out one day. 

and...

Quote:
You seem to be wanting to live through the next generation rather than letting them be whan they want to be, and  because I've objected to that, now you're angry. Well, tough.

This is clearly getting into the area of personal attack.  Cut it out.

I'm not generally anti CAS, just anti some of their decisions. FWIW, I'm more inclined to think the CAS got rolled by the cops, and manipulated into these ridiculous and offensive comments.  Hopefully they've learned a lesson from it.

Refuge Refuge's picture

As one of the original posters I just wanted to comment.

I just want to point out that I have been to many protests and the type of protest can usually be figured out. Some people are under the belief that all protests end in violence but this is just plain not true.  I am sure there are many babblers that can attest to the protests that have been family friendly that they have attended which did not end in violence.  And, in fact, the people at the protest would have been shocked to have them end in violence.  The way that it is advertised, who is putting it on and the type of events that are happening at the protest usually give you a good idea of what the protest will be like.  The ones in Toronto I generally only go to the family friendly ones.  I have only had one arrest happen while I was attending one of these and this was after all the protestors gathered in a circle and discussed doing what would get them arrested (trying to raise a unity flag at the parliament buildings) and that the families that were there would leave before this part of the demonstration commenced.

The ones outside of Toronto that I have been involved with have come to some kind of violence or the potential for violence but all of those had ample warning and all the children and families left, there were no children.

My child does not have a choice in getting involved in some type of political action.  He is Cree and must come to an understanding of the issues that are involved with his culture and how the Canadian government is dealing, or not dealing with these issues.  The only way to give him a full understanding is to become involved in the protests.  They will be geared towards his age and his understanding, at first just going to the pot lucks at the different areas, fundraising dinners and visiting during low activity periods but as he is ready we will be going to different events and protests.

The wonderful thing about being a parent is that you choose what you expose your child to and what you teach them.  As a parent you are charged with teaching values, attitudes, ideas and understanding to them.  You do this through your life and the things that you are involved with.  For some it is protests.  You don't have a choice as a parent.  You have to pass on morals, values and understandings of the world and the only way to do this is to live your life.  You can't give your child a choice on what to become involved with in their lives because they are children, they don't have experience in the world.  If you had a child that was venomously opposed to going (either because of tempermant, disagreeing with the issues or some other similar reason) then I would say, yes the child shouldn't be made to go but if the child grows up experiencing his parents world and as long as that world is fostering his growth and development it is appropriate for that child.  Some people would be appalled at bringing a child to a boxing match however for a family who's business is boxing they may be brought to the gym every day and taught when it is appropriate (self defence) and not (bullying) and how to strengthen their character through the lessons that can be learned through boxing.  I have no personal experience with boxing but do with martial arts and intend to have my child involved with that so they can learn the lessons that I feel are important.

To do with the G20 protests specifically this is not the fault of parents who want their children involved.  It is the fault of the police.  There should be room and space for a family friendly protest but it is the police, not the protestors who would not allow it.  When the "violence" on Yonge Street happened it happened away from the protest, they left the group of protestors.  When I saw the video of peaceful protestors it was the police that were aggressive against a passive crowd.

I would not take my child to a protest that is violent, even with just property damage, because that would be in the least scary for my child to witness.  But I think the police should have allowed a family friendly protest so that parents could teach their child about the issues as well as how to conduct themselves at a protest that is peaceful.  The protestors did allow many protests to be family friendly (I personally saw at least two protests where the protestors were putting on a family friendly environment), it was the police who did not.  And the CAS joined in with the police by issuing this warning instead of saying that any families who brought their children knowingly to a violence protest would......but if they attended a family friendly protest they would not be investigating.

afterfostercare

The executive director of the Sudbury CAS once said in reference to youth protesting outside their agency... "they should protest in a school gym" - Collete Prevost - Executive Director, Sudbury CAS.

 

But it is ok for the CAS to break the law. Read more at http://www.fostercarenews.blogspot.com

Sky Captain Sky Captain's picture

We're talking about the Toronto CAS and what they said-which is quite prudent and should be listened to. But it appears nobody in this thread, with the exception of Aalya , has any common sense. Oh well, as they say in the West Indies, 'If you don't hear, you're going to feel'.Too bad that it will be the kids that do and not the adults.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I hope they send out warnings for the Santa Claus parade as well.  I would guess that both demonstrations and santa claus parades have led to the same number of injuries in children.  

Cueball Cueball's picture

Parents with children should be warned off the CNE grounds as well. They might get lost, be kidnapped and molested there. It does happen. In fact, children should not be allowed out at all until they 18.

Wilf Day

I find this thread a little off-key. So I went back to the original rabble article, which had the following quotes from John Clarke, who made more sense than he sometimes does:

Quote:
Clarke's approach is empowering families to make informed choices on safety, knowing that their presence is supported.

"A serious movement obviously wants to make sure that questions of the immediate physical safety of children are taken seriously. It is necessary to assess events and ensure that people with children are able to make informed choices as to participation and that plans take safety into full account."

Clarke didn't say necessarily which marches would be 'family friendly' but his focus was on the June 25th Justice for our Communities mobilizations. Over the course of the week his main safety concern was the way in which police would respond to the protests.

"People have to assess the best ways and times to include children in actions. Any mobilization has an element of risk that it will face police attack but there are some that pose a greater level of risk. If parents with children are to make a choice, a movement has a responsibility to make adequate arrangements for childcare, as an alternative to bringing children to actions."

Toronto Community Mobilization Network will have information available on childcare for parents, but currently it appears that childcare is only available on June 25 at the Parliament Branch Library.

For those that choose to involve their children in certain marches, Clarke says the way in which to avoid CAS involvement in the case of an arrest or injury, is to have clear instructions available on who is available and authorized to assume guardianship of that child.

"Speaking in terms of the 25th mobilization, we are making sure child care is there as an option, we will make sure that all parents who do decide to bring children understand the issues and risks and every effort will be made to make sure that the clearest instructions exist as to who should take the children in the case of arrest or injury. One element of the marshalling we do will be devoting to assisting parents with children."

The G20 protests are not without risk. Clarke suggests that parents involved at the G20 are encouraged to make informed decisions, while the rest of us need to be protective of the most vulnerable in our ranks.

"I speak for a poor peoples' organization and that leads me to say that it would be a terrible thing and a disgrace on us if one child ended up with the CAS," he said.

His last sentence was right on. Note that he would consider it a disgrace on the organization, not a disgrace on the CAS. 

Sky Captain Sky Captain's picture

Cueball wrote:
Parents with children should be warned off the CNE grounds as well. They might get lost, be kidnapped and molested there. It does happen. In fact, children should not be allowed out at all until they 18.

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I hope they send out warnings for the Santa Claus parade as well.  I would guess that both demonstrations and santa claus parades have led to the same number of injuries in children.

Strawman arguments, both of them filled with targ manure. Most parents who take their kids to both above mentioned places/events usually keep a close watch on their kids (in the case of the Santa Claus parade, the kids are too busy looking at floats to be wandering off-as is everybody else. That doesn't mean there aren't potential dangers, but in the second case mentioned, they are not as big as made out to be by you, Kropotkin1951.)

As for the first comment by Cueball-what I said first in response to you stands. The potential dangers in and of both events aren't as nasty as being mashed in the head by an overzelous cop and being seperated from your child(ren) by the confusion and general melee of crowd disruptions and clouds of teargas, not to mention the arrest of either parent or child by police and the seperation that would result.

I guess whwn it comes down to it, left-wing parents aren't any different from right-wing parents in the ways that they make their kids to be like themselves.

Refuge Refuge's picture

Sky Captain wrote:

Cueball wrote:
Parents with children should be warned off the CNE grounds as well. They might get lost, be kidnapped and molested there. It does happen. In fact, children should not be allowed out at all until they 18.

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I hope they send out warnings for the Santa Claus parade as well.  I would guess that both demonstrations and santa claus parades have led to the same number of injuries in children.

 Most parents who take their kids to both above mentioned places/events usually keep a close watch on their kids.

I have watched kids and been with kids who are mobile at protest events.  I have never seen a case where the kids were not watched closely in a crowd.  If a parent were so focused on something other than their child in any crowded event that it would pose a danger to their child -as is being talked about here - due to being lost, kidnapped or have them be in an unsupervised unsafe area (be it parade, mall or a protest) I would consider calling CAS on them no matter what the situation.

Sky Captain wrote:

As for the first comment by Cueball-what I said first in response to you stands. The potential dangers in and of both events aren't as nasty as being mashed in the head by an overzelous cop and being seperated from your child(ren) by the confusion and general melee of crowd disruptions and clouds of teargas, not to mention the arrest of either parent or child by police and the seperation that would result.

I believe all parents that posted here including myself indicated that if there were any signs that this was to happen - teargas, confusion within the crowd rather than a relaxed environment or arrests being made willy nilly they would not be participating (please parents correct me if I am wrong).  I accidentally ended up at the beginning of one of the protests started at Allen Gardens with my son and normally I would have gone across to hang out with some of the people - I knew at least 3 people there and that likely more once I would have gone in the crowd - but I saw the heavy police presence and the way they "detained" someone illegally.  I had time, I could have gone in and followed the protest to Queens Park but because of the general feel of the way the protest was going I got in my car after my appointment and drove home.

Sky Captin wrote:

I guess whwn it comes down to it, left-wing parents aren't any different from right-wing parents in the ways that they make their kids to be like themselves.

This is an interesting statement.  Considering my partner is much more right wing than myself and I do not try to shield my son from his views or ideas or even talk about what I think about them.  I allow my partner to influence my child as much as myself.  What I do want my child to is to have the confidence stand up for what he believes in, to have reasons behind his beliefs.  I want him to have the patience to do things the right way.  I want him to understand that there is justice in this world and when there is not to speak up and that others will speak up for him if he can't or needs help.  

I want him to understand the world and his place in it.  I want him to understand the world and others place in it.  I want him to understand how him and the rest of the world fit together. I want him to learn to appreciate himself, others and the world.

What beliefs he puts in there for standing up for people, being just, doing things the right way and to appreciating the world and his place in it is up to him.  They can be my beliefs, they can be his fathers beliefs or they can be something completely different that he has learned elsewhere but makes sense to him.  To say that these values are only shared by left leaners would show a person's own inability to understand the world, the left and the right.

What it comes down to for me is I want him to be happy and if he is scared to stand up, if he does things in a way that hurts other people, if he doesn't understand the world or his place in it that would be a cause for unhappiness for him.  I have no control over what he believes but can only teach him these values by living my life and showing him what makes me happy and letting him know that he is his own person and he can have different beliefs than me and that is okay.  What I want is for him to be happy.

No if you will excuse me, I may not be able to reply quickly to this if there are any additional posts because I have to clean up so that I have a good place for my son to play, then when he wakes from his nap it is bath time and we have to go shopping.  My life has been influenced and changed greatly by the birth of my son but when I do have time and the ability I share my life with him because I know I am just as important to him as he is to me.

Cueball Cueball's picture

What is more ominous to me is that it is obvious that the CAS was aware of the general scope of police operations and that the police were likely to attack otherwise peaceful protestors.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Yes, it is very clear that CAS allowed itself to be used as a tool to quash dissent. It is just as clear that they have made no effort to apologize for their complicity.

Wilf Day

Cueball wrote:
What is more ominous to me is that it is obvious that the CAS was aware of the general scope of police operations and that the police were likely to attack otherwise peaceful protestors.

As my last quote above shows, John Clarke was also aware.

But it would indeed be ominous if the CAS was MORE aware than John Clarke. Is there any evidence of that?

Cueball Cueball's picture

John Clarke as someone who speaks for a poor peoples organization is aware that the CAS is a threat to poor people with families. That is what I got from that. This is said in the context of the CAS issuing its warning, not something that John Clarke decided to talk about out of the blue, from my point of view Clarke's statement is a reflection on the CAS warning/threat in the context of the heightened police activity that was occuring during the G20 period, and not a general statement about the a priori risk of public demonstration, per se.

Quote:
"People have to assess the best ways and times to include children in actions. Any mobilization has an element of risk that it will face police attack but there are some that pose a greater level of risk. If parents with children are to make a choice, a movement has a responsibility to make adequate arrangements for childcare, as an alternative to bringing children to actions."

The risk is, not the demonstrators but the police attacking the demonstrators.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Cueball wrote:

What is more ominous to me is that it is obvious that the CAS was aware of the general scope of police operations and that the police were likely to attack otherwise peaceful protestors.

What is even more "ominous" is that CAS did not issue public warnings against the police, who were the source of the threat, but rather chose to support the police aggression by attempting to intimidate the protesters.

remind remind's picture

M. Spector wrote:
Cueball wrote:
What is more ominous to me is that it is obvious that the CAS was aware of the general scope of police operations and that the police were likely to attack otherwise peaceful protestors.

What is even more "ominous" is that CAS did not issue public warnings against the police, who were the source of the threat, but rather chose to support the police aggression by attempting to intimidate the protesters.

*bolding mine

This is a dead on the money observation which indicates those working in CAS in ON are just the same type of mindset as they were in the 60's scoop.

Those social workers are no friends of anyone but the "elites"..

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Sky Captain wrote:

Cueball wrote:
Parents with children should be warned off the CNE grounds as well. They might get lost, be kidnapped and molested there. It does happen. In fact, children should not be allowed out at all until they 18.

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I hope they send out warnings for the Santa Claus parade as well.  I would guess that both demonstrations and santa claus parades have led to the same number of injuries in children.

Strawman arguments, both of them filled with targ manure. Most parents who take their kids to both above mentioned places/events usually keep a close watch on their kids (in the case of the Santa Claus parade, the kids are too busy looking at floats to be wandering off-as is everybody else. That doesn't mean there aren't potential dangers, but in the second case mentioned, they are not as big as made out to be by you, Kropotkin1951.)

Actually if you had bothered reading my post for content you can see clearly I did not state anything about the potential dangers being too great at a santa claus parade. I was making the point that neither area is any more dangerous than the other and if you looked at actual statistics instead of paranoid delusions you would see there are no injuries to children at either.  But selling creepy toys to kids is a good thing to promote but raising your children to be active participants in a democracy is somehow too dangerous.  Teaching your children that it is too dangerous to protest because the police will be offended and beat you up is not my idea of child rearing because I want my children to grow up as citizens not slaves to the police authorities.

 

Sky Captain Sky Captain's picture

Then teach your kids how to work for change beyond and besides demonstrating in the streets all of the time-teach them to take a page from the recent right-wing victory in the Toronto elections and work at building relations with those people that aren't convinced/who disdain the progressive message.  Also, teach them how to use the system to get progressive people elected to public office (a great way to start would be to get them the book [url=http://www.amazon.com/Stupid-White-Office-Anti-Politics-Boring/dp/193236... to Get Stupid White Men Out of Office: The Anti-Politics, Un-Boring Guide to Power[/url] and have them read it from cover to cover, so that they can apply the principles to their lives and truly advance the progressive ideal more than just what's done as usual by the left.

Quote:
Teaching your children that it is too dangerous to protest because the police will be offended and beat you up is not my idea of child rearing because I want my children to grow up as citizens not slaves to the police authorities.

You can either teach your kids how to really work for change and mostly avoid bashed in the head by cops, or they will become 'slaves' (of a sort) to police records, which will limit where they can go and what they can do in life-it's up to you and it starts with you (sadly).

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Sky Captain wrote:

Then teach your kids how to work for change beyond and besides demonstrating in the streets all of the time-teach them to take a page from the recent right-wing victory in the Toronto elections and work at building relations with those people that aren't convinced/who disdain the progressive message.  Also, teach them how to use the system to get progressive people elected to public office (a great way to start would be to get them the book [url=http://www.amazon.com/Stupid-White-Office-Anti-Politics-Boring/dp/193236... to Get Stupid White Men Out of Office: The Anti-Politics, Un-Boring Guide to Power[/url] and have them read it from cover to cover, so that they can apply the principles to their lives and truly advance the progressive ideal more than just what's done as usual by the left.

Quote:
Teaching your children that it is too dangerous to protest because the police will be offended and beat you up is not my idea of child rearing because I want my children to grow up as citizens not slaves to the police authorities.

You can either teach your kids how to really work for change and mostly avoid bashed in the head by cops, or they will become 'slaves' (of a sort) to police records, which will limit where they can go and what they can do in life-it's up to you and it starts with you (sadly).

I did also teach my children those things and have had them join me in federal election campaigns etc.  So take your moralizing somewhere else.  I also think that compliant populations sink into tyranny and the G8/G20 shows our society to be on a very slippery slope.  Elections are not democratic if people have no rights of assemble and protest. I want to teach my children and grandchildren that truth and the truth that if you don't insist on your rights no one will give them to you.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Sky Captain wrote:

Then teach your kids how to work for change beyond and besides demonstrating in the streets all of the time-teach them to take a page from the recent right-wing victory in the Toronto elections and work at building relations with those people that aren't convinced/who disdain the progressive message.  Also, teach them how to use the system to get progressive people elected to public office (a great way to start would be to get them the book [url=http://www.amazon.com/Stupid-White-Office-Anti-Politics-Boring/dp/193236... to Get Stupid White Men Out of Office: The Anti-Politics, Un-Boring Guide to Power[/url] and have them read it from cover to cover, so that they can apply the principles to their lives and truly advance the progressive ideal more than just what's done as usual by the left.

The Chinese govenment would love you to post that in Mandarin. Democracy is predicated on numerous principles. Some of them include the following, the right to free speech, the right to free assembly, and the right to associate freely. Case you forgot that.

You do know that a Canadian court recently sided with a Crown Prosecutor in determining that a panel discussion at a university constituted a "demonstration"?

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Details, details...

I'll bet the judge was a whitey, wasn't he? See, Sky Captain has his single answer to every issue already. Lose all the white guys, and the world is fixed.

Might even work, if democracy and free speech for all (even us pale and aging males) isn't an issue.

Sky Captain Sky Captain's picture

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

Details, details...

I'll bet the judge was a whitey, wasn't he? See, Sky Captain has his single answer to every issue already. Lose all the white guys, and the world is fixed.

Might even work, if democracy and free speech for all (even us pale and aging males) isn't an issue.

I don't necessarily mean get rid of all the white guys, just the stupid ones, LTJ; it's the title of the book, after all. And one can do worse than to not follow what the book's saying. One can keep on doing the same thing, and get the same result, like most of the left does. I've just shown a better way forward; it's up to the others if the want to pay heed to the wise teachings, or to throw it away like garbage.

Cueball wrote:
 Democracy is predicated on numerous principles. Some of them include the following, the right to free speech, the right to free assembly, and the right to associate freely. Case you forgot that?

Democracy is also predicated on working within the system, and using it to it's fullest extent, in the manner prescribed. Obviously, you've lost your perspective on that, and can only see screaming in the streets as the only way. Maybe the next generation will be somewhat wiser.

RosaL

There are obvious connections between this thread and the thread about the couple in Calgary who were threatened with losing their children. It's a disturbing trend: radicals can't have kids. Kids can't grow up as radicals. 

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

What hasn't worked so well? Instituting a national health care program? Welfare? Equity legislation? Charter of Rights? You think that came into being simply because some get along Johnny's didn't rock the boat?

Your reading of history is about a month deep.

You'll be fine though. I don't remember a line for apologists in Pastor Niemöller's famous poem.

Sky Captain Sky Captain's picture

Cueball wrote:

What hasn't worked so well? Instituting a national health care program? Welfare? Equity legislation? Charter of Rights? You think that came into being simply because some get along Johnny's didn't rock the boat?

Your reading of history is about a month deep.

And your cynical nature, along with refusal to see and progress beyond what was done in the past is years deep-right back at you.

Unionist

Hello - Godwin here!

What about those irresponsible people in Europe of the 30s and 40s who persisted in having Jewish children, rather than converting, escaping, practising birth control, etc.? Not blaming them for being Jewish, but you know, their timing could have been better.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Sky Captain wrote:

Cueball wrote:

What hasn't worked so well? Instituting a national health care program? Welfare? Equity legislation? Charter of Rights? You think that came into being simply because some get along Johnny's didn't rock the boat?

Your reading of history is about a month deep.

And your cynical nature, along with refusal to see and progress beyond what was done in the past is years deep-right back at you.

And you have achieved what? Did you throw a few cents the way of some homeless person or other. Is that your contribution?

I am not cynical at all. I know for a fact that every act of resistance, no matter how small has an impact, directly and concretely. You would rather denigrate those that have the courage to take to the streets than take a stand on anything, and defend the supression of the rights that were won for you by others who you insult.

Cueball Cueball's picture

I guess it is pretty clear that Sky Captain actually doesn't approve of public demonstrations. So much for all the "for the sake of the children" clap-trap. That was just an excuse for inserting his real agenda, much like the CAS, in this case.

Fidel

It's teaching kids disrespect for the fascist-bastard establishment. I don't see what's wrong here.

Pages

Topic locked