CAS says children should not be involved in G20

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? 

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?

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.

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

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.

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? 

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

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?

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.

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.

Someone think of the puppies! ;) 

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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:

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 How to Get Stupid White Men Out of Office will help in that regard.)

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.

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

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Seems like good advice.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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

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.

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:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

*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"..

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 How to Get Stupid White Men Out of Office: The Anti-Politics, Un-Boring Guide to Power 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.

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).

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"?

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

Actually, you haven't shown doodley-squat; you can't even be bothered to paraphrase this yanqui scribbling you reference so reverently. Instead you repeatedly give us your views on some phantom 'left' that you hold in contempt - for reasons you can't seem to enunciate.

And your 'concern' for the kids 'victimized' by CAS is just hatred of an organization set up to help them simply because you disagree with what they say. Kind of like 'Suppose you were an unreasoning zelot who could not see a different way of doing something. And suppose you were a member of Babble. But, I repeat myself.' (in response to the quote of Martin Niemöller said by you above, and with apologies to Mark Twain.)

How the German people used demonstration to end the euthanasia program against the disabled during WW2:

Suck on it Sky Captain...

Closing for length.