babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
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.
The Tamil protest in Toronto in 2009, is one example of a community coming together, with children, older folks, everyone.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 How to Get Stupid White Men Out of Office will help in that regard.)
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.
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 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.
You don't mean this part really, now do you:
So tell me P4 - if "everyone KNOWS violence will break out", is it proper for adults to go there?
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?
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?
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
Honest question Unionist, did you believe there was a possibility that the G20 would have been pulled off with zero violence?
I'll have you know I'm very courteous.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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