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? 

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.

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?

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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! :)

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

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. 

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.

double post

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

Someone think of the puppies! ;) 

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

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.

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.

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

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.

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

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.

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.

I completely agree, rinne.

Nice to see you back, Aalya. :)

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.

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?

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

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?

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?

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHgZEKJL9lQ

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

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

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?

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.

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?

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.

Excellent, Merowe.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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.  

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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"..

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.

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).

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.

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"?

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

At least we now know that Sky Captain actually doesn't approve of public demonstrations, or the "left", and all this chatter that he has been purveying on this thread for the "sake of the children" was little more than cynical manipulation of child safety issue for purely political reasons, and nothing at all to do with protecting children.

He was just using that as an emotional wedge issue.

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.)

Based on what supposition? You entered this discussion with a great big faux argument based in your "think of the children" rhetoric that had nothing to do with anything you really care about. It was just senseless left bashing. obviously, now we see, because you disagree with public demonstration. You can't even prove that public demonstrations hurt children.

Not one case, where you can show that children were put in harms way, yet alone harmed. All this cynical manipulation shows precisely how hypocritical and deceitful you really are.

Fine. You don't like the "left". And fine "public demonstration" offends you. Fine. You are entitled to your opinions, but please don't drag in other peoples children into your personal issues with the left, as if you really care. Its truly disgusting.

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

Suck on it Sky Captain...

Closing for length.