CAS says children should not be involved in G20

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?

Refuge wrote:

 Should children not go to open air concerts either?

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

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

SparkyOne wrote:

Refuge wrote:

 Should children not go to open air concerts either?

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

 

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

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

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

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.

Ripple wrote:

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

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

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.

Sky Captain wrote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Sky Captain wrote:

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

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

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

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

Unionist wrote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

ElizaQ wrote:

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

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

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

ElizaQ wrote:

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

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

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.

Sky Captain wrote:

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

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

Sky Captain wrote:

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

PraetorianFour wrote:

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

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

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

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

Or is violence your personal preference?

PraetorianFour wrote:

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

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

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

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: [b]Ordinary folks should play it safe, be frightened, not get involved, stay home.[/b] 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 [b]anyone[/b], 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.