CAS says children should not be involved in G20

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

PraetorianFour wrote:

Nice try. We're talking about the G20 protest, was there any doubt in anyones mine that SOMEONE would start violence there? be it the police or select group of protestors? You can play coy if you want, by all means act surprised that the cops were way overzealos.

Violence at the G20 summit? What really? Who'd have thought!   Well, I'm still going to bring my kid to prove a point, and if they get hurt it's not MY fault [which will be a good consolidation when I'm sitting in CHEO].

I find parents putting their children in dangerous situations highly offensive. I won't mention using children to "try and make cops nicer".

Wow.

Given your ignorant distortions and your complete lack of common courtesy, it's no wonder you're used to people resorting to violence around you.

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

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

Unionist wrote:

PraetorianFour wrote:

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

First answer these two questions:

1. How many people were injured?

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

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

remind wrote:

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

[b]Hear, hear!![/b] 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 [i]then[/i] the CAS should be called in. Anything else is just your ranting against the church for no good reason other then that you hate them, and it makes you no better than the teabaggers who rant against 'socialism' when you do it.

Cueball wrote:

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

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

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

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

PraetorianFour wrote:

 

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

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

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

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.

Sky Captain wrote:

Unionist wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sky Captain wrote:

Cueball wrote:

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

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

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

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

The comparison is dead on target.

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

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.

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.

Cueball wrote:

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

kropotkin1951 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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.

Cueball wrote:

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

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

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

Cueball wrote:

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

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

Sky Captain wrote:

Cueball wrote:

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

kropotkin1951 wrote:

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

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

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

Sky Captain wrote:

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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.

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

Cueball wrote:

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

Your reading of history is about a month deep.

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

Sky Captain wrote:

Cueball wrote:

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

Your reading of history is about a month deep.

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

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

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

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