dialamah

Love your first source - a religious website opposed to birth control, and wanting to defund abortion. So obviously biased, it made me wonder what this new curriculum really said, because no doubt this site has cherry picked stuff to make it look a bad as possible. I didn't bother to look at the rest of your sources. Yes, enthusiastic consent to make it clear for both boys and girls that consent must be obtained for sexual activity. What a radical way to teach people not to rape other people. I completely agree that sex education should start when kids are very young, so when that when the Scout leader, "uncle Bob" Dad's best friend Tony, or even Dad himself, touches them they understand that it's wrong and they should tell someone. I started teaching my daughter when she was four years old what unwanted touching was, and what she should do if it happened to her. And it did when she was about seven; she told me and I was able to help her. Unlike so many kids who are molested but who have been raised to believe "sex is wrong until you are married" and nothing more, and who are able to be scared into silence by their attackers. According to your source, the curriculum teaches the kids how to avoid pregnancy and STDs - but that's a no-go because the health and welfare of kids is trumped by an archaic system that relies on ignorance and fear. Lack of sex education and "just say no" campaigns result in more unwanted pregnancy and more STDs than does comprehensive sex education. The Catholic schools will need to just focus on the fear aspect of their religion to keep their students chaste, since this legislation removes from them the right to support sexual ignorance in their students. The Ontario government has kids' welfare at heart. You and your ilk does not.

I myself am a pro-human activist; please use that term instead of SJW should you want to pigeon-hole something I post.

Perhaps there would have been less pushback if the OP would have stuck to the reality that Liberal gov't appointed left leaning judges instead of assuming that because most of these judges weren't white and male, they must of course be less qualified, and once again white guys got shafted. They claim preferential treatment of minorities because this time they made up the majority of appointees and fail to see how the same argument could be used when mostly white males have been appointed in the past.Nobody here has denied that political leanings inform the choices for any government, so why do you continue to make that argument?

Oops I misread your post .... I think he might of hired the 2 or 3 least PC of them - for optics - but then chosen from the less "qualified" group.

If every other option was worse, then yes. The problem is "qualified" means different things to different people, and different things to the same people in different contexts. How does one assess a judge's qualifications anyway? University marks? Successful prosecutions or defense while lawyering? Types of cases tried while on the bench? Good works in the community? Clubs they belong to? Stable family life? Similar political views? Coherence in their arguments? Media savvy? Gender? Ethnicity? Impartiality? A little bit of all of that? Once you've defined what you are looking for, you have to decide how much weight to give each criteria; no point in appointing a liberal-leaning bisexual Asian female if she can't mount a coherent argument and is regularly lampooned in the media. Despite the implication in the OP, white heterosexual men are not automatically more qualified than anyone else, unless you are selecting only for being white, male and heterosexual. Certainly most of JT's selections are not qualified for the job under that criteria, but IMO, that is the least important criteria.

In that case, do you think any judges under any PM have ever been selected based on their merit first, and other factors second/third/fourth/etc.?

I am very sad for all Americans right now.

Actually, this isn't true. There are perfectly happy celibate couples, and couples where one enjoys sex much more than the other. They don't advertise these quirks, just exactly because there's a perception that sex = relationship and that no sex = no relationship.

I'd say it depends on how they present their views: for example, a thread titled "Leftist Marxist Goons" is not respectful, nor a call for reasoned discourse of differing opinion, so why would that person expect their views to be taken seriously? If one really wanted to discuss the more violent behavior of *some* people of a particular political persuasion at Trump Rallies, vs. Clinton Rallies I'm sure they'd come up with a less provocative title. But name-calling in the title and OP makes it clear that that the writer doesn't want to 'discuss', they want to insult, ridicule and castigate. Why would such a person not expect the same in return? Perhaps people who are being referred to Nazi/white supremo/or someone who hates others should take a look at how they're presenting their views. "The white people will eventually become dumb downed if they continue on the race mixing path." --- This does sound exactly like something a white supremo would say.

According to Wikipedia, hate speech in Canada seems to specifically refer to supporting or condoning genocide, otherwise it's merely opinion even if its "revolting, disgusting and untrue".https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada So I guess our only option is to castigate and ridicule racists, white supremists, radical anti-religionists, radical anti-whatever, at least until they start talking about genocide being the solution for their hated group(s). Free speech is safe, after all. Thanks.

Such people don't believe they are deserving of castigation and ridicule. Instead they claim their detractors are trying to shut down discussion, are being politically correct or an SJW. With laws against hate speech I think the point that words have meanings and consequence is more easily made.

I was responding specifically to your question about letting a 52-year-old adult child hang out with someone's six-year-old to prove they 'accept' such. I ought to have quoted you though; my bad for assuming you'd follow the context. Given the 100s of different "Christian" interpretations of what any given phrase in the bible means, I'd say that's entirely a matter of opinion and not fact. Some Christians really seem to get the whole idea of 'loving the sinner, not the sin', not judging people, honestly and effectively reaching out their hand to help others up and even into Christianity. But they're relatively rare; most Christians take considerable satisfaction in saying "You are BAD because the Bible says so! You will be punished!" whilst crying crocodile tears about how morally corrupt and undeserving people are.

@Betsy ... accepting differences in people doesn't mean you have to do or not do certain things with them. As long as the 52-year-old little girl wasn't harming anyone, I don't feel a need to object to them, even if I disagree with their particular schtick. Whether they could associate with myself and my family would depend on how I felt about them as a person, how well I knew them, whether I trusted them not to impose their schtick on my kids. It's kind of similar to how I feel about Christians: I don't agree with their particular schtick, but whether I or my children will associate with any individual depends entirely on how I feel about them as a person - how well I know them, whether I trust them not to impose their schtick on my kids. Accepting someone doesn't mean one has to become best buddies with them, hang out with them or have them spend the night. It simply means you allow them to live their life free from harassment and Judgement. You can even accept people you don't like, since acceptance merely means they have the right to live their life as they see fit, as long as they are not causing harm to others. That was the message I took from the command 'thou shall not judge' back in my Christian days, and it's what I still try to follow.

Hey, I've had enough of of the constant insults, trolling and disrespect on this forum and am moving on. Would like to find a place where this doesn't happen, or at least not so much, if anyone can advise me - I'll hope for response in the next day or two before I deactivate. Thanks to smallc, OGFT, Army Guy, Kimmy, BC_Chick, Hal 9000, BCSapper, waldo, Big-Guy, cybercoma, msj, Westcoastrunner for good discussion, even when I disagreed with you. Probably a couple of names I've missed there, hope you know who you are. Michael Hardner, thanks for your help.

Hi Clueless Lefties, Welcome to the discussion forum. Can you please explain to me why so many right-wing people are so eager and willing to introduce themselves and their topics by immediately insulting those who disagree with them? Trying to remember when my kids outgrew their tendency to insult "just because" --- thinking maybe it was between 12 and 15? Anyway, I look forward to your future contributions of thoughtful, respectful and considered opinion and maybe even some facts. Ciao, Dia

Well, I have to say -- you seem all too ready to criticize, with no real insight into either the problems and no idea of solutions. As long as those 'specifics' match up with what you already think seems obvious?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'solved without ructions in the community' or 'discomfort to those observing'. As a "bleeding heart leftie liberal', I'm already discomfited by the problems that plague FN communities on and off reservations. If encouraging them to move would solve their issues after some short term pain, I would consider that an acceptable solution. However, moving people who are addicted and dysfunctional doesn't solve the problems of addiction or dysfunction. They both have to happen in concert with each other, and I believe the solving of the dysfunction and addiction would work better if it started within the community, and was followed by providing them with the skills and tools they'd need to succeed when moving to a new location. How would you handle it?

Yes, it seems so simple -- until you look a little deeper. Education, oversight, accountability, relocation, economic development, all a part of the solution puzzle I think. No single solution, nor even single combination will work for every situation which is why it's so complex. I think it would also be true that support for people already addicted as well as their children would be a key component before other solutions can even be considered for some of the more desperate communities. A community that has a 75% alcohol addiction rate, and having fourteen-year-olds giving birth is barely worthy of comment then it seems to me that solving the social ills must happen before economic development can be considered, even if a region is suitable for that. I don't see relocation for these people as much of a solution to solving social ills, either - I think it has to start with the youngest generations and include education and other social supports within their community, even if delivered by non-Natives. Unfortunately, this would require a long-term outlook, and quite a lot of money which people are loath to spend on a group that is widely regarded as lazy and greedy.

Charles Jr, can I get an answer to this question, please?

A lot "us" who doing well don't give a crap about those of "us" who are having difficulty. Why should we demand that Natives behave differently?

Here's some info about the band Kim mentioned earlier; along with other things, education played an important part in turning this band around. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-magazine/clarence-louie-feature/article18913980/ How are you defining 'success', exactly? And how do you know there aren't economic opportunities in those areas? I'm not the least bit business-savvy, but even I know that eco-tourism is a 'thing', and that touristing to remote areas is popular and expensive. That's just one idea, there may be other options neither you and I know anything about. Even if the possibility of economic development truly is impossible, the people in those reserves still can't just be moved willy-nilly elsewhere. They have to *choose* to go, and it's unlikely that will happen unless they believe there is a place for them elsewhere in Canada and they have to have the knowledge and skills that will give them the confidence to succeed. That is what education can provide for them.

Why do you say that? The way I see it is that education opens one's mind up to both the possibilities and the way to achieve those possibilities. Smartphones and TVs only open you up to the possibilities, but does not provide you a path. Nobody said trapping martens and smoking salmon was the goal, though it could be the hobby. I recently caught part of a documentary on a FN youth who is currently in university to become a lawyer, and how he's intertwining his heritage with "modern" solutions for his community. And,incidentally, why should reserves have to be deserted in order for FN people to succeed?

My mistake, then, I misunderstood this statement "Banning terms like "LIEberals" and "Conservitards" and so-on might help the forum avoid looking like it's been overrun by junior high-school students, but it doesn't get us to decorum on its own." to mean they weren't banned.