CdnFox

Really doesn't seem like there's much there. Those 'cracks' have pretty much been there since day one. The us is happy as long as russians and their gear are being destroyed at a much higher rate than the value of the american gear being sent, because it'll weaken russia for decades. THe 'end goal' will depend on how successful some of the ukrainian offensives are. And at the day, Zelenski won't have much say in when the war stops. The war stops when putin wins or decides to give up, Or when the us stops sending weapons. So putin or biden will be making that decision for him,

THe article never said he was arrested FOR being 'stupid' as you put it. Soooo - who lied exactly? But it did note that was the inciting event, without the 'stupid' you have no arrest period. So saying that the arrest was a result of his opinion is not wrong.

I've noticed, but didn't want to bring it up. Sounded like it. You obviously didn't read the op's article because it said straght in it that the kid was arrested for trespassing so you wouldn't have had to 'look it up if you had access to the article. i mean the article doesn't say what the forum post title said, it's very clear that the charge he was arrested for was tresspass, but that the charge is a direct result of his voicing his opinion. And considering i posted a rather large number of posts demonstrating that even tho you can't say he was CHARGED with "opinion" it's entirely realistic to say he was charged because of it it seemed more likely you were referring to me. If they hadn't objected to his opinion his being there would not have been trespass. Remove the opinon and if everything else was the same there's no charges. So are you suggesting that you meant the article? Would you explain your comments then - the article and the article's headline never say he was directly charged for his opinion at all, and they identify the charge as trespass so what exactly did you have to go and 'look up'? The article never said he was charged for his opinion.

Man, that's REALLY bigoted. Why can't he be more like Putin, who wants to kill all Ukrainians equally?

Trans students don't feel safe with girls who don't feel safe. Get rid of them.

Ahhhh no, no this didn't come from me Reason10 is the poster But thanks for showing up and amusing us with your antics Still wrestling with being a hate filled bigot i see

Yeah, for sure. As a soldier (presuming based on your nic) you have certain priorities and things associated with 'patriotism'. But For a shocking number of people the whole Canadian identity involves NOT being nice to the military. You see - we're "peacekeepers". Peace keepers don't need guns and tanks and planes! What's wrong with you? And we're a PEACEFUL nation - peaceful nations don't prepare for war! Every single penny we spend on the military is a failure on our part as a PEACEFUL nation you see. Our whole persona as a country is wrapped up on that. So actually the MORE patriotic a canadian feels, the MORE they're likely to be less excited about a well equipped military. Most want our guys to have good boots and warm clothes and eat good food but that's pretty much where it ends. If their tanks and trucks and stuff don't work - well hell we GAVE them the good boots soooo..... So gov'ts spend far less on the miliary and more on things that REALLY matter to Canadians, like lesbian dance theory research. And the CBC. (same thing really.) Sorry - probably not the answer you were looking for. But this was a thing born in the late 60's early 70's in the era of vietnam and Cyprus, and it's pretty ingrained

I've told you before, 50 percent of people are below average I'm constantly having to remind you for example that Canada and the US are not at war at this time in Ukraine But lets face it, another cold war already started and was there before ukraine. So i suppose their right in that respect. Ish. Well at least i can tell the difference between the future and the past. Russia already lost this war - that's a thing that happenED. (See, when it's got that little 'ed' on the end, that' means it's past. Pro tip for ya.) Although truth be told i'm pretty good with the future as well. I did predict Vlad would take a poke at taking over ukraine back in 2014. Mind you - i was hardly alone so it's not some great achievement, most people knew it. whereas you can't seem to figure out either. Of course russia lost, they lost when this war took longer than 10 days to win. And of course they would have attacked other countries if they'd won. That's as obvious as the fact they'd attack ukraine was in 2014. You can't figure out either thing And you're not so good with the present either seeing how often i have to remind you we aren't actually belligerents in this war. So you're a mess whether you're in the past present or future. But hey - at least your thorough

Dude - the scopes trial was about an ADULT TEACHER against the education law, NOT AN EDUCATION OF A STUDENT. The fact they were arguing over a curriculum doesn't make it an 'educational situation'. But - what we're talking about HERE is a child and that child's education Children are not the same as adults. The education system has a duty of care towards the children. Children are why it exists. Entirely different in every respect. Unless you have a better example i have to say educational situations going to court mean someone has failed badly.

If the strategy was supposed to leave a child without an education and further hatred towards a group then i would argue things are far worse than we thought. No respect was taught here, you can't encourage respect for one person by showing complete disrespect for another. The outcome speaks for itself.

No, facts are not conjecture. Yes. That will be what is known as a 'mitigated loss', or one might call it a phyrric victory if one were being kind. The damage to their reputation, their international standing, their war materials and loss of manpower, all that will have happened regardless and ukraine isn't enough of a gain to justify it. Russia has already lost, now it just is a matter of how badly. All of it is. Casualty estimates, economic impacts etc etc - all those things are very real and multiple expert groups have put a lot of energy into them. These are simple facts. I'm sorry they don't fit the narrative you prefer. We're not at war with Russia. You seem to keep forgetting that. The question you should be asking is Why did Russia want war so badly?

That would be party to the after-conflict. That would not be party to the conflict. If someone were to bomb a country, and canada went in and provided aid afterwards, you could not say Canada bombed the country or participated in the bombing. In fact we had no participation in that war and spoke against it. We provided aid afterwards. That is not even remotely the same as participating.

If you're suggesting the school is benefitting from putting the child at risk then that would make them even more of a monster. I seriously hope you're wrong. We'll see how it plays out. BUt i would still put it to you that any educational situation that has to end up in court to be resolved represents a failure of the school to effectively do it's job.

Not in this case. This is a case of a child student and adult educators. The educator's job is to guide and ... well, educate. To be the adult, to show more restraint and more flexibility. That's the duty of care an educator has. It can be a hard job but if all you do is demand compromise you're not going to get anywhere with them. These are children we're talking about. They're not even 18 yet. This is NOT an 'equal' relationship. The purpose of the teachers is to provide the best education possible and to guide the student's growth. HOW on EARTH can we say they did their job if the end result is the kid is even MORE set in a viewpoint they disagreed with and his future education is in serious jeopardy? That is an utter failure!

Well personally i would argue that if it got to this point regardless of any other detail it's a failure of the administration. it's their job to prevent this kind of thing from getting to this point. The only question is could it have been avoided and did they learn from it - but it kind of feels with the info we do have that they screwed up here. They are literally the adults in the room but seem to have let this get out of control to the point where a child's education has to be put into jeopardy.

Probably has but i don't feel like looking it up to see at this second. Maybe i'll get a chance later. I wouldn't care for their odds tho. Openly gay no - but even religious schools don't ban you for being gay, they just insist you don't DO anything gay (so to speak). If you're attracted to the same sex but never do anything about it at all then you're fine, even if you were to admit to the attraction. Generally even the religious groups accept that it's the action thats the sin not just the desire. (might be some that don't feel that way). So it's one thing for a school to say you can't ACT on gay impulses but to just ban someone for being gay at all? Don't think so.

Why would you even let it get to that point? You don't feel there was a better way to address this than going right to a ban? Some sort of middle ground that could allow for reasonable discussion and disagreement? OR - if the issue is so sensitive ban discussion on the subject for ANYONE regardless of opinion to prevent anyone from being targeted for their opinion? How does "lets deny him education and arrest him if he complains" make for good policy?

Well..... i don't know that i want to be on record as having made THAT claim - i just said they didn't out and out say he was charged for his opinion The article is slightly inflammatory. That's just newspapers today tho. oh i don't think it's unreasonable to say that emotionally charged language was used and that there's an attempt to stir a sense of outrage. I think something can be factually correct and still do that. You can downplay OR 'upplay' something without lying. I just felt the 'intellectually dishonest' was going a little far - they made it pretty clear in the article all the relevant details and specifics. And i don't think it's dishonest to say he was arrested over his opinion, even if not factually technically directly true. And i still feel that the actions taken will cause far more harm than good for transgender people.

Well if it is a gov't run or funded institution then they do have to abide by the human rights code and they would have the rights to free speech and religious belief that would exist anywhere. You can't make a rule that violates the law. If the 'rule' is not allowed under the charter then it's not valid or enforceable.' Imagine someone made a school "rule" that you couldn't be gay at this school. How enforceable would you say that was. If the gays were arrested for 'trespass' as a result do you think there might be a few people who felt that was inappropriate?

I replied to you advising you that they didn't make that claim in the post you couldn't read.

Well, don't use the information to make any important financial decisions then It's the net. Just treat it as an unconfirmed report and discuss it in that light.

We weren't discussing reason10. I was discussing the headline and paper article and THEY don't make any type of claim. Nor does his subject line say they did. Sorry man - you're wrong here both on a technical level and from a practical point of view. While he wasn't arrested FOR it, he was arrested BECAUSE of it, and while reason10's subject line is factually incorrect the fact he did post the ACTUAL headline and story in his first post in bold shows he wasn't trying to hide that. So all you can really accuse him of is being a little clickbait-y. Why don't we just put that nonsense behind us and talk about the issue. At the end of the day it's a draconian response to what is a truthful statement that's not made out of hatred or ill will - do you not think there was a better way to handle this?

Getting back to reality and ignoring the obvious brain farts some people are having, obviously the kid was banned and arrested because of his opinion (regardless of the mechanism). Our laws on free speech are becoming a little too weak. This kind of thing will fuel hatreds, not suppress them.

Well seeing as you are being so technical seeing as i was originally speaking of the headline (gave you the benefit of the doubt) then reading the subject line does not show where "They" said it was either. So you're still wrong. And still look dumb. Seriously you are NOT coming across as very intelligent in this thread. You've done better.

You're way out of line. At first i thought you were being a ilttle pedantic but it is absolutely ignorant to claim there is NO connection between voicing his opinion and his arrest. There very obviously is a direct connection. Pretending the two are unrelated events is just childish. No he was not arrested on the charge of "his opinion". He was arrested on the charge of tresspassing. However it is not an unreasonable statement to say that he was arrested BECAUSE of his opinion. Without that - if he had been in the same place at the same time under the same circumstances he would not have been arrested for trespassing. So because he voiced his opinion, his presence was found to be tresspass. If he had not voiced his opinion his presence would not have been a tresspass. Ergo his opinion lead to the state of tresspass for which he was arrested. Call a spade a spade.