CdnFox

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.

You really aught to know by now that doubting me THAT quickly is an invitation to look dumb. Lets look at the headline as you suggest Canadian Catholic student arrested, charged after saying men, women are different: 'Embarrassing' That's the headline. So. Is it true he was arrested? Yup. Is it true this occurred after his statement about men and women? Yup. Does it say he was arrested FOOOOR saying it? Nope. Do you look a little dumb? Yup. Should you maybe be careful about calling others 'intellectually dishonest" and then not getting your facts straight? Yup. Am i laughing at you a little? Ohhh big yup Seriously they don't actually claim anywhere in the story he was arrested for his opinion, they just claim the kid says that's the "STORY" behind his arrest and there's clearly some truth to it despite the fact that it would not be accurate to claim that's the charge.

It doesn't say he wasn't. Read it again. They never said it was for his opinion. The closest they come is where they pose it as a question. How very intellectually dishonest of you (snicker ) But i agree it's somewhatmisleading.' I was typing my response when you posted. In the end tho there's a grain of truth to it as well. His opinion is indeed what lead to his being suspended and subsequently charged with trespass. There was no tresspass if they school hadn't punished him for his position, it's definitely an inciting factor. The school preferred to have him arrested because he held his opinion rather than find another way to address it.

SLIGHTLY misleading headline (he was technically arrested for trespass) but not by much. And obviously it's just wrong. On many many levels. None the least of which is guess how he feels about transsexuals NOW. Guess how his friends feel. Even people who didn't have much of an opinion either way will start to get polarized over this kind of reaction. They've taken a difficult situation and made it much worse.

No it isn't, where the hell did you hear that?!?! They may well but they would have cited the fact trudeau used it as one regardless. That door was opened as soon as trudeau declared the act. No it isn't. Why do you feel the weird need to just make crap up like this?

Sure kiddo.

A plant! What kind of plant? Maybe a Hedge-emony? lol! HEY - Gimmie back my keyboard...

I suppose you can. Is that something you feel you're likely to do?

No. First off he's not a sitting judge, this was not a trial. You can say he's a canadian justice but that's it. Second he did not 'rule' the actions to be anything. He said in his opinion that appeared to be the case but that it would have been entirely plausable to have a different opinion. You keep wanting to give legal weight to something that did not have legal weight. He did not make a legal ruling. no it is not for gods sake - This was NOT a court action, there is NOT a legal ruling, there is NO precedent set in law at all. Nor was he acting AS a judge! They asked a judge to run the thing (a common practice) but his job was NOT to rule on it as a legal judgement. Yeash - please educate yourself on what happened. don't make me explain this to you a third time.

For the purposes of discussion. This is a discussion forum. why are you here exactly? LOL

it's not an uncommon refrain in Canada Yes - i can see why many people would agree that someone who has no sense of honour and thinks the country is imaginary or is actually a person named charlie wales should probably not be taken as an expert in the military LOL!!!!!

Hence the caveate. Assuming it's correct I'm making my replies (as are we all i note) based on the presumption of accuracy of the original statement. If that's not accurate then of course things may be different.