Peter F
-
Posts
2,732 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Peter F
-
-
Figleaf:
Neither religious nor ethnic traditions should be permitted to override the essential rules that the rest of us live by.But the essential rules that the rest of us live by are not religious and/or ethic traditions? Or did we just make them up?
-
Sihk's are sworn to use their dagger in times when they see it's justfied. For it to be a religious symbol, it must be lethal (that's why plastic or blunted ones aren't used instead).
And yet, with (as you say) every reason to knife other students with thier Kirpans, it has never happened.
The SCC deals with realities, not fantasy.
-
The Taliban won't be allowed to run AFghanistan again.
Actually, they could very well be allowed to run Afghanistan again. Neither Canada, the USA or NATO get to make that determination - Afghans do. If they want the Taliban they will have the Taliban
-
Perhaps Canadian should do some research before we commit to another mission.
What, in your opinion, makes Afghanistan a more worthy cause than Darfur?
How about because a Taliban controlled AFghanistan is a direct security threat to Canada and her allies.
I would suggest that the Direct threat to Canada and her allies came from "Terrorist organizations with international reach" - not the Taliban. Indirectly, the Taliban aided such terrorist organizations by allowing them to operate from thier controlled territory.
Fact is if they don't allow terrorism to operate from thier controlled territory then we have no complaint against the Taliban - other than they're right bastards.
-
Well, I made my case, such as it is. I suggest that it may be best to find the judges reason for the decision and argue with that. I can do no more based on the evidence provided.
-
Then why stop at live in spouses? Why not grandparents? How about neighbors or friends or teachers? Based on your logic I see no reason to limit support to 'father like figures' that happen to have sex with the mother. The legal system needs to draw the line somewhere. One father per child is a sensible limit.
You are ignoring the fact that the couple in question are living in a common-law relationship. Dragging teachers and nieghbours and one-night stands into it is pure bullshit. A + B want to live together and enjoy thier mutual attraction to each other, yet neither A nor B want B to be in anyway responsible for the child C.
Too bad so sad. Don't live together. Have sex, see each other regularly, enjoy each others company; But live apart. Problem solved.
IOW - you are saying that a man that does not want to assume a parental role has no choice but to leave the relationship. That means you (and the court) _are_ telling women like Jane Doe that they cannot have a relationship with the person they want to have a relationship with because of the court imposed burden of automatic fatherhood.No. I am saying they should not live common-law if they do not want common-law responisibilities.
Let's suppose the court accepts the agreement...10 years later the mother dies. The child then has no parent and now becomes the ward of the state. Is this correct? Does any responsibility lie upon the significant other at all? Zero? none? Too bad for the kid, but we don't want men having to take responsibility.
If he doesnt want responsibility for the kid then do not live with the kid. Simple. Why is that so difficult to follow?
Do fathers have the right to refuse parental responsibility? Do Step-fathers have the right to refuse parental responsibility. Do common law fathers?
What makes a father? Does the dead beat fathers responsibility vanish because he doesn't want it? Does the step fathers responsibility to the child vanish? Is there any such thing as parental responsibility? It seems to me that you are claiming that parental responsibility is voluntary and can be rejected at any time.
What happens to the written agreement if some time down the road the mother packs up and leaves. If the co-habitant in the meantime has grown to love the child and care for its wellbeing? Does the agreement still stand? Is the kid shit out of luck ?
-
The child already has a biolgical father that is paying support. If the step father has replaced the father then the biological father should be let off the hook. A child should only be entitled to support by one father at any given time.
Well, I disagree. A child should be getting as much support as possible - the more fathers and ex-fathers paying/giving support the better.
Your position is also quite absurd if you think about what it means for divorced women with kids. You are basically telling these women that they will not be able to start a new relationship because most men have zero interest in taking on legal obligations for kids that are not theirs by blood or adoption. You are telling men that ending/never starting the relationship with a woman with kids is the only way to avoid assuming these obligations.I am not telling these women anything. I am simply agreeing with the courts in the case of John and Jane Doe. That ageeing to co-habitate with someone elses children implies of itself a willingness to take on a parental role. In fact, as the relationship continues a parental role will be assumed wether the party's involved want to or not. If they truly do not want a parental role then dont assume a parental position. Signed agreements will not halt the assumption of the parental role. The courts recognize this and are saying the written agreement will mean nothing in this case.
I would find the reasoning of the court at arriving at thier decision very interesting. Perhaps they had no reason at all.
-
The is absurd to suggest that a mother can collect support from multiple fathers for the same child. The relationship between the step parent and the child is irrevelant.
The relationship between the step-parent and the child is irrevelant? How so?
-
They did not agree to 'raise' the child together. They agreed to live together. A brother living with his sister would not be a presumed father. Why should having sex with the mother automatically make you the father of any children she might have?
This particular case does not bring up the bigger aburdity in the law: mother's can collect child support from multiple fathers for the same child if she has a series of relationships.
Actually they do agree to raise a child together through the continued co-habitation. They can pronounce over and over again how only one of them is actually parenting - but the fact will be that both are actually parenting. I cannot imagine a reasonable means for John Doe to avoid any parenting as long as he is co-habitating with the childs mother and the child.
A brother living with a sister would not be considered the father. But in this case neither of the co-habitants are siblings - so the brother sister argument matters not.
Having sex with the mother does not automatically make you a father unless conception occurs - then it does. Living with the mother who has children that are not the male's will innevitably result in that male being considered a parent. The continued relationship under those cercumstances is tacit, if not explicit, acceptance of the position. A written agreement not accepting parental responsibility is meaningless if parental responsibility is in fact accepted.
Mothers can indeed collect child support from multiple fathers through a series of relationships because each of the 'fathers' had accepted some parental responsibility. That parental responsibility doe's not end until the child is of legal age. There is nothing absurd about this.
-
They will raise the child together...
Actually nowhere in the facts of the case have I seen that they plan to raise a child together. What is says that John Doe wishes to continue a romantic relationship with Jane Doe. Does that constitute "raising a child together"?
From the article:
"In Jane Doe v. Alberta, a professional woman was in a cohabiting relationship with a John Doe....Jane Doe and John Doe want to continue their relationship, but neither of them want John to be a parent. "
I assume they also wish to continue co-habitating. How can two adults co-habitating avoid having one of the adults involved in raising the child? or not support the child?
If the professional woman doe's not wish John Doe to be a parent, then the professional woman should actually make an effort to remove parenting opportunities from John Doe. ie: stop co-habitating. It is the co-habitating that makes John Doe a defacto parent.
Having a written agreement that John Doe will not be considered a parent does not remove the fact that John Doe will in fact have parenting duties each and every day of the co-habitation. The agreement will not obviate the fact.
Given the information provided in the article you posted, I think the courts are making the correct decision here.
Define "parenting".raising a child well or badly, for good or ill.
-
Do you think that an individual should simply default into a parental relationship with a child despite their explicit wishes? What makes someone a parent or not?
Yes, someone can be considered a parent by default. In the instance of John Doe above, Mr Doe and his woman friend want things both ways. They will raise the child together but John Doe will not be considered a parent. Sorry, doesn't work that way. To avoid being considered a parent one must avoid parenting.
-
Leafless:
Take away the Anglophone, allophones and Aboriginals and Quebec's net linguistic effect is reduced to about 18% of Canada's total population and almost equal to the 17% of all Canadians that are bilingual.Is leafless suggesting that the 17% of Canadians who are bilingual are almost all Quebecers? That 90% of e Quebec so-called Franco-phones can in fact speak English well enough to be considered bilingual?
If you consider 17% of Canadians who are currently bilingual a great achievement, considering the fact this represents 90% of them Francophone from Quebec, then good for you.Yes indeed he does! I'd call Leafless a liar if it wasn't for the Gatineau storekeepers crap wich indicates he actually believes this bullshit.
It is dysfunctional Canadian politics that have allowed Quebec the right to retain the 'Quebec Act' when they should have been forced by federal authorities to surrender that document if they want to remain a province in Canada.You have demonstrated absolute contempt for English speaking Canadians and I will no longer be debating this issue with you any further as you are displaying the same type of unbearable arrogance Quebec displays towards Canada.
LOL. What arrogance.
-
-
MANLY NO MORE
________________________________________
Yeah? So the author finds me sexually unattractive. So what?
THE SYSTEMATIC EMASCULATION OF MENNancy Levant
Oh-oh. Systemic depopulation...NWO...removal of right to bear arms...so-called men left behind unable to defend themselves or their women after the removal of real men in military to foriegn wars...UN taking over...
So very polynewbish. Its all bunk betsy.
-
Well, from what I gather, Betsy's argument is that us liberal men are fools to give up power to Women. Doing so emasculates us. I have yet to see what she bases that argument on. I give up power to women every chance I get and I'm still getting laid. I don't miss the power either.
I have no idea what she's on about.
-
Army Guy:
...a poll that suggests that over 54 % of our nation does not agree with our involment in Afgan. Perhaps one of those 54 % can explain to me WHY ? and how you decided on this course of action.I am one of the 54%. Your question is reasonable and deserves a straight answer. I arrived at my position over time, based upon various suppositions and, since I know/knew nothing of Afghanistan prior to 2001, various articles (opeds and not) that I read in the printed/internet press. I have no TV, nor want one, so TV journalism (including internet 'video-journalism' if one can call it that) has not been a factor.
I did and do believe that military force will never end Islamic Radicalism/terrorism. Military force can overthrow governments and install different ones and/or govern through a Military Occupation...but neither of those things mean squat to the Faithfull.
Originally I was against Canadian intervention in Afghanistan (back in the days when JTF were the ones involved) for the very simple reason that any impact Canada may have on Afghanistan would be minimal at best. It seemed to me that the Northern Alliance once supported by the USAF and $$$ were quite capable of driving out the Taliban. They did. So the idea of sending in the JTF was political - symbolic support to the Americans in order to show that we care.
As time passed I came to believe that, yes, I suppose Canada should be involved in 'rebuilding' and providing security because the Karzai government was trying to govern a country ripped apart by war and internal warlord/Taliban powerstruggles. That would be early in 2003 sometime. Of course the story in those days was that the Karzai government needed support for the time it took for the government to trainup troops that would be able to provide security on thier own. How long does it take to train an army? two or three years.
So, I patiently waited. Meanwhile the USA invades Iraq. In Canada many are actually embarassed that Canadian troops are not alongside our American, British and Australian allies. Granatstien published and article in some newspaper or other actually criticizing the Government of the day for not committing Canadian troops on the grounds that we were missing a grand oportunity to provide the CAF with combat experience. I mention this only as an example of the level of embarassment felt by many Canadians. Many others in the press and parliament spoke of 'Shame' and 'Honour' and 'hanging heads' etc.
It started to occur to me that there was a large proportion of Canadians to whom 'Honour' and not reality was the determinant by which our government should/should not commit our forces. This, I thought, was an indication of trouble; commitments to feel good could possibly arise in the future.
meanwhile, if I am not mistaken, in 2004 Canada committed troops to a security operation in Kabul. Fair enough. Afghan troops are still in training. Security is important for those troops to be trained and the Karzai government to be established. At the time the word was that Karzai pretty much controlled only Kabul and not much else.
Then in late 2005 the government decided to commit combat troops to the Kandahar area in SE Afghanistan. This would not be a peackeeping role but a combat role. The idea to actually drive the re-established Taliban out of the area. This was welcomed with joy by many in the press. At last, Canada can be proud again. Our armed forces would be able to show their mettle and stand tall. Gen.Hilliers bombast particularly standing out in my memory. As I mentioned earlier - this, to me, is a bad sign. I feared the government was taking on far more than it could chew in order to satisfy the desperate 'wannabe's'. In that they 'wannabe tough MF'rs just like the Americans'. I thought/think that there is a military lobby pressuring the government to get involved in the war so that we could garner our share of glory too.
Meanwhile, everybody who attacks anything in Afghanistan was being called either 'Taliban' or 'Al Queda'.
Apparently the warlords of the ex-Northern Alliance were no longer interested in establishing power bases.
Meanwhile, these Taliban guys were launching a few attacks on exposed Afghan/US positions from time to time and losing huge amounts of troops doing so. 40 killed here, 30 there, 20odd somewhere else.
Considering that they are armed with assault rifles for the most part, backed up by a mortar or two, some MMGs and RPGs; and that they were attacking prepared postions defended by the equivalent small arms plus on-call artillery and air strikes. They were taking huge casualties in the process, against overwhelming firepower...yet continued to make such insane and pointless attacks.
This indicates to me that these evil Taliban guys, though poorly trained and poorly led, were actually committed to thier cause. So committed that they were willing to die for the cause. They actually believe, like fuzzy-wuzzies at Omdurman, that God is going to grant them victory.
And, they apparently appear out of nowhere. They have to recieve thier training somewhere, thier arms from somewhere, thier ammunition from somewhere, thier organization - such as it is - from somewhere. Yet there was zero mention where this 'somewhere' is. Somehwere remained hidden to the American 100% control of the air with the assumed regular reconnaisance flights, IR TV's, regular patrolling and no need to mention constant satellite surveilance. Yet they appeared out of nowhere and attack some minor, tactically meaningless position and press home thier attacks and only withdraw once inordinate casualties have been suffered. I would guess thier casualty rates would be at least 50% or so, if not more. Wich means that 60 odd Taliban guys closed on the position over the few preceeding days from dispersed origin and often unnoticed. Some amount of planning went into it.
Where were they all coming from? Where are they getting recruits? Why would anyone sign on to this outfit?
Then Canada goes on the offensive in operation whateveritwas. The operation is a success, of course. Yet there seems to be an element of surprise in the officership of the CAF. The Taliban fought from prepared positions; were competent enough with thier weapons to destroy a vehicle or two, had to be driven out of many positions or died holding them.
...and suddenly we needed Tanks, dammit. The enemy is actually defending themselves somehow.
And I ask, what kind of intelligence were the generals operating on? Did they think the enemy would only snipe? They seemed to think the Taliban would not meet the Canadians in battle. Who was feeding them this bullshit? Why did they not think that Tanks wouldn't be necessary? Or perhaps they did consider sending tanks but budgetary restraints over-rode thier concerns.
That was clue number two that we were biting off more than we could chew.
In an appearance before the Senate Defence committe the General in charge of organizing supply and support for the Afghan mission mentioned that the CAF was dangerously close to overcommitment of its forces. He was trying to avoid the possiblity of reducing the time at home in the standard 36 months rotation. Another sign of overcommittment.
My 17yearold son, enrolled in the Voltigeurs de Quebec, was called and asked if he would be willing to volounteer for Afghanistan. He said he would think about it. His mother told him she would break his legs if he did agree. Another clue to overcommitment.
So now we are in Afghanistan, not to fill the time gap necessary for an army to be trained, but to bring them good government, a functioning economy, education for all, and peace in our time.
I say ok, we are committed til 2009. So be it. At that point, either Karzai stands or falls on his own. If his government falls to insurgency that tells me that Afghans themselves don't support him. If its the Taliban that does the toppling then that tells me that Afhans have no interest in stopping them.
No government stands without the support of the people. If Afghans don't support what we and Nato and the west are trying to do, then no amount of cash or dead Taliban will change that.
And then there is also Pakistan, the source of recruiting, planning, and supplying. Yet Pakistan is untouchable for they are our allies. There will be no end to the Taliban as long as Musharif is turning a politically necessary blind eye to the support being given to our enemy within the borders of that country.
There is the argument that on a humanitarian level we should remain for however long it takes. True enough. But then, by the same logic we should be invading North Korea, China, Kyrgystan, Turkmenistan, Sri Lanka, Mayanmar, Tanzania, Fiji, Pakistan and of course Darfur, Iran, Iraq. Syria, Gaza, Lebanon and many other places.
The fact is we can't do that, nor do we have any intention of doing that. What should be the principal reason for Canadian military intervention is strategic interest. As it is we are involved in a Civil War in Afghanistan, a nation that had zero strategic interest to us before when they were an organized functioning country, and certainly has less interest as a broken, corrupt, economically ruined country. Certainly we can feed them money and expertise and influence. But we shouldn't be propping up a government for the Afghans who don't seem to want to prop it up themselves.
Thats my take. We're in over our heads and if we're not carefull we're going to find ourselves buried.
-
In Quebec, "naturally it works in Quebec is reverse" is totally discriminatory and I don't know why a province who never signed Canada's constitution is entitled to any type of publicly paid for education outside of Quebec.
The province of Quebec is entitled to a public education outside of Quebec??
-
You liberal men are not only letting it happen...you are encouraging it to happen.
Like bees, you support the queen that would eventually cause your demise.
Geez, you make it sound like that's a bad thing.
-
Betsy:
Those who know it all think that there might still be some hope for you....that maybe, you are not all that stupid after all.Like dogs, you'll just have to go through some obedience training.
Is this where you want to be....guys?
Where is that? You havn't specified except in terms of a television commercial.
-
... and one of sperm donor, where the child had 2 parents aside of the donor, it seems vindictive to force the man to be responsible.
The donor in the second case was not being vindictivly forced. His estate is. Apparently the man in question had (to again quote the judge) "... a settled intention to demonstrate parental involvment far beyond merely biological"
-
http://www.pennlive.com/patriotnews/storie...4480.xml&coll=1"While these contributions have been voluntary, they evidence a settled intention to demonstrate parental involvement far beyond merely biological," the judge wrote.
Did you miss the part of this story where legal experts are calling this a precedent? And they only have one person saying anonymous donors shouldn't worry. That doesn't make it set in stone.
That the donor was at the birth and good enough to donate money for the child's upbringing was enough for the judge to make it manitory, even though the child has 2 parents already. A dumb ruling by an activist judge.
Not dumb at all. The judge did the job he was required to do, settle the dispute based on the evidence.
Obviously you failed to note " While these contributuions have been voluntary, they evidence a settled intention to demonstrate parental involvment far beyond merely biological"
To repeat: They evidence a settled intention to demonstrate parental involvment far beyond merely biological.
So the judge is actually smart and deciding the issue based upon the facts. Not being activist at all.
-
Outside of ensuring the Taliban don't form the government of the Islamic Republic, I would prefer Canada not be involved.
We originally entered the conflict to aid the USA to overthrow the Taliban. We did so because the Taliban government was one of those governments aiding and abetting terrorism.
So the Afghans themselves with the tremendous support of the USAF and USN threw out the Taliban. Now, apparently, Afghans cannot defeat the Taliban themselves. The USAF and USN havn't gone away; the Afghans who overthrew the Taliban are still there, but now, it seems, what worked like a charm in 2001/2 is no longer sufficient. Why is that?
If the Afghans were quite capable of giving a shit-kicking to the Taliban then, Why are they unable to give a shit-kicking to the Taliban now?
What has changed? Why are Afghans no longer able to secure thier own future without NATO and Canadian aid?
-
Then why is public education of children of Allophone parents virtually mandated to be in French?
Indeed, they do. I am presently involved with Revenue Quebec and service is provided in English at my request.Québec does provide services in English.
Canadians have a right to public education. That education is either in French or English. If one of the parents was educated in English then you have the right to have your children educated in English. If one of the parents was educated in French then your children have a right to be educated in French. This applies throughout the country. If neither parent was educated in French then there is no right to a French education and you get whatever the provincial government makes available...that being an education in English in most cases except Quebec. Possibly New Brunswick also. In Quebec, naturally, it works in reverse. If neither parent was educated in English then the children gets the education provided by the Province - French.
That is to say that, yes, public education of the children of allophones is, in Quebec, French. Everywhere else the allophone's children are educated in English.
...and somehow or other all that results in the Quebec government communicating with me in English.
-
Sperm donor must pay support, this should give people pause for thought before donating to a bank. I thought donor info was confidential, if it no longer is, then who in their right mind would get involved.
http://www.pennlive.com/patriotnews/storie...4480.xml&coll=1
State court rules dead man is liable for women's 2 kids
Thursday, May 10, 2007
BY REGGIE SHEFFIELD f The Patriot-News
A man who donated sperm for a lesbian couple's two children must pay support, the state Superior Court ordered in a ruling that legal experts called a precedent.
and left out of the quote:
"While these contributions have been voluntary, they evidence a settled intention to demonstrate parental involvement far beyond merely biological," the judge wrote.Robert Rains, who teaches family law at Penn State Dickinson School of Law in Carlisle and is a co-director of the school's family law clinic, said the decision should not intimidate men who contribute to sperm banks.
"This should be entirely different from a guy who goes to a sperm bank and makes a donation with the understanding that he will remain anonymous," Rains said.
But don't let your own story stop the show.
3,500 City of Ottawa Jobs to be bilingual
in Provincial Politics in Canada
Posted
Public Service Employment Act ( 2003)
PSEA at DoJ Canada
So merit actually includes language proficiency as established by the deputy head.