Community Advocate

Perhaps some, but I wouldn't say 'most'. Well, I can't argue with that, and I don't see how they are different than anyone else regarding that. What an insult to all teachers! Those that can do, do. Those that truly understand can teach. I suppose some may feel this way, but I do not believe most of them do. That process sounds reasonable, and quite similar to the rest of us, minus the 'back into primary school'. This is their choice of profession. And, I can't see anyone going into it for the money. Now, when we start paying teachers the hockey players rate of pay, then they may go into it for the money. But the teachers I know are started out with big ideas on how to help kids get educated. Well, another well thought-out insult to our teachers! How would you describe a 'dweeb'? How nice that you did manage to find one good teacher. I wonder how he would view your insults to his peers? Now as far as the young offenders act - like I said before - once the kids know that judges have no morals - they are free to be evil - most judges are appointed by evil men who's only purpose is to maintain a status quo of selfishness and riches - so what do you expect - a fancey crimminal appoints a judge to be an offical crimminal and the kids follow suit - best advice to young offenders is to not offend in order to avoid the courts that are full of evil men and self serving woman. There are some serious problems with the Youth Criminal Justice Act (formerly YOA), agreed. I'm working on fixing some of those problems myself -- I'm not one to sit back and complain without offering assistance in any way I can. I'm also one to create projects that address these issues in my community. What action have you taken, (other than to voice your disgust and contempt of the justice system on public forums) to make this situation better?

With drug testing for thc, how can one tell if the thc is five days old, or if the person just smoked some an hour ago? Or, if they were at a party on the weekend (Ross Rebegliati - olympic snowboarder) and in a small room where everyone else was smoking it?

You got that right! With all the rights that children have, the most universally accepted charter of rights and freedoms for children, signed by all but two countries of the world reads: WORLD-WIDE/INTERNATIONAL: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm Convention on the Rights of the Child: Article 33: States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislative, administrative, social and educational measures, to protect children from the illicit use of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances as defined in the relevant international treaties, and to prevent the use of children in the illicit production and trafficking of such substances. So, where are they? Legislative, administrative, social and educational measures.........law enforcement......courts ........school officials........parents with their hands tied...... We are not meeting this mandate of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. I'm not one to complain when I see something wrong, unless I am willing to jump in and be a part of the solution, but I can't find enough support for our politicians to take this to the House of Commons. What's up with that? Where are all these people, and why are they not writing to their MPs and MLAs? Or, are they just not listening?

yep. the one word that comes to mind is backwards.

Over fifty percent of the youth who have been mandated for the five day detox program through the courts and referred to the Alberta Addiction Center have chosen to voluntarily partake in after services that help to keep them clean. Over fifty percent of those who were brought to the detox against their will in Alberta, chose, once they were detoxed, to carry on with treatment to get off the drugs. Funny how once the brain is clear from the effects of these drugs, these youth can actually understand what they are doing to themselves, and how they can do better. They feel the support that is offered to them, and they come to understand that they have the choice to continue and land in the hospital, jail, or morgue, or they can go the other way and get help to make a better future for themselves. I could never figure out how we as a society can think that a teen with a brain that is still developing into their mid-twenties, which is also skewed with illegal drugs even has a vote in the matter when parents and family members can see that they need to intervene. See, it's like this: You notice your kid sliding in his behaviours. He is beginning to skip classes at school. The school doesn't efficiently, effectively and reliably report those absenses to parents. You notice that your teen is up all night, and can not get up for school in the morning. You notice he is not in bed when you check in the wee hours. You ask your teen where s/he has been, and they lie to you. Some teens on drugs will do anyting to keep their parents from finding out, while others will basically put it in your face. So, now you know there is a problem, and your teen keeps lying to you, sneaking out of the house and committing petty crimes to sustain his or her drug use. Perhaps your daughter has already become involved in drug running and prostitution with the adult dealers. So, now what do you do? The school counsellors are bound by an unwritten privacy code - if a student discloses their drug use to the school counsellor, that counsellor is bound by their unwritten laws not to notify the parent if the child wishes them not to. The federal Age of Consent Act ties the hands of police. They are able to look for the 'missing person' you report, but if they find them and they are over the age of 13, all they have to do is say they do not want to go home, and the case is closed, after the police notify you that they can not force your teen to return home, due to the age of consent laws. The federal Privacy Act forbids any agency from providing you with any information about the child you are being held responsible for through other laws. So, while you are being held responsible, you have no way to find out what his police record is, what his medical record is, etc. If your child goes to hospital by ambulance for a drug problem, you will not be notified if the child is 12 years of age or older, and does not sign a consent form allowing the medical professonals to contact you. But, you do have to pay the invoice for ambulance transfer. Still with me? There are no laws to force a teen to return home, and no laws to force an unruly incorrigible youth out of your home, regardless of age. You try to kick your kid out (because there will be NO DRUGS in your house!), but the law tells the kid you can't do that until they reach the age of 18. You don't want to kick him out because you know he is experimenting with drugs, and you don't want to push him further into the drug use, and put him in a position where he will have to steal from your neighbours in order to survive. You are worried that s/he is no longer attending school. You are worried that he will not find employment becasue s/he is on drugs. BUT: your school counsellors, administrators, your private therapist, and mental health worker, along with your physician and police tell you that kicking him out is your only option at this point. And while the police tell parents to 'kick 'em out', and all these professonals agree, the jpolice tell the kids that parents can not legally do this. Enough to make you nuts yet? Imagine. So, now you have a teen addicted to drugs, not attending school, and not employed. You are aware, and desperately trying to help them, but they don't want your help - they don't want to attend school - they want to party. Perhaps you don't even know where s/he is. Perhaps by now, the teen has tried some different varieties of drugs available to them. Perhaps they have taken the presumed harmless drug called "E" - Exstacy, and not even known it was crystal meth. Our police tell us that 70% of the E they confiscate is actually cyrstal meth. So, perhaps by now, your teen is seriously addicted, emaciated, committing criminal acts, and has not been arrested yet. Or, perhaps your teen has been arrested for a crime, and you are notified. Still, there is nothing you can do about the drug abuse or addiction, because in our society full of rights and freedoms these teens basically have full right to self-destruct on illegal street drugs. The mantra is: "We need a willing participant" "You can't make a kid do something he doesn't want to do" "You have to let him hit rock bottom". Legislation for mandatory rehab, such as Bill 202 in Alberta is the only way for parents to meet their obligations in other laws to provide the necessary attention to their child's health, safety and well being. Parents in BC and other provinces are left to pray that their child will be arrested, they will be notified, and they will be able to tell the judge that the whole problem is a drug addiction, and only then can a judge mandate detox and rehab as an alternative to or a part of their sentence for the crime. But, there is no guarantee for that either (YJCA) Parents are most often judged by their peers, their families, and their communities when they have a teen like this. Some find themselves hiding in their homes, trying so hard not to let friends and family know the anquish they are experiencing with thier child. Others reach out for help in their communities only to find there is none. I would really like to hear the reservations from the now lower percentage of you who are still a no, or undecided.

both pros and cons: http://bctf.ca/thesa/articles/Vol03_1Schaffer.pdf http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/2007/...gement-classes/ http://www.mytwodollars.com/2007/03/05/sho...in-high-school/ and I found my post from another forum where we discussed this article: I finally see in print my ideas from waaaaaaaay back when I was in high school. A local writer is addressing Federal NDP Olivia Chow's idea of providing meals to all children in schools. "It is asolutely essential that kids have decent meal" she insisted. "We know that children can not learn very well when they are hungry or they are hyped up by sugar or bad food and junk food." The program she is suggesting is not just for underprivileged or low-income familes, but also for well-to-do kids who can't be bothered to wake p early enough to eat breakfst before leaving for school. The writer claims that while there is nothing inherently wrong with Chow's plan, it fails to address the real problem, which is as follows: "Many Canadians are simply too lazy or too stupid to ensure that their kids receive proper nutrition and exercise in order to combat the alarming increase in child obesity". She goes on to say, "Fat child? I'll bet you dollars to do-nuts that mom or dad are overweight as well." Now here's where she really makes sense to me, and I've been saying this, as I said before, since I was in 11th grade in high school. "What we really need in Canadian schools is daily physical education classes, as well as a mandatory home-economics course for all high school students." "Home ec, which has been branded cleverly by some educators as "Family and Consumer Sciences" is probably the most important couse a student can take." The writer is Lydia Lovric, and she proclaims in her article, a more effective course content: "The home ec class I propose wouldn't teach kids how to bake a pie from scratch. Rather, it woudl teach students about proper nutrition, how to read food labels, and how to plan healthy meals. It would also include important financial lessons, such as how to save for college or university, how to fill out income tax forms, and how to avoid credit card debt." "Family Planning would not focus so much on the birds and the bees - since most teens are more than familiar with the concept - but on learning the true cost of raising kids." "Students should also be acquainted with the latest advice from parenting experts, health experts, mortgage experts, and any other type of expert who may have something meaningful to offer in terms of everyday life." "For those teens who believe they'll never have kids, well, we know the overwhelming majority of students will one da become parents or step-parents. Besides, how many of us use calculus or chemistry on a day-to-day basis?" "If we want to help kids long term, education - not handouts - is the key" So, what do y'all think about this. Will we ever see an educational system that truly teaches life skills?

The school counsellors are not even equipped to enter such discussions with students. They are focussed on course planning, and in my opinion, their job should be re-labelled as such: course planning counsellor. But there is a good point. Schools are a place of learning - some real life education would be more effective than some of the things students are required to waste their time on in school. Life skills should be taught in school much more than they are now. I read an article not too long ago (I'll see if I can find it) where it was suggested that in high school, the skills of cooking, nutrition, mortgages, loans, and the likes would be included in the curriculum. Some parents agreed. Others felt that home was the place to teach those things. Others argued that some parents at home are not equipped to be teaching their kids about these things, especially not as well equipped as a trained professor, or that they were just too busy (poor excuse imo). I still think teaching is a noble profession.

and just for fun: Now I sit me down in school Where praying is against the rule. For this great nation under God Finds mention of Him very odd. If Scripture now the class recites, It violates the Bill of Rights. And any time my head I bow Becomes a federal matter now. Our hair can be purple, orange or green. That's no offense, it's the freedom scene. The law is specific, the law is precise, And prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice. For praying in a public hall Might offend someone with no faith at all. In silence alone we must meditate. God's name is prohibited by the state. We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks, And pierce our noses, tongues, and cheeks. They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible. To quote the Good Book makes me liable. We can elect a pregnant senior queen, And the unwed daddy, our senior king. But it's "inappropriate" to teach right from wrong, We're taught that such "judgments" do not belong. We can get our condoms and birth control, Study witchcraft, vampires, and totem poles. The Ten Commandments are not allowed, No word of God must reach this crowd. It is scary here, I must confess, When chaos reigns, the school's a mess. So, Lord, this silent plea I make: Should I be shot, my soul please take. --Anonymous

First off, thanks a lot for the history on Ontario Catholic schools, as well as the other history you noted. In the 80's one of our Ontario premiers responded to a long-standing cry from Catholic citizens who felt it was unfair that they had to pay taxes that included a portion to the public school system, while they had to pay for their Catholic school system out of their own pocket. This is the remaining complaint from parents who pay tuition for their kids to attend private schools, while their tax dollars are sent to the public system where their kids don’t attend. It’s a bit of a contentious issue because we all pay school taxes, whether we have kids in the public system or not – heck we still pay school taxes when we are retired, even if we have no grandchildren attending public schools. We all pay for public schools. And we all have the freedom of choice between public schools, alternate public schools, private schools, and home schooling. Either choice does not relieve you from paying public school taxes. Much like you still pay the transportation taxes, even if you don’t use the public transportation system. Some cities here even charge a surcharge tax on gasoline to fund the shortfall in the public transit system. If they take public money how much right does the provincial government have in overseeing their curricula? The schools that are funded with public money are most certainly accountable to the Ministry of Education for their curricula. Who knows what the next election will bring! One idea that was proposed by a federal party was a voucher system, where every citizen/parent would get a voucher equal to his education portion of his taxes that he could assign to the school of his choice. If he wanted to give it to a public school, a particular religious school or even a different neighbourhood public school 'cuz he wasn't impressed with the one closest to him that would be his right! I had thought the idea had some merit. Perhaps it may crop up provincially someday. I’ve heard this talk for the past two years, and it is looked upon favorably by most parents I know. I too think the idea has merit. When a student moves from one school to another the funding for that student is transferred to that school. However, my understanding is that this funding is not transferred to another school district, should your choice of public schooling be in a different district. I believe it might just be the way in the not too distant future. I am reminded of those words of my very smart father, who said, "You can please some of the people some of the time, and all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can not please all of the people all of the time."

Public Catholic schools are only in Ontario. Other provinces have private Christian schools. Christmas is not a Catholic holiday - it is a Christian holiday - Holy-day. Our contry's supposed "secular" status is just that - supposed. Public schools are closed for Christmas holiday in Canada. The Canadian calendars have Christmas day marked on the 25th of December, and the vacation for all is a direct result of the Christian holiday. So is Easter.

Pardon my ignorance, but can you tell me more about this poverty industry?

Yeah, but now it comes in flashes! lol

simple answer: They are using their animal brains.

A child is described in all federal and provincial laws as one who is under the age of 18.

This says it all for me: A group of graduates, well established in their careers, were talking at a reunion and decided to go visit their old university professor, now retired. During their visit, the conversation turned to complaints about stress in their work and lives. Offering his guests hot chocolate, the professor went into the kitchen and returned with a large pot of hot chocolate and an assortment of cups - porcelain, glass, crystal, some plain looking, some expensive, some exquisite - telling them to help themselves to the hot chocolate. When they all had a cup of hot chocolate in hand, the professor said: 'Notice that all the nice looking, expensive cups were taken, leaving behind the plain and cheap ones. While it is normal for you to want only the best for yourselves, that is the source of your problems and stress. The cup that you're drinking from adds nothing to the quality of the hot chocolate. In most cases it is just more expensive and in some cases even hides what we drink. What all of you really wanted was hot chocolate, not the cup; but you consciously went for the best cups... And then you began eyeing each other's cups. Now consider this: Life is the hot chocolate; your job, money and position in society are the cups. They are just tools to hold and contain life. The cup you have does not define, nor change the quality of life you have. Sometimes, by concentrating only on the cup, we fail to enjoy the hot chocolate God has provided us. God makes the hot chocolate, man chooses the cups. The happiest people don't have the best of everything. They just make the best of everything that they have. Live simply. Love generously. Care deeply. Speak kindly. And enjoy your hot chocolate.

I.T.A. The youth of today are well versed on their rights, but very unclear about the responisbilities that go along with those rights. We are not holding our youth accountable for their actions. Things are the way they are becasue we set them up this way. We are failing our youth through ineffective public school systems, ineffective or non-existent support for families, absent laws that allow parents to intervene when their kids begin going off the rails and experimenting with drugs, and then, through the ineffective youth criminal justice system. What else can we expect?

But I must add that some of these adult drug users used to be young kids that needed the help of society to get through as well. Actually, I think most adults are past the point of experimenting with illegal street drugs. Obviously, they did not get the help they needed. They may not have wanted it. And, in this democratic society where the age of consent is set at the ripe old age of 14, barely into puberty, even a child has a legal right to self-destruct on drugs if that is what they choose, or even if that is not what they choose, but they were sucked into involuntary addiction by taking an exstacy tablet that was actually made up with cyristal meth.

Thank you for your post. I agree with you. The dollars will be saved at the other end - the hospitals, the criminal justice systems snd the morgues and early funerals.

Yes, the YJCA was created to give kids who do stupid things a second chance. Trouble is, they get many more chances than two. The restorative justice component of the YJCA is ineffective or ignored. The consequences that young offenders face are not meaningful nor corrective. Most young people are aware of the ineffectiveness of the YJCA. Most adult criminals are also aware of the ineffectiveness of the YJCA, and therefore utilize the youth in their own criminal activity. Illegal street drugs are the most common contributing factor to youth criminal activity. Even when parents are trying to keep their teens on the straight and narrow, as the laws of the land demand, there are no laws that parents can have enforced to get their own teens off the illegal street drugs that are the root cause of these crimes. Youth are not only resorting to committing these crimes against other youth, they are also committing henious crimes against adults. I believe every child should be given a second chance, but that chance must include restorative and rehabilitative action. Until we give power back to the parents over their own children, and put the government support into place to support them, we will continue to see our youth go off the rails. And, it is not an Act, or a Law that is at fault here, it is the adults who are resonsible to put these things into place - a combination of public input and serious interest on the part of the government officials, lawmakers, parole officers and judges.

one word that expresses the differences I see: ENTITLEMENT

One right here. I learned that the difference between human reaction and animal reaction is that humans have the kind of brain that can pause for a few seconds, take note of their own state of anxiety, fear, anger, etc., and wait for 10 seconds to make a decision. This is what makes human responses to stress quite different from animal responses to stress. Although, some humans have not yet learned this strategy and respond like animals would.

delete quote

A recent letter in a newspaper to share with you here: (on the original topic) - any guesses at the age of the author? Saturday » January 5 » 2008 Get your own holiday Langley Advance Tuesday, January 01, 2008 Dear Editor, I've about had enough of this "Politically Correct" crap. Christmas is just that: Christmas! Yes, it is a Christian holiday to celebrate the birth of Christ. If you don't believe in that, then don't celebrate Christmas. I'm sick and tired of stupid people saying it's discriminatory. No, it isn't. It's Christmas. Not Xmas. Not holiday time or whatever you want to say - it's Christmas. It's not a freakin' holiday tree; its a Christmas tree. You don't see people pulling down menorahs because someone else might get offended, but now towns are not displaying the nativity because it's a religious symbol. It's a freakin' religious holiday! Its a religious holiday that more and more people have adopted over the years, so now we have to be sensitive to other people and their beliefs. What about us Christians? What about offending us by trying to change our holiday and turning it into something so completely commercial and politically correct that it's lost all of its meaning and symbolism? UGGHHHHH, I am so freaking mad! If you don't want to celebrate Christmas, then get your own damn holiday. Tamara Trudell, Langley © Langley Advance 2008

Now I would like to ask the big question: Why? 44.4% Why would you support this legislation? 33.3% Why would you not support this legislation? 22.2% What other information would you need in order to make a Yes or No decision? Thanks so much for your vote and your input!

Would you support a provincial law that would enable parents to approach the courts to mandate detox and rehabilitation for drug addicted teens or pre-teens in their care? While parents are held responsible for their minor children in BC to the age of 19 (Parental Resonsibility Act, Child Care Act, Family Law Act, etc.) they lose the rights to their children at the age of 12 through the Federal Privacy Act (8) 2, and most certainly by the age of 14 through the Federal Age of Consent law. While parents are held responsible by laws to tend to the mental and physical health needs of their children, when it comes to the health deterioration or destruction through the use of illicit street drugs, there are no legal means for parents to ensure their child receives medical attention and treatment for drug abuse or addiction. This doesn't make any sense at all to me. Also, if you would support a provincial law in BC, would you support this as a federal law? After all, if it's good for the youth of one province, why should this be a provincial issue? Here is the Alberta law legislated one and a half years ago, which is currently running at over 50% success: http://www.aadac.com/565_532.asp