Melanie_

Leafless, you've outdone yourself with logic here. A dead body in the case of murder, or collected semen or obvious bruising in the case of rape, are enough physical evidence to prove the law has been broken. You might not know who did it, but it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Lordy, Dancer, the military never sounded so good! Where's the blushing emoticon when you need it?

That may be what you meant, but it isn't what you said. People can have different ethnic backgrounds and still be Canadian. I don't see how you have jumped to talking about "foreigners" in this thread - it was about looking for votes from ethnic groups, and you have to be a Canadian citizen to be able to vote. Or do you see different levels of citizenship, based on skin colour or heritage?

Last time I checked, you didn't have to be white to be Canadian.

Oh, I'm with you, Drea, on the 4 kids in diapers comment -- my 4 kids have an 11 year age span, and they don't even all live at home anymore, and I still have days where I want to run from the house screaming. I can empathize with the frustration she was going through, but I can't justify taking my frustration out on them. Riverwind, good point about the mandatory sentencing. I hadn't thought of that, and I don't see jail time as necessary in this case. Counselling is probably the best option. My concern here, though, is with the defense that was offered. She is pleading not guilty, with the contention that it is acceptable to throw your infant around - everyone does it. She is basically asking us to condone abuse, and call it an "accident" when it goes too far. If we accept this, it sets children's protection services back 100 years.

Winnipeg Free Press The second trial of Michelle Camire, mother of 4, ended again with a hung jury. This is a tragic story, and anyone who has been a parent can understand that frustration and exhaustion is a bad combination. For this woman, it was multiplied, as she had triplets and a 20 month old, so I can absolutely sympathize with her mental state. But….her child died. She threw her 3 month old into the bassinet, and he suffered massive head injuries – he lay in the bassinet for 2 hours, and then died. Her defense is He is basically saying that abuse is acceptable, it’s OK to throw a baby around a bit – everyone else does it. Even if the baby dies, we can excuse the parent’s action, because we accept that parents can take out their frustration on their children. I know she didn’t mean to do it, I know it was a momentary lapse in judgment, and I know that any punishment meted out by the Crown won’t even compare to what she will live with for the rest of her life. Her remorse is not in question, and jail time wouldn’t serve a purpose in this case. But she has pleaded not guilty, and the argument she has presented can’t be accepted as a reasonable defense. It leaves children vulnerable, and marginalizes them as expendable dependent on their parents’ mental state. Obviously, there are enough jurors in these two trials that disagree with me.... what do you think?

This doesn't make sense to me. Maybe they are protesting the Plan B pill, which prevents a fertilized egg from adhering to the uterus. The CBC article says "birth control pills", which I interpret to mean regular oral contraceptives. These just prevent ovulation, so no egg is released and therefore there is no possibility of conception. Either way, these protesters have no business telling others how to manage their reproduction.

Please, tell us again how smug the rest of us are.

Borg - that is a pretty all encompassing post. Yes, I realize you tried to soften it with the word "many", but that seems like a faint attempt. Could you please clarify for me who you mean by "they" and "them"? Is it anyone who isn't white? Is it any immigrant, regardless of colour? Is it immigrants from a specific place, or of a specific background? Do you recognize that there are countless immigrants who come here and just settle in and have a good life? I'm married to one of them, and my kids (despite their East Indian heritage) haven't been indoctrinated into any tribal blood feuds - but I feel like I have to protect them from people with attitudes like yours. So in that, I'll agree with you, what I do today will affect my offspring, because I have to warn them about people who take a look at them and only see brown skin.

I'm not a fan of this law either, although I agree with the spirit of the law. It is harmful to children to be cooped up in a vehicle filled with cigarette smoke, and it isn't always viable to have a window open (January in Manitoba). I also wonder if it is any more healthy to have a window open, breathing in all the exhaust fumes from every other vehicle on the road. A public health campaign will help to some degree, just as it has helped to some degree to combat FAS/E. I'd like to see all parents just recognize that they are causing their children harm and stop smoking around them, but to pass laws that can't be enforced won't help the situation. There really are no options to the NDP in Manitoba right now. I agree with your assessment of the Conservatives, and the Liberals haven't been a serious force for years. While I don't agree with this law, it isn't enough to change my vote. (Hey, my 1000th post! And it only took me three years!)

I think he was about 15 years old, and just trying to figure out how to rationally explain his irrational belief system. Maybe no one has ever really presented serious arguments to what he has always been taught is true. Oh well, I suspect he will be more comfortable in a forum where everyone agrees with him, at least until he grows up, anyway.

August, it isn't about the person with disabilities choosing who they want to care for them. The organization is screening out people that the disabled could very well be happy with, based on the organization's own preferences. When I think of all the qualities required to work with someone with special needs (compassion, respect, sensitivity, honesty, courage, tenacity, creativity, humour), heterosexuality doesn't make the list. Does Christian Horizons only provide care to Christian disabled people, or do they provide care to all disabled people? The article quoted in the opening post implies that there is no restriction on who they care for, and I can't find anything on their website indicating they provide services only to Christians. Under their rights section, I don't see anything indicating respect for the religion of the client. If they provide care for everyone, regardless of religion, then the religion of the person providing the care shouldn't be an issue. Unless part of that person's job is to indoctrinate their clients into the religion - here's where I see the real problem.The concern I've had through all of this is that they might be preaching to the disabled, rather than simply caring for them. When I look at their website, the first Service principle listed is "Spiritual". This leads me to believe that their priority is on pushing Christianity, rather than on meeting the needs of the disabled. Its been stated several times on this thread that they are the biggest service provider in Ontario. Are they providing appropriate services for their non-Christian clientele? I realize I'm off the topic of the Human Rights Commision ruling regarding the lesbian employer, but I see another human rights question here. Are the human rights of non-Christian disabled people being abused, if they have the choice of receiving care from an agency (possibly the only agency available) pushing their beliefs on them, or receiving inadequate or no care at all? What other services are available, and who is providing them?

The morals clause was not relevent to doing the job - I wonder how many potentially fine caregivers for the disabled were screened out for refusing to sign the contract. Christian Horizons may have sabatoged themselves, and denied their clients the quality of care they needed. Argus, if we say that a religious group can break the law because they are doing good work, how many other laws are we willing to overlook for them? And how many other groups are also doing good work, but would like certain restrictions lifted from them? If this group decides to stop providing services because of the ruling, they can't be terribly committed to the disabled in the first place.

Good for her.... you deserve to be proud of such an accomplishment! Brag all you like!

Why does it matter if the person performing the job is Christian, let alone straight. The job itself involves caring for the disabled - no religious affiliation required, unless this organization is proselytizing. If that's the case, they are taking advantage of a vulnerable population, and there is another issue for the human rights tribunals to investigate.

From the link in the opening post... (emphasis mine) What a hypocrite, in one breath sympathizing with the marginalized irrespective of their sexuality, and in the next breath condemning someone based on her sexuality. I don’t think it’s safe to assume that people with disabilities have any interest in judging their caregivers, particularly if they are doing a good job of caring for their clients, and have done nothing illegal.

What does any of this have to do with the deaths of children? Charter Rights, you keep trying to deflect the topic of this thread into other issues, but it remains that the thread was originally about children dying, and how we as a society can prevent it. Lets try to stay on task, rather than getting diverted down other avenues.... start a new thread if you must, but I for one would like to refocus this thread on the topic at hand. In case it hasn't been clear, my perspective is that children need to be protected, regardless of their race. If there is a White child in danger and an Aboriginal family available to foster him/her, let that child go to that family. If the child is Black and there is a Filipino family available, let the child go there. If the child is Aboriginal and there is an Oriental family available, let the child go there. Race and culture are secondary to the child's safety and security.

I'm not trying to sell anything as a goodie from Harper - far from it. I'm no supporter of Harper or the Conservatives, and I'm very hesitant about this bill, as I've stated earlier in this thread. I just see the recent murder of the pregnant woman in Winnipeg as relevent to this bill, and likely to be used in an attempt to justify it. My concern continues to be around the wording of the bill, referring to the "baby" rather than the "fetus" and the "mother" rather than the "woman". This attaches warm and fuzzy emotions to laws, and once that language is used once it can be used again in other laws.

Did you really have to put that image in my head? I know I'll have nightmares tonight! I can't imagine what kind of repairs would require 10 million dollars. Link?

A pregnant woman was murdered here in Winnipeg 2 weeks ago, along with her husband, leaving behind a one year old daughter. The prime suspect is the husband's nephew, a Hell's Angels affiliate, who is also suspected in the murder of his parents and another uncle 2 years ago (1.3 million dollar inheritance at stake). This is the kind of case this bill is directed at, and I expect there will be support for it here as this case continues.

Happy birthday, Isreal. May there be peace.

So in your mind there is no personal responsibility for anyone - everyone is equally responsible for everyone else's actions, bad or good. Are you responsible for the choices I make? Or does that only apply when it is a First Nations person's actions called into question? My point through all of this has been that abuse, in any form, can't be excused or tolerated because of someone's race. Your attitude makes me fear for aboriginal children across the country - you see them as expendable because of their parents' problems.

The victims in this case are dead. A three year old and a one year old. How do you expect them to agree to the process you are advocating? Now I'm responsible for the deaths of these two children? You are really going to great lengths to deflect the responsibility from the person who caused the death of Kaydance and Santana Pauchay. In truth, you know nothing about me, or what I do or don't do on a daily basis regarding the safety and security of children (all children, regardless of their race). Nice try to pass off the blame. But you haven't answered my question, so I'll ask again,

Do you have something useful to say, or are you just here to be insulting?

That is a load of crap. I'm not a big advocate of vengence, although that might not be apparent from my previous posts. But I am an advocate of accountability. This man chose to drink. He chose to get so drunk he was incapable of making good choices on behalf of his children. Those kids had no choice but to put their trust and faith in him, and he betrayed them. There needs to be a clear message that this is unacceptable - parents' first responsibility has to be to ensure the safety and wellbeing of their children, who are vulnerable and dependent on the adults in their lives. You are quick to dismiss the suffering of Kaydance and Santana Pauchay, in an effort to excuse their father and give him an opportunity for "growth". Say their names out loud. Reflect on what they have lost, because of their father's "insanity". I'm curious if you are advocating that we do away with the justice system all together, and simply allow people to determine for themselves what punishment they should suffer, and how they will grow from it. How far does that logic extend.... would you be as forgiving if all those who are responsible for the residential schools insanity were to just say, "We're sorry, but now we've decided we've suffered enough and have grown from the experience"?