Melanie_

From what I've read, women who have chosen to terminate a pregnancy can't be charged under this bill. It instead focuses on the choice of the woman to carry a pregnancy to term, and provides a way to charge someone for violating that choice. It seems to me that the focus is on the rights of the woman, which is why I am cautiously inclined to support it. Ken Epp in the National Post

It seems that same-sex marriages might be the catalyst for the split, but it isn't the only issue. Anglican Journal This quote sums up what I (an athiest) see as the central division in today's churches - does the Bible determine how you see the world, or does the world determine how you see the Bible? Winnipeg Free Press

Manitoba wanted a February holiday, so a day was chosen and then there was public consultation on what the day should be celebrating. Louis Riel won. The timing is nice, because it falls during Festival du Voyageur, but the point really was to have a break during the long stretch between New Year's Day and Easter, when there were no holidays. I'm just happy to have Monday off, regardless of who or what it comemmorates.

I don't see any purpose in reciting the Lord's Prayer each morning in the legislature. It reminds me of the days when I was in school, when we had to recite the Lord's Prayer every morning after Oh Canada. It's an inappropriate imposition of religion in a secular setting, and the Ontario government is just catching up to the school system.

Oleg, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. I think I'll join Dancer in not reading your posts.

Someone's been watching too many bad movies. Or maybe soap operas.

As Drea points out, he doesn't have children. That $18/hour doesn't have to cover child care costs while he is at work, assuming he is able to find a spot in the first place to allow him to go out to work within days of landing in a new city.

I agree. Paying a debt to "society" doesn't really address the debt he owes the individual. Financially, he is unlikely to ever cover even a fraction of the costs associated with the injuries he caused, but restitution gives him the opportunity to demonstrate remorse and make some atonement.

Man, Rue, my head hurts after reading through these links! I won’t pretend to have read all of the material yet, but what I’ve read so far provides lots of interesting food for thought. One thing that was clear was that the section of the CHRA that impacts First Nations people was never meant to be permanent. It sounds like it was put in place for a specific purpose at the time, and then was never removed or amended. I can see your point regarding carefully worded legislation being needed to balance both collective and individual rights; it seems almost impossible, but maybe that’s just my own limitation. The tension between the different values people will place on the human rights in question, and how the decision makers weigh those rights against each other, is what I find interesting in this. Some will hold gender rights with more primacy, while others will hold collective rights with more primacy, and they will have to find a way to blend the two. This quote from your link to the CHRC made me reflect a bit on how culture can influence our view of how human rights should be interpreted. Mainstream North American society is built to a great degree on the values of independence and individuality, but for many other cultures interdependence and collaboration are more strongly held values. This can lead to conflict between the individual rights of a woman (or man), and the rights of the group as a whole. I don’t claim to understand all the human rights issues with regards to Canada’s First Nations, but I am open to learning more. Thanks for the push in the right direction!

Hmmmm, this thread must look pretty strange to anyone who wasn't following it before yesterday! Anyway, in case Bobz is still lurking around, here is another link for you. Its to a pamphlet for new immigrants put together by the Child Welfare League of Canada, explaining Canadian child abuse laws and procedures. It gives you some idea about what is and isn't accepted in Canadian society, and what will happen if you are charged with abuse. It is a bit wordy, particularly for those who are just learning English, but I hope you find it useful. Parenting In Canada This pamphlet was written in 1998, and is being updated, so if anyone else is interested in giving some feedback to the publishers, they can do so at this link.

You are assuming that a minority will abuse the power they get if they are elected to office, which is pessimistic and biased. You are placing too much emphasis on someone’s culture/race, rather than looking at what that person can do as an individual. As for the second part of your post….you’ve twisted your interpretation of the Charter to fit your political agenda, which is to promote English and remove French from the public sphere. It really has no bearing on this thread.

I have 4 kids and one grandchild. I also spent most of my career working with children, and now teach college students about child development. One of the courses I teach is about supporting children who have been abused. I feel pretty confident in saying that hitting 4 year olds isn't a good way to help them learn. You've asked for statistics regarding children who have been protected by children's aid versus children who haven't been. I'm not going to do that research for you. But here's a link to the National Clearinghouse on Family Violence which might be a good place to start. Here's another link to 2003 Child Abuse Statistics. Children who have been protected by Children's Aid have been abused - the results you are looking for will be heavily influenced by the abuse they suffered. Rather than comparing kids who have been protected with those who haven't, you should compare kids who have been abused with those who haven't.

Just another thought - If the kids live so far away that it is a 50 minute walk, there should be school buses available to transport them to and from school.

The "relevent facts" you have posted are that he is black and that his father was Muslim. In your mind this could potentially be a problem, so you think he should be denied the opportunity to run for president. If we ban everyone who could potentially be a problem, no one will be left to run! You have invented a problem where none really exists, and want to restrict someone from the political arena based on the fiction you have created. I'm not against safe guarding national interest. I just disagree with you when you say that your analysis has anything to do with national interest. The most "undemocratic, discriminatory actions" I can think of are the ones you are advocating - discriminating against someone, denying them the right to participate in democracy, because of their race.

Recently there was a case here in Manitoba where the Canadian Human Rights Act was upheld on a reserve. I wonder if this is a grey area in the law. I'm quoting the full article, because I'm not sure you can follow the link if you aren't a subscriber to the Winnipeg Free Press. (Is this a copyright infringement?) Winnipeg Free Press

Leafless, before you respond to this, please take the time to read it carefully, think about what I'm saying, and then respond rationally. How do you determine someone's culture? Culture isn't something that is readily apparent about someone, so it takes a fair bit of personal knowledge to really know what culture they belong to. Saying that someone's culture should determine whether or not they can run for office means that you need to set up an entirely new government department to vett candidates based on a complex set of personal variables. Or are you more concerned about race? Obama was born in the US, is a Christian, and on the surface has a culture no different from most Americans, but you object to him based on the fact that he is black (race, not culture). You also have some wild theories about him being Muslim, without any facts to back you up. You've made up a life story for Obama that isn't supported by any facts, and convinced yourself that it is real.

The sister may have learned earlier, but I wonder how many bruises she got as she learned. It seems this father is more interested in pushing his children and putting them under intense pressure (and I question the wisdom of any teacher who feeds into this by giving out Student of the Month awards) than he is in their wellbeing. If the teacher is saying there are issues with the child's eyesight, why does the father insist that there isn't? Has the child had an eye exam? If he hasn't, this can be considered abuse as well, in the category of neglect. You say that this father understands that he shouldn't abuse his children, and won't do it anymore when he is allowed to reunite with his family, but then you quote this passage that says that severity is neccesary in teaching. This leads me to doubt that the father has any intention of changing - I think he will say what he thinks the authorities want to hear, then go back to what he has been doing all along. The ancient manuscript you quote has no relevence in childrearing today (deja vu! I feel like I've typed that somewhere before!). We know a lot more about children now than we did 1000 years ago; even the Chinese public school system has abandoned these out of date ideas. The bottom line, Bobz, is that child abuse is wrong. Regardless of what the father is trying to do, hitting his kids is a bad way of doing it. He wants them to learn academics, but instead he is teaching brutality and violence. Until he understands that he can't treat his children that way, they need to be protected from him.

There are plenty of parent education classes available, if the father really wants to learn better methods of discipline. Children's Aid will likely offer him some classes and other interventions before allowing him to go back to his family. I understand that the father thought he was doing something to help his kids, but he obviously did it badly; once he is known to be abusive we have a responsibility to protect his children. If this father wants to help his kids know that learning is important, he should first educate himself about what is reasonable to expect a child to learn. From what I understand, he hit his 4 year old child because he wasn't learning to read English fast enough. This is a child who is fluent in Chinese, and goes to French Immersion Junior Kindergarten. Most four year olds are just beginning to understand the concept of reading in their own language, never mind a second and third language. The father should just slow down and stop putting so much pressure on a little kid, then abusing him for not being able to meet unreasonable expectations. The future will come fast enough; let the kid enjoy his childhood.

Kuzadd, what a wonderful story! I too believe that children need lots of freedom, and only used a playpen as an extra sleeping space – and I had 4 kids and ran a home daycare! Good for you for making sure your daughter wasn’t one of the legions of kids who are diagnosed with something for the convenience of the adults around them, rather than for an actual medical need. (Although there are kids who do have the medical needs, and we can't lose sight of providing supports to the ones who actually need them.)

Men may be apes, but I'm happy to live in the zoo with them!

The first goal of Child and Family Services is the safety of the child. But there is also a strong beleif in the reunification of families, once there is a reasonable assurance that the child is no longer in danger. If the father can prove that he will not abuse his children anymore, it is likely that he will be able to return to his family.

Bobz, this father is a child abuser. He punished his child by hitting him in the face hard enough to leave bruises, because the child wasn't learning English fast enough to suit the father. You are blaming the child for "refusing to learn", trying to shift the responsibility for the father's actions to the child. Whatever the repercussions are for the father not being in the home, it is his own fault for putting his family in this position, not the fault of the cops, Children's Aid, or anyone else. When you say that the child only has several days pain, you are wrong. The child also has the emotional scarring of not living up to his father's expectations; he receives a message that he is inadequate. For a small child, who is just developing his self concept, this can have a life long impact, particularly if the message is repeated day in and day out. He has the fear of when and where he might be abused again - children who live in fear become hypervigilent, always worried about when the next blow will fall, and this actually interferes with their ability to learn. He has the burden of blame the father seems determined to pass off to him, as if this were the child's fault. The physical pain, the bruises, are the most visible outcome of abuse, but they fade. The feelings of helplessness, vulnerability, fear are less visible but longer term. You have said the father loves the child, and no doubt this is true. Think of the betrayal of having someone who claims to love you become abusive. The child will grow up connecting physical violence with love. Love and violence don't mix.

Don't feed the troll.

Nope, not absentminded at all, since I said we discussed the monarchy in a thread about Peter Phillips, not that you and I had discussed Peter Phillips ourselves (although I think you are grasping at straws here). Maybe now we can go back to discussing whether or not Barack Obama's race and religion pose a credible threat to the US.

Obviously my Powers of Extreme Liberalism have met their match. We discussed the monarchy here..... Why Canada Must Take on Britain over the 1701 Act of Settlement