Law protect racism and bully

[Sir Bandelot]

My guess is that the principal has a mental problem himself. As for the school board, who approved the writing of such a letter and then act like they were misunderstood, they are the real bullies. Typical that they back down when someone finally opposes them.

I'm sure it happens all the time...

[robert_viera]

I have a few observations after reading the articles at the start of this thread.

A number of people have referred to "bullying" or have referred to the non-Asian boy in this incident as the "bully". According to the articles, the claim of "bullying" was made by protest organizers and not the Asian boy, who actually refuted that claim:

The protest organizers also wanted to protest bullying, claiming the Asian boy had been the victim of bullying and racism all year.

ONE INCIDENT

However, the Asian boy refuted this and said other students know he's a black belt.

Source: http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009...pf-9272411.html

The additional claim of "racism all year" is also refuted by the comments of the Asian boy and his family:

The boy's parents said the other student's taunts were the first incident of racism experienced by the family since they moved to Canada from their native country in 2004.

Source: http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009...pf-9272411.html

The one incident of racism that sparked the fight was the only discrimination he's faced this year, he said, adding he's never been in a fight in his life until last Tuesday.

Source: http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009...pf-9272411.html

According to the articles, the Asian boy is 15 years old. Isn't that a bit old for grade 9?

I find it a bit troubling that the articles go out of their way to mention the Asian boy's high marks. I don't see how his grades are relevant to this incident. Are we supposed to believe that kids who get good grades can't do wrong or be violent?

In the Globe and Mail article the Asian boy's parents state that their son "struggled a little socially". In the same article the Asian boy is quoted saying "I felt sorry because I broke his nose, but I can say he deserved it because he called me the racial comment". I think we need to take a good look our anti-racism education if it has led this boy to believe that a racial comment is ample justification for the results of his actions: a broken nose (and a possible concussion according to one of the articles).

Most importantly, none of these articles have the other boy's side of this story. Until we hear that, I don't think we can judge.

[Sir Bandelot]

I have a few observations after reading the articles at the start of this thread.

According to the articles, the Asian boy is 15 years old. Isn't that a bit old for grade 9?

No, its the correct age for grade 9.

I find it a bit troubling that the articles go out of their way to mention the Asian boy's high marks. I don't see how his grades are relevant to this incident. Are we supposed to believe that kids who get good grades can't do wrong or be violent?

I would say its to point out that he's a good student. The article also says he's never been on a fight before, so they are trying to show that he's not a typical troublemaker.

I think we need to take a good look our anti-racism education if it has led this boy to believe that a racial comment is ample justification for the results of his actions: a broken nose (and a possible concussion according to one of the articles).

Most importantly, none of these articles have the other boy's side of this story. Until we hear that, I don't think we can judge.

If you read closely, it says that the other boy struck the asian boy first and cut his lip. At that point the asian boy HITS HIM BACK. If you've ever dealt with a bully who wants to hit you, you should know that once you decide to fight back you better not do it by half measures. If someone hits me I have the right to defend myself. Are you going to leave it up to the aggressor to decide how far it goes?

Edited May 3, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[robert_viera]

No, its the correct age for grade 9.

I would say its to point out that he's a good student. The article also says he's never been on a fight before, so they are trying to show that he's not a typical troublemaker.

If you read closely, it says that the other boy struck the asian boy first and cut his lip. At that point the asian boy HITS HIM BACK. If you've ever dealt with a bully who wants to hit you, you should know that once you decide to fight back you better not do it by half measures. If someone hits me I have the right to defend myself. Are you going to leave it up to the aggressor to decide how far it goes?

What do a boy's grades in science, French, and math have to do with his social behaviour or his ability to deal with conflict non-violently? Are you saying that students who don't get high grades are more likely to be troublemakers?

To be clear, the article does not say that the boy has never been in a fight before. The article states that the boy said he has never been in a fight before. Remember, we're only hearing one side of the story here.

The article states that the Asian boy said "...he deserved it because he called me the racial comment". It doesn't say "...he deserved it because he struck me first". The statement shows that the Asian boy believes that a racial comment is sufficient justification for a broken nose.

Why are you calling the other boy a bully when the Asian boy himself has refuted the claim that he was bullied? None of the articles claim that the other boy bullied the Asian boy, or anyone else.

Edited May 3, 2009 by robert_viera

[xul]

I have a few observations after reading the articles at the start of this thread.

A number of people have referred to "bullying" or have referred to the non-Asian boy in this incident as the "bully". According to the articles, the claim of "bullying" was made by protest organizers and not the Asian boy, who actually refuted that claim:

I just wonder why there were a lot of student against the nose-breaken boy. It is probably because:

1. the dad of the Korean boy was a billionaire, he bought all these supporters for his son, and all these students are unprincipled little liars.

2. the nose-broken boy is really a bully, but his bully was not based on racial. Maybe a lot of these students were once bullied by him sometime. Though a single student may be only bullied one time a year, but all students still could see he bullys others all the time.

Most importantly, none of these articles have the other boy's side of this story. Until we hear that, I don't think we can judge.

There also are two speculations:

1. the media reporters and editors was payed by the Korean kid's billionaire dad so they were only vocal for the Korean kid.

2. the lawyer of the nose-broken boy's told him to shut up so he could make all stories up in court for his good.

But in any case, I agree with you that teachers and parents should instruct children how to deal with bullies with the correct way.

Edited May 3, 2009 by xul

[Sir Bandelot]

The Toronto Sun article reads:

"According to the accused boy and several friends, the other student called the Asian boy a "f...ing Chinese" and after a shoving match broke out, punched the Asian boy in the mouth, causing him to bleed.

The Asian boy retaliated by punching the other boy and breaking his nose."

What do a boy's grades in science, French, and math have to do with his social behaviour or his ability to deal with conflict non-violently? Are you saying that students who don't get high grades are more likely to be troublemakers?

Having gone to school I would say that the students who get high marks, especially very high marks are less likely to be troublemakers. But its a generalization, not always true.

Why are you calling the other boy a bully when the Asian boy himself has refuted the claim that he was bullied? None of the articles claim that the other boy bullied the Asian boy, or anyone else.

Seems to me by reading the articles that he refuted the claim that he was bullied, more than once. But it appears he was bullied, or racially insulted and taunted. What shall we call that. Yes its hearsay based on several students accounts, so what. We are not in a court of law...

If you've ever had to deal with bing taunted, picked on or beaten up by bullies you'd know that political correctness, conflict resolution and being nice does not apply to the realities in the schoolyard. Some people cannot be stopped, except for by violence. Our society accepts the notion that some situations can't be resolved otherwise.

Edited May 3, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[xul]

Since when have people ever needed race as an excuse for bullying?

That true. I think nowadays the real racialists are some kind of endangered species if we define that a racialist is a person who really believe "his kind" is genetically "up" than others. Most of the so-called racialists are just some whiners who have lost self-confidence so they feel they have to stick on something to make them looking big for bullying others to regain some mental compensation.

[xul]

The bully kid and the principal almost did it if not for the 400 of his fellow students walked out of class.

I wonder how many other ugly incidents had happened without being noticed in the Canadian education system.

This is the reality of human right situation in Canada, where weak people were often be bullied secretly.

But they did walked out to go against what they believed injustice, that's important. If such thing happened in China (let's assume the bully kid is a relative of a CPC's local boss or Chinese so-called town-emperor, in a small town, such relationship is not rare), how many people would dare to stand just for a new comer?

Of course there are some humanrights problem. But people must realize that they could know all these problem just because the people, the media, sometimes the insiders of the government revealed these problem for us. We can know the truth of the death of Robert Dziekanski just because a common Canadian took the video and Canadian media reported it for us. We know the mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq by American army becase an American soldier reported the events to his superior and obviously some higher-ranked officer in the Pentagon leaked it to media, and the media revealed it regardless the opposition from their own defence secretary. When people criticises the "system", those positive factors must be considered.

Edited May 3, 2009 by xul

[bjre]

But they did walked out to go against what they believed injustice, that's important. If such thing happened in China (let's assume the bully kid is a relative of a CPC's local boss or Chinese so-called town-emperor, in a small town, such relationship is not rare), how many people would dare to stand just for a new comer?

Of course there are some humanrights problem. But people must realize that they could know all these problem just because the people, the media, sometimes the insiders of the government revealed these problem for us. We can know the truth of the death of Robert Dziekanski just because a common Canadian took the video and Canadian media reported it for us. We know the mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq by American army becase an American soldier reported the events to his superior and obviously some higher-ranked officer in the Pentagon leaked it to media, and the media revealed it regardless the opposition from their own defence secretary. When people criticises the "system", those positive factors must be considered.

What are you try to say?

Because you were bullied in China and because there are positive factoers, you think you should be happy if you are bullied in Canada? Maybe you just too lack of being bullied.

In China there exist things changes include the "town-emperor" removed after protest. That is another story.

We are talking about things in Canada. This situation is not correct when schools post noble sounding rules like "ZERO TOLERANCE FOR RACISM! ZERO TOLERANCE FOR BULLYING! ZERO TOLERANCE FOR NASTY WORDS!"

Not all the people being bullied will lead to protest, in this case, if bullied kid did not hurt the bully kid, the family move to another place, no one will notice this, most kids are not black belt and not able to get an average score above 90%.

Things exist, we want a change, the exist of the problem may make more anti-social kids so that they may become criminals, may ecourage bully kids so that when they grow up, they turned to bully other people such as you although you may enjoy this. And you need to pay more tax when the legal system start to run.

When the tax goes higher and higher, the cost of production in Canada may more higher than other countries such as China. More jobs will move out of Canada, so that the economy may go worse. Everyone will pay for that.

Edited May 3, 2009 by bjre

[Borg]

If you've ever had to deal with bing taunted, picked on or beaten up by bullies you'd know that political correctness, conflict resolution and being nice does not apply to the realities in the schoolyard. Some people cannot be stopped, except for by violence. Our society accepts the notion that some situations can't be resolved otherwise.

Interesting comment - I happen to agree with you

It can also be applied to the international scene

Borg

[robert_viera]

Seems to me by reading the articles that he refuted the claim that he was bullied, more than once. But it appears he was bullied, or racially insulted and taunted.

I think we have a difference of opinion as to what constitutes bullying. You seem to believe that if the other boy threw the first punch, that makes him a bully. I don't think that is enough to constitute bullying. Here is a definition of 'bully' from dictionary.com:

–noun

1. a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people.

The are two key elements to this definition: The recurring (habitual) nature of the bully's actions and the disparity in size or strength between the bully and the bully's victim. Nowhere in any of the articles does it say that the other boy had punched, taunted, or racially insulted the Asian boy or anyone else prior to this incident. In addition, none of the articles state that the other boy had an advantage in size or strength over the Asian boy. If anything, the Asian boy seems to believe that his black belt inspires fear, or at least respect, in his fellow students:

The protest organizers also wanted to protest bullying, claiming the Asian boy had been the victim of bullying and racism all year.

ONE INCIDENT

However, the Asian boy refuted this and said other students know he's a black belt.

Source: http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009...pf-9272411.html Edited May 3, 2009 by robert_viera

[xul]

What are you try to say?

I just want to say that the situation is not as serious as you alleged "law protect racism and bully". Exaggeration can not help whatsoever you want to achieve, though I can hardly figure out what is your objective of these posts.

You kept talking "kids should be educated". I wonder, if you are the education minister, what kind of education would you do to those kids to garantee such things will not happen in all school of this country? or if you are the law maker, what would you do to amend the law? Can you tell me what kind of terms you want to write into law?

Because you were bullied in China and because there are positive factoers, you think you should be happy if you are bullied in Canada? Maybe you just too lack of being bullied.

Nobody will be happy to be bullied. But unfortunately bully happens in anywhere, anyschool. It is just as kimmy said, it sometimes takes forms of race, sometimes takes other forms such fat/thin, tall/short, etc. It is less the matter of that we are happy or unhappy about it. It is just a matter of how should we teach our kids to deal with it. In this event, I have to say, the correct reaction of the Korean boy is to report the bully to his teacher and if he did that it would be the bully boy who was in trouble now.

We are talking about things in Canada. This situation is not correct when schools post noble sounding rules like "ZERO TOLERANCE FOR RACISM! ZERO TOLERANCE FOR BULLYING! ZERO TOLERANCE FOR NASTY WORDS!"

Firstly, you should understand, "ZERO TOLERANCE FOR BULLY" doesn't mean the bully will disappear in front such kind of slogans, just as police always says "zero tolerance for crime" that doesn't mean they could make crime never happening.

Secondly, "zero tolerance" doesn't mean you can use any resort to stop what you want to stop it happening. You just imagine, if the Korean boy didn't only break the nose of the bully boy, but happened to hit on somewhere on his head and killed him(such thing sometimes happened even in professional taekwondo players), do you still think there would be a lot of people supporting to clear all of his charges?

Not all the people being bullied will lead to protest, in this case, if bullied kid did not hurt the bully kid, the family move to another place, no one will notice this, most kids are not black belt and not able to get an average score above 90%.

Why do you think people should protest for everything if they have other ways to settle it? They can ignore it, report it, or sue it into a court. If kids need protest every bully in their school(not like this one which has led to serious consequence), they will have no time to learn anything.

Things exist, we want a change, the exist of the problem may make more anti-social kids so that they may become criminals, may ecourage bully kids so that when they grow up, they turned to bully other people such as you although you may enjoy this. And you need to pay more tax when the legal system start to run.

You want a change, you want doing something, that's great. But if you want to convince your countrymen, at least you have to tell them which part of the country or the system you want to change? You should tell them not only "the law protects bully", but also which terms of the laws protect bully or which terms you'd like to add into law. You should tell them not only "kids need being educated", but also how to educate them, for instance, if you are the teacher or the pricipal of the school, by which way would you like to educate the bully boy?

When the tax goes higher and higher, the cost of production in Canada may more higher than other countries such as China. More jobs will move out of Canada, so that the economy may go worse. Everyone will pay for that.

About this, I sincerely agree with you. What I want to say is that, if you were a business man, it would be better that you didn't cast away you old business before you got an available plan to start a new one.

Edited May 3, 2009 by xul

[Sir Bandelot]

It can also be applied to the international scene

Yes indeed, Borg that is exactly what I was alluding to,

[Sir Bandelot]

I think we have a difference of opinion as to what constitutes bullying. You seem to believe that if the other boy threw the first punch, that makes him a bully. I don't think that is enough to constitute bullying. Here is a definition of 'bully' from dictionary.com:

I was not there and nor were you I assume. But if we take the article at face value, yes I call it bullying when someone racially insults another person and then follows this with a punch to the face. At that point there is really no time to get out the dictionary for consultation.

Nowhere in any of the articles does it say that the other boy had punched, taunted, or racially insulted the Asian boy or anyone else prior to this incident.

As the Sun article states, if we accept the hearsay it was not the asian boy who threw the first punch. Maybe in your view its acceptable to get punched in the face, if it only happens one time. I would not recommend waiting for the second one.

Edited May 3, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[bjre]

You want a change, you want doing something, that's great. But if you want to convince your countrymen, at least you have to tell them which part of the country or the system you want to change? You should tell them not only "the law protects bully", but also which terms of the laws protect bully or which terms you'd like to add into law. You should tell them not only "kids need being educated", but also how to educate them, for instance, if you are the teacher or the pricipal of the school, by which way would you like to educate the bully boy?

That should be studyed by expert based on scientific methods.

For example, before psychologist recommend an education method, he need to do experiments, for example, with several group of kids, one group use some kind of methods, the other don't use it. And find the result by statistics.

There are many methods, expert knows, I don't know. It should be their job to do that.

The politician should ask the expert do such kind of jobs, instead of pushing legislation with media.

The existing laws should also be reviewed by scientific methods like statistics to see what is the result, what is the side effect, does it generate more troubles.

Some most important things need kids to learn are: responsibility, enjoy learning, tolerate others, understand the others, think of others, care about others, love to help others. The teachers should do it first to the kids as good examples.

With these important qualities, the crime rate will decrease significantly, even criminals can be changed nice in such a warm environment and the kids will be more skillful for their future career, which is definitely good to Canada.

Edited May 3, 2009 by bjre

[Molly]

I really do find the school response troubling. That threat of expulsion is..... stunning.

If he had been in other fights or had a record of making trouble, then maybe, but expulsion on a first offense?

Particularly, a threat of expulsion for one, without the same/similar for the other, or a darned good explanation why not... no understanding of who started it, or how or who threw the first punch... If it occurred in a manner that even faintly resembles the reports (big if, I know) then that principal/board really does have something serious to answer for, and the attitudes within the school structure require some serious scrutiny.

[Sir Bandelot]

Some most important things need kids to learn are: responsibility, enjoy learning, tolerate others, understand the others, think of others, care about others, love to help others. The teachers should do it first to the kids as good examples.

With these important qualities, the crime rate will decrease significantly, even criminals can be changed nice in such a warm environment and the kids will be more skillful for their future career, which is definitely good to Canada.

Also, conflict resolution should be demonstrated by the school and the school board, in terms of what to do when someone misbehaves. Both boys did the wrong thing. The school board responded by demonstrating the same thing, harsh punitive measures. The best way to deal with this sort of thing is to get the people both to understand that what they did was wrong, give them both a short suspension, and teach them that its time to move on. Not to drive a wedge between people but show that they still have an opportunity to continue normally. Thats education

[robert_viera]

I was not there and nor were you I assume. But if we take the article at face value, yes I call it bullying when someone racially insults another person and then follows this with a punch to the face. At that point there is really no t

ime to get out the dictionary for consultation.

You can call it bullying if you want, but the incident described in those articles clearly does not meet the key elements of the definition of bullying. I suspect the protest organizers and the Globe and Mail author have their own agendas and are misusing the term to stir up support for those agendas by trying to elicit sympathy from people who actually have been bullied.

As the Sun article states, if we accept the hearsay it was not the asian boy who threw the first punch. Maybe in your view its acceptable to get punched in the face, if it only happens one time. I would not recommend waiting for the second one.

It's not acceptable to get punched in the face, but being the instigator of a fight does not necessarily make you a bully. You diminish the suffering of children who have been the victim of bullies when you broaden the definition of bullying to include any schoolyard brawl. The only difference apparent in the articles between this fight and any other schoolyard brawl seems to be the racial comment made by the non-Asian boy. Racist, sure. Bullying, no.

Edited May 4, 2009 by robert_viera

[robert_viera]

On Monday, the boy will return to the program for suspended students. He is serving a maximum length suspension of 20 days, which he cannot appeal, for “committing physical assault on another person that causes bodily harm requiring treatment by a medical practitioner,” according to a school document provided to his parents. The school called the incident “a consensual fight with another student.”

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home Edited May 4, 2009 by robert_viera

[lictor616]

We shall start with:

And then there is:

I'd rest my case, but I know you'll add to this illustrious display of stupidity before long.

none of that is anti jewish...

[CANADIEN]

none of that is anti jewish...

:lol:

[lictor616]

:lol:

noting that the British aristocracy is at least HALF Jewish, and that the Mohel of London has ritually circumsized all the men of the royal family since henry the 8th is a mere, unpolished historical fact.

how is it "anti-jewish"? Does it even make Jews look bad? Absolutely not! so what's with the stupid accusations? Oh yes that's right... to sidetrack and obfuscate an argument...

[CANADIEN]

noting that the British aristocracy is at least HALF Jewish(...)

Interesting, isn't it, that first it was the Birtish Royal family, now it's the aristocracy as a whole. Of course you can provide trustworthy and unbiased proof of your so called historical fact (like the ones you DIDN'T provide on the so-called Jewish ancestry of the British royal family, which flies in the face of all known genealogies of the Royal family). Sorry, but www.savethemales.ca and www.stormfront.org do not count

and that the Mohel of London has ritually circumsized all the men of the royal family since henry the 8th is a mere, unpolished historical fact.

Actually, circumcision of male members of the British Royal family started under Queen Victoria. And although it has usually been perforced by a mohel (do to their expeirence , there is no evidence to indicate there was Jewish rituals involved (interestingly, about 2-3 percent of circumcisions performed by mohels in the U.S. are on baby boys of non-Jewsih parents.

Once again, looking beyond anti-semitic cranj sites would have provided you that kind of info.

[lictor616]

Interesting, isn't it, that first it was the Birtish Royal family, now it's the aristocracy as a whole. Of course you can provide trustworthy and unbiased proof of your so called historical fact (like the ones you DIDN'T provide on the so-called Jewish ancestry of the British royal family, which flies in the face of all known genealogies of the Royal family). Sorry, but www.savethemales.ca and www.stormfront.org do not count

Actually, circumcision of male members of the British Royal family started under Queen Victoria. And although it has usually been perforced by a mohel (do to their expeirence , there is no evidence to indicate there was Jewish rituals involved (interestingly, about 2-3 percent of circumcisions performed by mohels in the U.S. are on baby boys of non-Jewsih parents.

Once again, looking beyond anti-semitic cranj sites would have provided you that kind of info.

Lol I even NAMED the Jewish name that was incorporated into the Royal family....

and Explain please (as I asked you) HOW any of what I said is anti-semetic... could you actually for once have the rigor to explain your accusations?

Why is it somehow "racist or anti-semetic" to say that Jews are royalty in England and have been for a very long time? Why should it be illegal to mention the routine circumsizion of the males of the Monarchy by the Mohel of london?

I still fail to see how any of this qualifies as antipathy towards jews...

[CANADIEN]

Lol I even NAMED the Jewish name that was incorporated into the Royal family....

And I have told you that known genealogies disprove your nonsense. I know you're abit hesitant to confirm that your souce of "information" is raving anti-Jewish sites.

Why should it be illegal to mention the routine circumsizion of the males of the Monarchy by the Mohel of london?

It should not.be illegal. But feel free to check your facts for total accuracy once in a while

Repeating the canards and falsehoods and the distortions of facts from lunatic anti-semitic sites and believing them makes it pretty clear that you're not repeating them just to get the "righteous Gentile of the year award".

But feel free to put even more of your "truths" online.