Jump to content

Is Canada a full democracy?


myata

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The father's rights as a parent were denied and also his freedom of speech taken away.

That’s what courts do.   Abusive parents lose freedoms all the time. 
 

Do you really think schools give drugs so youth can transition without a parent’s knowledge?  Why are you afraid to explore that topic you brought up?  Do you realize now how crazy it sounds?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

That’s what courts do.   Abusive parents lose freedoms all the time. 
 

Do you really think schools give drugs so youth can transition without a parent’s knowledge?  Why are you afraid to explore that topic you brought up?  Do you realize now how crazy it sounds?

No, he was not an abusive parent.  He was trying to protect his daughter from the perverted system.

Parents who want to protect their children from the abusive school system and abuse of transitioning school kids are not being abusive.  They are being responsible.  It is child abuse to teach kids they can transition if they feel like it.  Do you realize how crazy it sounds to support kids transitioning?

You are sick man.

I am not afraid to talk about it.  I never said schools give drugs.  Obviously drugs are provided by prescriptions and pharmacies.  I never said drugs are given in all cases.  You just started implying I said schools give drugs.  Never said that.

Edited by blackbird
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

Kids can decide to transition and school can keep it secret from parents.

 

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

Children can get drugs to supposedly aid in transitioning.

Kids get transition drugs, change sex behind their parents’ backs and schools keep their secret.  
 

How does a minor, who can’t get a prescription without a parent, hide their transition to a different gender from their parents?    

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TreeBeard said:

 

Kids get transition drugs, change sex behind their parents’ backs and schools keep their secret.  
 

How does a minor, who can’t get a prescription without a parent, hide their transition to a different gender from their parents?    

I don't know.  Maybe some doctors will give a kid a prescription.  Is there a law that says they can't?  I am not an expert of how young people could get prescriptions to start with.  Pointless to go further on that.  Maybe they could;  maybe not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

That’s what courts do.   Abusive parents lose freedoms all the time.  

Oh, are they going back to that old case again as proof of anything ?

If you insult and berate your kid while in a custody fight, guess what happens ?

No sympathy for trolls, especially trolls who troll their children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

I didn’t say people aren’t allowed to own guns, I said it wasn’t a RIGHT to own a gun. You understand that rights are defined in the Charter?  
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-12.html

Where in the Charter is the right to own a gun?   I linked the Charter above so you don’t have to search for it. 
 

You are incorrect.  It has been upheld many times by the supreme court that a thing doesn't have to be specifically enumerated in the charter or the constitution to be a right. And generally people have the right to do anything except where restricted by the gov't specifically and such restrictions are not to be unreasonable (there's actually a recognized test for that).

When alberta challenged the feds over gun control the courts ruled that firearms ownership IS INDEED A RIGHT.  But that it's a tertiary right and that the gov't is within it's rights to regulate it in the name of safety and security in the country.

If you are of the opinion that ONLY rights SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the charter exist legally in canada, there are SEVERAL groups who would like to have a word with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, blackbird said:

Only if you are a Fascist, Communist kind of atheist.  That is why you think humans don't have rights.  You think humans can be treated by governments any way they wish like in authoritarian countries.  Rights are God-given.  God created man with certain inalienable rights.  The American Constitution is better than Canada's and recognizes that fact.  Almost anyone in western countries would disagree with you.  Where did you come from?  

Humans only have the rights they give themselves. Nothing to do with atheism or religion. 

God didn't write the US Constitution, a bunch white male slave holders wrote it.

 

Edited by Aristides
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

 

Kids get transition drugs, change sex behind their parents’ backs and schools keep their secret.  
 

How does a minor, who can’t get a prescription without a parent, hide their transition to a different gender from their parents?    

Well there's the kick in the teeth. Eventually it has to come out. The logic for hiding it form the parent is that it's POSSIBLE that the parent MIGHT be angry and become violent or something, despite the fact that the parents in these cases don't have a history of that. (if they do  call the cops and have them arrested)

Yet - eventually this HAS to come out - now whatever feelings the parents may have with regards to the transition are COMPOUNDED by the sense of betrayal by the system, and the sense of betrayal from the child who has basically said they trust their teachers more than their parents and they believe their parents would physically harm them, which is probably the furthest thing from the truth.

So if there was already a chance that the family would turn their back on them or be unsupportive, that chance just jumped several hundred percent. And the parents would never trust the school again. That might be a problem if they have OTHER children in the school system.

The whole practice is wrong morally and it's wrong logically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Humans only have the rights they give themselves. Nothing to do with atheism or religion. 

God didn't write the US Constitution, a bunch white male slave holders wrote it.

 

Some humans have enough wisdom to know the difference between right and wrong, or good and evil and realize that this is God's universe and he created us and we belong to him.  Some men fear God.  Others not so much.  The Bible says the knowledge of God is the beginning of wisdom.  Without that, one does not have wisdom.  Men loved wickedness.  That is why God destroyed the earth with the flood (Genesis).

Perhaps the men who wrote the US Constitution had some fear of God.  

"7  The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction."  Proverbs 1:7 KJV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, blackbird said:

I don't know.  Maybe some doctors will give a kid a prescription.  Is there a law that says they can't?  I am not an expert of how young people could get prescriptions to start with.  Pointless to go further on that.  Maybe they could;  maybe not.

Here you go with your magic transition drugs that turn boys into girls right in front of your eyes!   If you don’t know, maybe don’t claim it’s true.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

Some humans have enough wisdom to know the difference between right and wrong, or good and evil and realize that this is God's universe and he created us and we belong to him.  Some men fear God.  Others not so much.  The Bible says the knowledge of God is the beginning of wisdom.  Without that, one does not have wisdom.  Men loved wickedness.  That is why God destroyed the earth with the flood (Genesis).

Perhaps the men who wrote the US Constitution had some fear of God.  

"7  The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction."  Proverbs 1:7 KJV

Well they didn't fear a god enough not to enslave other humans.

Edited by Aristides
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

firearms ownership IS INDEED A RIGHT. 

No.  The law is clear.  
 

The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s ruling that there is no constitutional right to bear arms in Canada.[4]   Montague tried to appeal the case one more time, to the Supreme Court of Canada. On September 16, 2010, the Court announced that it would not hear the appeal. As a result, the ruling that there is no Canadian right to bear arms is settled constitutional law for the foreseeable future. The Supreme Court said in 1993 that “Canadians, unlike Americans do not have a constitutional right to bear arms.”[5] Montague will not have a chance to change the Court’s mind.”
 

https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/2010/10/ontario-court-confirms-no-right-to-bear-arms-in-canada-supreme-court-will-not-hear-appeal/?print=print

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

No.  The law is clear.  
 

 

The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s ruling that there is no constitutional right to bear arms in Canada.[4]   Montague tried to appeal the case one more time, to the Supreme Court of Canada. On September 16, 2010, the Court announced that it would not hear the appeal. As a result, the ruling that there is no Canadian right to bear arms is settled constitutional law for the foreseeable future. The Supreme Court said in 1993 that “Canadians, unlike Americans do not have a constitutional right to bear arms.”[5] Montague will not have a chance to change the Court’s mind.”
 

https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/2010/10/ontario-court-confirms-no-right-to-bear-arms-in-canada-supreme-court-will-not-hear-appeal/?print=print

That's the montegue case. And a provincial court. Pay attention. You'll find the supreme court overrides that. And the supreme court has spoken saying that while we have no guaranteed right to firearms as a primary right as they do in the states that we do have such a right subject to reasonable restrictions by the gov'ts.

Sorry kiddo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Here you go with your magic transition drugs that turn boys into girls right in front of your eyes!   If you don’t know, maybe don’t claim it’s true.  

Young girls' do not need parents approval for drugs like birth control, or to drugs to fight STD's etc., or even get abortions,  I do not know about hormone blockers although i don't see why not not much of a leap there. 

Not sure if there is a cut off for age, but young girls can see their family doctor alone if they feel the need to, and anything said or done in that meeting is confidential unless the child agrees to release that info. once again i don't know when that age starts ,pretty sure that there are some boundaries. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Ohhh and look - remember our conversation regarding people suffering for wrongspeak? Remember the example i gave? Look what showed up in todays paper:

 

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/michael-higgins-truth-ignored-as-teacher-fired-for-saying-tb-caused-residential-school-deaths

 

You can't listen to their criticisms because they're directly paid by the government...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You can't listen to their criticisms because they're directly paid by the government...

the funny thing is it wasn't a criticism.  He wasn't offering it as a comment on or a criticism of anything, not the native position or the gov'ts. He just simply stated an absolutely accurate fact. The vast vast vast majority of the children died from tuberculosis and (to a much lesser degree) spanish influenza.  Thats how most of the children died. 

And this is the result. For stating a simple fact without judgement he's been fired. Because of the quazi religious nature of left wing dogma these days - even speaking a simple truth that doesn't support the approved narrative is punishable, even if its' not a criticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Ohhh and look - remember our conversation regarding people suffering for wrongspeak? Remember the example i gave? Look what showed up in todays paper:

 

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/michael-higgins-truth-ignored-as-teacher-fired-for-saying-tb-caused-residential-school-deaths

 

I remember the conversation.  It was about people being charged with crimes for what they said, right?   You moved the goalposts again.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TreeBeard said:

I remember the conversation.  It was about people being charged with crimes for what they said, right?   You moved the goalposts again.  

Sorry but we both know that's bullshit. You're trying to deflect from the fact that someone is being persecuted for exactly the thing i suggested is happening.

Here's a person who dared to speak against the 'dogma' of the day, no hatred no misinformation, just a simple truth. And for his heresy against the left wing tribal echo chamber he was summarily punished and excommunicated. :)

I get why you wanted to try to change the channel and pretend it was 'goal post moving'.  A common if someone deceitful tactic.  But its pretty obvious that this is a truth in canada today - we still have people being punished for 'heresy' and speaking out against the quasi-religious  beliefs of the church of the left.

And that's a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

That's the montegue case. And a provincial court. Pay attention. You'll find the supreme court overrides that. And the supreme court has spoken saying that while we have no guaranteed right to firearms as a primary right as they do in the states that we do have such a right subject to reasonable restrictions by the gov'ts.

Sorry kiddo.

The SC said Canadians do not have a constitutional right to bear arms.  Full stop.
 

I cited the case in my post above where they said that.  
 

Where did the SC say that Canadians do have a right to guns?  Please cite.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sorry but we both know that's bullshit. You're trying to deflect from the fact that someone is being persecuted for exactly the thing i suggested is happening.

Here's a person who dared to speak against the 'dogma' of the day, no hatred no misinformation, just a simple truth. And for his heresy against the left wing tribal echo chamber he was summarily punished and excommunicated. :)

I get why you wanted to try to change the channel and pretend it was 'goal post moving'.  A common if someone deceitful tactic.  But its pretty obvious that this is a truth in canada today - we still have people being punished for 'heresy' and speaking out against the quasi-religious  beliefs of the church of the left.

And that's a problem.

The discussion was about laws.   I kept asking when anyone was arrested for what they said.  
 

But, just quote what I asked in the previous post you’re referring to, if you’re so convinced.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

The SC said Canadians do not have a constitutional right to bear arms.  Full stop.

Tell me you don't understand law without telling me :)  Full stop :)

3 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

 

I cited the case in my post above where they said that.
 

Where did the SC say that Canadians do have a right to guns?  Please cite.  

You cited an irrelevant case and tried to draw a conclusion from it.  That case made a specific argument that we have a right to firearms derrived from british common law. The judge said we have no such right.

in 2000 the court ruled that there ARE in fact civil and property rights to own firearms both personally and as part of the constitutional provision of power which gives the provinces the right over property . however the federal gov't had the right to put reasonable restrictions on it in the interest of public safety - as i said previously:

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2000/2000scc31/2000scc31.html

So there you go.

Swing and a miss :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

The discussion was about laws.   I kept asking when anyone was arrested for what they said

Look who's moving the goalposts now :)

8 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:


 

But, just quote what I asked in the previous post you’re referring to, if you’re so convinced.  

Why don't you address what's being said right now instead?

Oh that's right - you can't. Because you were wrong. 

Deflect deflect deflect - far better than facing the truth in your books it would seem.

Anyway it would seem that i've shown two things - the "heresy" police are out there in full force these days punishing people for their badspeak. and you're a dishonest player as soon as you discover you're in the wrong :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Look who's moving the goalposts now :)

Why don't you address what's being said right now instead?

Oh that's right - you can't. Because you were wrong. 

Deflect deflect deflect - far better than facing the truth in your books it would seem.

Anyway it would seem that i've shown two things - the "heresy" police are out there in full force these days punishing people for their badspeak. and you're a dishonest player as soon as you discover you're in the wrong :)

People are fired for what they say all the time.  I don’t really care, to be honest. If it’s unfair, there are unions or labour laws that can deal with it.  

It’s wholly uninteresting and mundane.  And media will often only cover one side, or not tell the entire story.  The readers are left with the impression that, in this case the NP, wants you to have.  “That’s terrible to be fired for what he said”.  Meanwhile, the guy was probably an awful teacher, which isn’t mentioned of course.  
 

I just can’t generate any outrage.  

Edited by TreeBeard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...