Canadian Catholic student arrested for saying men are different from women.

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok, well you replied to ME I think, and as I said I couldn't see the post.  I was only seeing the subject line.

I replied to you advising you that they didn't make that claim in the post you couldn't read.

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, Contrarian said:

 

You don't even read the details and say it was trespassing automatically.

 

No, I read the details previously.  It's a trespassing case but the kid was suspended for saying something related to transgenderism that constituted an infraction.

That's all I need to know. What else is there?

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I replied to you advising you that they didn't make that claim in the post you couldn't read.

Ok then.  I will state that the article isn't inflammatory based on your say so.  Reason10

 though has opted to inflame a serious topic because... not sure...anger and emotionality I suspect.

Edited March 12, 2023 by Michael Hardner

[CdnFox]

19 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Do you think that students have the right of free speech at school?

Well if it is a gov't run or funded institution then they do have to abide by the human rights code and they would have the rights to free speech and religious belief that would exist anywhere.

20 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

If the kid broke some rule, ostensibly respect for transgender students, then there's no more legal standing than if he broke any rule.

You can't make a rule that violates the law.  If the 'rule' is not allowed under the charter then it's not valid or enforceable.' Imagine someone made a school "rule" that you couldn't be gay at this school. How enforceable would you say that was. If the gays were arrested for 'trespass' as a result do you think there might be a few people who felt that was inappropriate?

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, Contrarian said:

 

How can this situation not be handled differently?

You mean how do you deal with a student who refuses to leave school grounds? I really don't know.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. Well if it is a gov't run or funded institution then they do have to abide by the human rights code and they would have the rights to free speech and religious belief that would exist anywhere.

2. Imagine someone made a school "rule" that you couldn't be gay at this school. How enforceable would you say that was.  

1. Uh... Well you make a case there.  I would say that would need to be tested.

2. Weird example. You can't be openly gay in a religious school I'm pretty sure.  Teachers have been fired for this and it wasn't overturned last time we discussed on here, I believe.

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok then.  I will state that the article isn't inflammatory based on your say so. 

Well.....  i don't know that i want to be on record as having made THAT claim - i just said they didn't out and out say he was charged for his opinion The article is slightly inflammatory.  That's just newspapers today tho.

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

Reason10

 though has opted to inflame a serious topic because... not sure...anger and emotionality I suspect.

oh i don't think it's unreasonable to say that emotionally charged language was used and that there's an attempt to stir a sense of outrage. I think something can be factually correct and still do that. You can downplay OR 'upplay' something without lying. I just felt the 'intellectually dishonest' was going a little far - they made it pretty clear in the article all the relevant details and specifics.  And i don't think it's dishonest to say he was arrested over his opinion, even if not factually technically directly true.

And i still feel that the actions taken will cause far more harm than good for transgender people.

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You mean how do you deal with a student who refuses to leave school grounds? I really don't know.

Why would you even let it get to that point? You don't feel there was a better way to address this than going right to a ban? Some sort of middle ground that could allow for reasonable discussion and disagreement? OR - if the issue is so sensitive ban discussion on the subject for ANYONE regardless of opinion to prevent anyone from being targeted for their opinion?

How does "lets deny him education and arrest him if he complains" make for good policy?

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Uh... Well you make a case there.  I would say that would need to be tested.

Probably has but i don't feel like looking it up to see at this second. Maybe i'll get a chance later.  I wouldn't care for their odds tho.

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Weird example. You can't be openly gay in a religious school I'm pretty sure.  Teachers have been fired for this and it wasn't overturned last time we discussed on here, I believe.

Openly gay no - but even religious schools don't ban you for being gay, they just insist you don't DO anything gay (so to speak). If you're attracted to the same sex but never do anything about it at all then you're fine, even if you were to admit to the attraction.  Generally even the religious groups accept that it's the action thats the sin not just the desire. (might be some that don't feel that way).  So it's one thing for a school to say you can't ACT on gay impulses but to just ban someone for being gay at all? Don't think so.

[Michael Hardner]

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Why would you even let it get to that point? You don't feel there was a better way to address this than going right to a ban?  

See, those kinds of details aren't available to us.  Was the kid belligerent?  Who knows.

Were the administrators heavy handed?  Again, we don't know.

[herbie]

Reason started this thread, did you expect a different title?

What's nexxt from our resident mental case:

Leftists Arrest Clifford Olson For Giving Candy To Children

[Michael Hardner]

14 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

1. Michael, somehow find a middle point, because you know what is happening now? every agitator newspaper from the right is playing it for propaganda purposes, the arrest news, is at the top of most American right-wing populist websites. 

2. If they would have found a mediation point, right now this case would not be acting as more propaganda against transgender people. Is working the opposite now. Is just the reality, I know you will tell me we need to stand for what is right, but the reality is different, is not idealism.

1. So because people are inflaming things, it's on me to say they should let it go?  We had another case where a teacher trolled the system and dressed as a woman and the administration let it go.  How did that play out?  No.  Be normal and don't permit trolling.

2. It takes two sides to compromise.  Did this kid at least agree to stop making statements?  Would you consider that a compromise?  I would accept that.

[West]

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. So because people are inflaming things, it's on me to say they should let it go?  We had another case where a teacher trolled the system and dressed as a woman and the administration let it go.  How did that play out?  No.  Be normal and don't permit trolling.

2. It takes two sides to compromise.  Did this kid at least agree to stop making statements?  Would you consider that a compromise?  I would accept that.

1. You folks are the ones who inflame things. I don't care if you wanna slap on some heals, wear a wig and do your makeup. You cross the line when you start giving kids lap dances and demand the rest of us shut up about it. 

2. The kid did nothing wrong. You folks just need to accept the fact that people disagree with you and stop acting like tyrants

[West]

31 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Michael, somehow find a middle point, because you know what is happening now? every agitator newspaper from the right is playing it for propaganda purposes, the arrest news, is at the top of most American right-wing populist websites. 

If they would have found a mediation point, right now this case would not be acting as more propaganda against transgender people. Is working the opposite now. Is just the reality, I know you will tell me we need to stand for what is right, but the reality is different, is not idealism.

This wouldn't be an issue right now if the lgbtq would stop the propaganda. You can't even get an Amazon package these days without being reminded of gay butt sex  

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

What does Amazon deliver with its packages?!

Gay butt sex.

Normal people know this... I guess ?

[CdnFox]

43 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

See, those kinds of details aren't available to us.  Was the kid belligerent?  Who knows.

Were the administrators heavy handed?  Again, we don't know.

Well personally i would argue that if it got to this point regardless of any other detail it's a failure of the administration. it's their job to prevent this kind of thing from getting to this point. The only question is could it have been avoided and did they learn from it - but it kind of feels with the info we do have that they screwed up here.   They are literally the adults in the room but seem to have let this get out of control to the point where a child's education has to be put into jeopardy.

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

    They are literally the adults in the room but seem to have let this get out of control to the point where a child's education has to be put into jeopardy.

Given that the child has been set up with a rights organization and a PR setup, it could well be that they're maximizing publicity here too.

That's fine.  It seems like it's going to a rights test in court.  I think that the kid is Baptist so it's Baptist vs Catholic I suppose.

[CdnFox]

51 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

It takes two sides to compromise. 

Not in this case. This is a case of a child student and adult educators. The educator's job is to guide and ... well, educate. To be the adult, to show more restraint and more flexibility. That's the duty of care an educator has. It can be a hard job but if all you do is demand compromise you're not going to get anywhere with them.

These are children we're talking about. They're not even 18 yet. This is NOT an 'equal' relationship.

The purpose of the teachers is to provide the best education possible and to guide the student's growth. HOW on EARTH can we say they did their job if the end result is the kid is even MORE set in a viewpoint they disagreed with and his future education is in serious jeopardy? That is an utter failure!

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Given that the child has been set up with a rights organization and a PR setup, it could well be that they're maximizing publicity here too.

If you're suggesting the school is benefitting from putting the child at risk then that would make them even more of a monster. I seriously hope you're wrong. 

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

That's fine.  It seems like it's going to a rights test in court.  I think that the kid is Baptist so it's Baptist vs Catholic I suppose.

We'll see how it plays out.

BUt i would still put it to you that any educational situation that has to end up in court to be resolved represents a failure of the school to effectively do it's job.

Edited March 13, 2023 by CdnFox

[Dougie93]

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

  It seems like it's going to a rights test in court. 

 I would expect Section 1 to override Section 2b in this case

limiting speech will be deemed to be "reasonable" to "ensure an orderly learning environment"

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Not in this case. This is a case of a child student and adult educators.  

Maybe.  Or maybe there was a strategy in place.  And if not, you're second guessing the educators goals in this matter.  They may have seen the situation as needing to impart the importance of respect.  We don't know.

[West]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

 I would expect Section 1 to override Section 2b in this case

limiting speech will be deemed to be "reasonable" to "ensure an orderly learning environment"

The right of a trans to not be disagreed with trumps the right of a child to recieve an education... what a time to be alive ?

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. If you're suggesting the school is benefitting from putting the child at risk then that would make them even more of a monster.

2. any educational situation that has to end up in court to be resolved represents a failure of the school to effectively do it's job.

1. No.

2. I disagree.  The Scopes Trial for example.

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Maybe.  Or maybe there was a strategy in place.  And if not, you're second guessing the educators goals in this matter.  They may have seen the situation as needing to impart the importance of respect.  We don't know.

If the strategy was supposed to leave a child without an education and further hatred towards a group then i would argue things are far worse than we thought.

No respect was taught here, you can't encourage respect for one person by showing complete disrespect for another.

The outcome speaks for itself.

[West]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Maybe.  Or maybe there was a strategy in place.  And if not, you're second guessing the educators goals in this matter.  They may have seen the situation as needing to impart the importance of respect.  We don't know.

Educators are there to prepare children for the real world. In the real world not everyone is going to agree with you. 

Absolutely nobody wins with this level of authoritarian bs

Edited March 13, 2023 by West