Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Contrarian said:
  1. One practical solution could be for the school to review and potentially revise their code of conduct or speech policies to ensure that they are not infringing on students' right to free speech.
  2. Another solution could be for the student to work with the school administration to find a compromise or middle ground where his opinions can be expressed without violating the school's policies.
  3. A third solution involving the parents could be for them to have a discussion with their child about the school's code of conduct and the importance of following it, while also respecting their child's right to express their opinions in an appropriate and respectful manner.

1. Although there are aspects of what he did that I think should be allowed, this isn't as simple as them making a change to accommodate rights without impacting the rights/lives of others.  The policy was put in place to align with Ontario Human Rights legislation so it's not a fringe position the board holds.
2. Discussed in my last post and above in the thread.
3. This may have happened already.

Anyway, yeah, the thread has covered it all as far as I can see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Contrarian said:
  1. One practical solution could be for the school to review and potentially revise their code of conduct or speech policies to ensure that they are not infringing on students' right to free speech.
  2. Another solution could be for the student to work with the school administration to find a compromise or middle ground where his opinions can be expressed without violating the school's policies.
  3. A third solution involving the parents could be for them to have a discussion with their child about the school's code of conduct and the importance of following it, while also respecting their child's right to express their opinions in an appropriate and respectful manner.

All very good but completely useless suggestions. It has nothing to do with the actual topic at hand, that the catholic school and most likely board are also come under the influence of neoliberal woke leftards, for lack of a better description.

I say someone should write the pope,,,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, stepping aside from your pathetic need to "win" against me (which you cannot do) is again the observation that the public washroom is a battlefield. 

Solution- Federal government mandats on toilt design. The Cabinet should do a review of all federal statutes and regulations regarding washrooms, and report on the need for private defecation and urination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

I think writing to the Pope is a better activity if you want. Heard lately, not even the Liberals like him, seen a few articles attacking him the other week.

Any practical solutions?

Yes, see my post slightly above. Perhaps you missed some vital information.

Do you have togo for a_piss, behind your tent?

;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

Yes, that's what the Right wants to do to LGBT people. If it happens, it won't be exactly like other genocides through history, but it will be an effort to wipe them out.

You make a lot of assumptions about people.  I don’t know anyone who holds the view that LGBTQ people shouldn’t exist.  There probably are some scary people out there who hold such views, as there are people who hold that perspective about Jews, Muslims, blacks, insert your mariginalized group.  Such people who hold such views are sick.

 I have compassion for anyone who is mistreated because of their religion, colour, sexual orientation, and sexual identity. I have gay friends and I have known trans people and always made them feel comfortable and safe.

That doesn’t mean that I have to agree with someone’s religion or allow them a religious expression that violates my constitutional rights.  Think of a woman’s right to education or to leave the home unaccompanied by a male.  That interpretation of the Koran might fly in a traditionally Muslim theocracy, but it doesn’t fly here because it violates a woman’s constitutionally protected rights.

Similarly, a person can change one’s appearance to a different gender from their biological one, but that pretended gender expression doesn’t give a biological male the right to enter the private spaces designated for biological females, because such female spaces are set aside for the safety and respect of biological females.

On the matter of pronoun use, one must have a choice on their use, because if we compel people to start violating biological and other scientific truth, we lose our standards for justice itself, as justice must be based in reality.  That doesn’t mean that there isn’t an argument for using transgender pronouns to make a trans person feel better, but making someone feel better isn’t always what’s most important, especially if doing so denies reality.  Think of Galileo’s heliocentric evidence about the Earth going around the Sun.

It’s fair and arguably essential to say that reality must guide our action.  It’s the debate between the importance of truth versus ideas about compassion.

Here’s another way to think of it: Would it serve an obese person for a doctor to pretend that person has normal weight? Would it serve a trans person for a doctor to treat that person as though their gender expression is their biological one?   There are treatments for dysphoria beyond just surgery, hormone blockers, etc., but we are told by our own government in Canada to ignore these and to “affirm gender expression” in all cases   It’s a political policy decision that sounds nice on the surface, because people shouldn’t be mistreated.  As a human right, the policy is fraught.

At what point through treatment does one change one’s gender?   It’s highly arguable the that threshold of really changing gender can’t be reached.

What rights should a person who claims a trans identify be afforded? Can the guy who today decides he’s going to dress up as a woman and call himself Shirley enter the women’s change room at the public recreation centre?  I think most people, including many LGBTQ people, would have a problem with that.  We already saw the fallout in women’s elite sports.  The consensus in international governing athletic bodies seems to be to only recognize biological gender for competitions.   There are good reasons for this with respect to women’s rights. Sometimes what looks like justice for some is actually injustice for many.   

 

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

1. Michael, is it covered because you got all the answers that you wanted and your mind is made up already? 

2. Do you know about the parents for sure? and in 1) you see no middle ground?

1. My mind made up about what? 

The school's major decision is whether to follow Ontario HR code or stake out a supportable Catholic objection.  I'm not surprised that they support the former path but it's their decision not mine.  I might not agree with it but either path is supportable.

Most of the rest of this discussion is speculation or worse.

2. No not for sure.  If you were following the discussion between me and Groot you would see I said that there's not enough information to say for sure.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Michael, 2 more so i can complete my list: 

  1. One practical solution could be for the school to review and potentially revise their code of conduct or speech policies to ensure that they are not infringing on students' right to free speech.
  2. Another solution could be for the student to work with the school administration to find a compromise or middle ground where his opinions can be expressed without violating the school's policies.
  3. A third solution involving the parents could be for them to have a discussion with their child about the school's code of conduct and the importance of following it, while also respecting their child's right to express their opinions in an appropriate and respectful manner.
  4. A fourth solution could be for the student and their parents to reach out to outside agencies or organisations that advocate for freedom of speech or religious expression. These groups could provide legal support or guidance on how to navigate the situation with the school and potentially negotiate a compromise ....

Clearly they did number four, although my feeling is that they probably consulted before this whole thing was started. Nothing wrong with that, that's their right but it creates a little bit of a false narrative if this thing was scripted. Don't know if my instincts on this are correct or not.

Not sure what kind of compromise they would have looked for, but I can't imagine one that would have been acceptable to the school board who decided to comply with Ontario human Rights code from the outset.

 

Edited by Michael Hardner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Clearly they did number four, although my feeling is that they probably consulted before this whole thing was started. Nothing wrong with that, that's they're right but it creates a little bit of a false narrative if this thing was scripted. Don't know if my instincts on this are correct or not.

Not sure what kind of compromise they would have looked for, but I can't imagine one that would have been acceptable to the school board who decided to comply with Ontario human Rights code from the outset.

 

I think the human rights code needs to be revisited, as a newly added protection is being used to violate long-established human rights for women and religious expression in a Catholic school in a jurisdictional where Catholic education is constitutionally protected. The school is actually violating Catholic teachings here.  I’m not sure where exactly the ball was dropped in this case, but I think the Ontario Human Rights code itself is problematic. That revision to the code didn’t come from God.  It was drafted by people, probably activists, without a clear, detailed, and open discussion.

 I certainly think the school could’ve headed this off with a one-person use all gender washroom and a discussion with the student who was kicked out about presenting ideas respectfully.  He certainly shouldn’t have been prevented from expressing his views.  Excluding him from school caused more problems. I’m surprised at how mismanaged this was.

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Yes, but you don't trust the government or this society based on your posts.

Well, you do trust them maybe when that welfare cheque comes and you can be Hulk over the internet, talking about tents to others, I highly doubt you even had a mortgage.

But hey, sugar is coming to an end. 

Look, @Michael Hardner has a point. 

If I focus on the trolls (you), nothing gets done. As soon as I stopped engaging with your lack of value information, then 3 ideas came in mind and I am waiting for Michael's response.

That is debate.

I trust them for that. To be experts on making poo poo in the toilet... that should be there duty from now on.
Then all washroom problems solved, and we can move on. Yes?

You really are a simple minded little goon, hey? I know...   ;)
Got you there, buddy. This is not even chess. It's full contact, on the ice... down low... clean body check into the boards.
Welcome to Canada, by the way,,,

....

My jokes are too intellectual for you people. I am waiting for those who are wise and courageous enough to stand with me, against the lies of cultural-marxist tent city makers that have captured all your attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. I think the human rights code needs to be revisited, as a newly added protection is being used to violate long-established human rights for women ....

2. ... and religious expression in a Catholic school in a jurisdictional where Catholic education is constitutionally protected.

3. The school is actually violating Catholic teachings here.  

4. I’m not sure where exactly the ball was dropped in this case, but the think the human rights code itself is problematic.  

5. I certainly think the school could’ve headed this off with a one-person use all gender washroom ...

6 ... and a discussion with the student who was kicked out about presenting ideas respectfully.  

7. He certainly shouldn’t have been prevented from expressing his views.  

8. Excluding him from school caused more problems. I’m surprised at how mismanaged this was.

1.  How ?  Here's the code.  Bathroom access ?  I think the current accommodation in the HR code makes the most sense myself.  And as you acknowledge, any public school issue is subordinate to the provincial issue which is subordinate to the federal one also.

https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-preventing-discrimination-because-gender-identity-and-gender-expression

2. The Ontario HR code has nothing to do with what a religious school might choose to do, except that it would be challenged in a supreme court case eventually, in all likelihood.  We already covered that above, implicitly, so nothing new here.

3. I strongly disagree as do many Catholics and even the Catholic establishment isn't clearly taking a strong stance on this.

4. "The ball dropped" is a weird way to look at a moral position that you don't agree with.  It's not a mistake - they made a decision, fully informed, and you disagree. 

5. Assuming they have the facilities, also assuming they're not in the process of doing that and the current policy is an interim step etc. etc.

6. They clearly discussed it with him.

7. I disagree.  The right for a student to be respected as an individual comes into conflict with the right to express an opinion.  The behaviour code covers which one has precedent, simple.

8.  Ok but you also think that human rights policy that you don't agree with is a mistake like 1+1=5.  It *may* have been mismanaged in terms of whether the school reacted in a Draconian way - I could see it happening.  But we don't know the details enough to say.

I don't think anything new came out of this post either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  How ?  Here's the code.  Bathroom access ?  I think the current accommodation in the HR code makes the most sense myself.  And as you acknowledge, any public school issue is subordinate to the provincial issue which is subordinate to the federal one also.

https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-preventing-discrimination-because-gender-identity-and-gender-expression

2. The Ontario HR code has nothing to do with what a religious school might choose to do, except that it would be challenged in a supreme court case eventually, in all likelihood.  We already covered that above, implicitly, so nothing new here.

3. I strongly disagree as do many Catholics and even the Catholic establishment isn't clearly taking a strong stance on this.

4. "The ball dropped" is a weird way to look at a moral position that you don't agree with.  It's not a mistake - they made a decision, fully informed, and you disagree. 

5. Assuming they have the facilities, also assuming they're not in the process of doing that and the current policy is an interim step etc. etc.

6. They clearly discussed it with him.

7. I disagree.  The right for a student to be respected as an individual comes into conflict with the right to express an opinion.  The behaviour code covers which one has precedent, simple.

8.  Ok but you also think that human rights policy that you don't agree with is a mistake like 1+1=5.  It *may* have been mismanaged in terms of whether the school reacted in a Draconian way - I could see it happening.  But we don't know the details enough to say.

I don't think anything new came out of this post either.

I think your views on this are grossly irresponsible and demonstrate a lazy amorality.  I don’t think your views are Christian or even humanitarian, because you take a lackadaisical stance towards the very real concerns about free speech, religious expression, and women’s rights. You either don’t understand or don’t recognize the historical and constitutionally protected right to Catholic education in Ontario. You don’t question what’s been handed down or decided with any rigour.  It makes me think you’re just a yes person, even about important issues.  Michael, your unquestioning compliance exemplifies why these kinds of absurd injustices are proliferating. Express some morality or don’t claim to have any.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. I think your views on this are grossly irresponsible and demonstrate a lazy amorality.  
 
2. I don’t think your views are Christian or even humanitarian, because you take a lackadaisical stance towards the very real concerns about free speech, religious expression, and women’s rights.

3. You either don’t understand or don’t recognize the historical and constitutionally protected right to Catholic education in Ontario.

4.  Michael, your unquestioning compliance exemplifies why these kinds of absurd injustices are proliferating.

5. Express some morality or don’t claim to have any.  

1. 2. I think you are a lazy thinker.  I am mostly supporting the process of responsible policy making and public engagement here.  I suspect you are jumping to conclusions on my views on these things.  I support the right of the school to make policy either way on this as I have said.

3. I don't know how you can say this based on my post.
 
4. I believe in our balanced system of judicial and democratic public engagement.  If I were to jump to conclusions as I think you do, I would suggest that you think the system sucks when your side doesn't get its way.

5. I have limited faith in the morality of the public sphere, that's my answer.  I am morally offended by people who overstate their claims, refuse to listen and lie to get their way - and I'm not saying this is you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Contrarian said:
  • One possible compromise could have been for the school to allow the student to express his opinion in a designated area or during a specific time period, as long as it did not interfere with school activities.

This strikes me as nonsensical, and also unlikely to get agreement from the student.

I would suggest instead "you're allowed to express your opinions off campus or quote scripture to support your position in pertinent in-class discussion"

Edited by Michael Hardner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Read them and e-mail the Pope, yes, i know that was a joke.?

No it was not. That's why I know you are probably a mentally low-intellectual, bred from a Slavic ghetto. Or... was it the Roma?,,, because that could explain things.

I am just a poor Canadian boy brought up in the golden age of this country. You guys were still genuflecting before the USSR. As in bending over. Point is this country made me who I am. So who the hell you?

My superior education taught me to tolerate people like you.

But today, we have the influential "Me" generation running things, coming from culture that is obsessed with itself. They simply cannot understand how anyone could be different then they are. It's a form of imperialism that brings the approved culture to overwhelm other localized or remote cultures.

These people are gone mad. And you, my friend, are duped into believing them. Not because their argument is good or even based on historical facts, no.

But because you are a no good,

worthless,

and drunken ,

bum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, eyeball said:

But no surprise given how many are right next to the bedroom. I agree we'll probably need more of them before this battle ever settles down.

Yes, perhaps you should form a citizen's coalition and gather signatures and such, to petition the government to take action. Start a revolution in toiletries. I know how you always wanted to be an activist!   ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

 

But today, we have the influential "Me" generation running things, coming from culture that is obsessed with itself. They simply cannot understand how anyone could be different then they are. It's a form of imperialism that brings the approved culture to overwhelm other localized or remote cultures.

 

Not really following the mud fight but I saw that and immediately agreed.

I remember people arguing that same sex marriage contravened their right to marriage.

You don't have a right to deny things that you don't like because you don't like them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Yes, perhaps you should form a citizen's coalition and gather signatures and such, to petition the government to take action. Start a revolution in toiletries. I know how you always wanted to be an activist!   ;)

Not about this. There are far more important things going on that need action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Not really following the mud fight but I saw that and immediately agreed.

I remember people arguing that same sex marriage contravened their right to marriage.

You don't have a right to deny things that you don't like because you don't like them.

What equivocation.  So if someone doesn’t like murder, too bad, you don’t get to deny things simply because you don’t like them.

Weak.  You give a pass to all that is handed down without deep critical thinking.  You equate all positions in a kind of moral relativism leading to moral resignation.

 I need to stop reading and responding because of the total abandonment of reasonableness.

This is why people who were always centre left shift to centre right, because of the clear lack of fairness and morality due to pandering and moral cowardice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. What equivocation.  So if someone doesn’t like murder, too bad, you don’t get to deny things simply because you don’t like them.

2. You give a pass to all that is handed down without deep critical thinking.  

3. You equate all positions in a kind of moral relativism leading to moral resignation.

 

1. There may be other reasons to disallow murder other than people not liking it.

2. Then critique it.  I am defending our system as a way to resolve moral quandaries.  Last post, you accused me of not accommodating religious rights.  

3. I think that the Christian philosophy addresses that question quite well.  I adhere to it.  Just because my morality doesn't agree with yours, doesn't mean I'm amoral.  That's both shallow and arrogant.

I'm on my phone so I can't check, but did you actually not respond to any of the points I made last post?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

He might not know what fascism is or identify as a fascist, but he pretty much exclusively agrees with and runs defense for fascist politics. For me, that's enough. If a person's politics are fascist, they don't need to actually use the word.

I highly doubt your ability to judge what is or is not a 'fascist' policy.

17 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

First of all, if you unironically say "woke," you're automatically wrong.

Secondly, Tim Pool ONLY criticizes both the Left and the Democrats. When it comes to the fascism of the Republicans, he downplays it. It's the "Ukraine and Russia are both bad" strategy.

Good for him but the comment you're replying to was about Bill Maher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Zeitgeist here are my thoughts from my last post again.  You can call me shallow and amoral, or immoral I guess... or you can respond.

1. I am mostly supporting the process of responsible policy making and public engagement here. ... I support the right of the school to make policy either way on this as I have said.

2. I believe in our balanced system of judicial and democratic public engagement.  

3. I have limited faith in the morality of the public sphere.

4. I am morally offended by people who overstate their claims, refuse to listen and lie to get their way - and I'm not saying this is you.

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.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...