Poilievre tells Trudeau to 'butt out' of New Brunswick's policy on LGBTQ students

[CdnFox]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-new-brunswick-lgbtq-students-1.6889770

Poilievre tells Trudeau to 'butt out' of New Brunswick's policy on LGBTQ students

"I know that Justin Trudeau has butted into that. The prime minister has no business in decisions that should rest with provinces and parents," he said.

"So my message to Justin Trudeau is, 'Butt out and let provinces run schools and let parents raise kids.'"

 

And that would be the correct answer.  Harper won a lot of support for his policy of respecting the provinces powers and even adding to them. That plays well in quebec, western Canada, and parts of ontario. PP respecting the powers of the provinces is a good thing.

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Contrarian said:

? Let Parents Raise Kids @Michael Hardner, what do you think?!

They say that, but won't let you change your kid's pronouns.

[Perspektiv]

I just hate that the politicians are dividing people vs uniting, based on this cause.

Trudeau is opportunistic. Public servants strike, and he feels he needs to stay out of it, as is not his jurisdiction. They have the right to have a voice.

LGBTQ cause, and he is front and center, fighting for their cause.

Ukraine? He literally becomes a megaphone. 

Truckers convoy. They're terrorists, and need to be crushed for their dissenting views that aren't my own.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

They say that, but won't let you change your kid's pronouns.

Sure they will.  They just won't let your kid do it without telling you till your 16 because they have this crazy notion that parents should be aware of their kids health issues.  Pffft - so transphobic.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

I just hate that the politicians are dividing people vs uniting, based on this cause.

Trudeau is opportunistic. Public servants strike, and he feels he needs to stay out of it, as is not his jurisdiction. They have the right to have a voice.

LGBTQ cause, and he is front and center, fighting for their cause.

Ukraine? He literally becomes a megaphone. 

Truckers convoy. They're terrorists, and need to be crushed for their dissenting views that aren't my own.

It has been a very popular technique for controlling populations going back to before the time of the romans.

As i've said here before i believe,  fear and anger are two of the most powerful ways to get people all moving in one direction. If you can make people afraid or angry you can very easily direct that and control their every move, and they will let you get away with crap they never would have normally.

That's why every left wing authoritarian loves a good crisis - "never let a crisis go to waste".  Covid was a blessing for those types. you could spend any money, restrict people however you liked, trample rights and punish those who were your opponents with relative impunity.

This is just one more crisis for them to exploit.  He sees people divided so he lunges in to divide them more and turn people against each other.  He did it with covid, he's done it with guns, he's done it with east vs west, he's done it with rich vs poor, urban vs rural, christians vs first nations, abortion vs prolife, and of course he's done it before with the alphabet mafia and trans people and he's doing it again. But i think he'll find out people are kind of fed up with that.

[eyeball]

This is guaranteed to end up in court which will eventually set the age at which kids have a right to privacy and I'm betting it will be 13 or 14.  Words matter but they're not a health issue and only an arsehole would try to argue otherwise.

As I pointed out earlier arseholes are why so many conservative vs progressive issues are usually settled in court these days.

Edited June 28, 2023 by eyeball

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

This is guaranteed to end up in court which will eventually set the age at which kids have a right to privacy and I'm betting it will be 13 or 14.  Words matter but they're not a health issue and only an arsehole would try to argue otherwise.

I'm not sure it'll play out along those lines - it may play out that because a parent does have the legal requirement to provide for their children it could be argued they cannot possibly do that if information regarding the child's health is being kept from them. Therefore this is a duty under the law.

I don't KNOW that's how it'll go of course - the people filing the lawsuits determine what their argument will be and the court only considers those.  So you may be right.  But i just feel that "privacy" is a weak argument for both sides, and one side will come at it from a 'trans rights' point of view claiming children have the right to their sexuality and to feel safe and the other side will likely rely on the existing laws requiring parents to provide and the more generally acccepted parental right to raise their kid.  A ruling that assumes ALL parents are inherently abusive is going to be tough to get.

[eyeball]

29 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I'm not sure it'll play out along those lines - it may play out that because a parent does have the legal requirement to provide for their children it could be argued they cannot possibly do that if information regarding the child's health is being kept from them. Therefore this is a duty under the law.

It'll play out this way because politicians are either too afraid and or incompetent to deal with it.  There will be a duty under the law but it will be the courts that determine what that is.  And I bet it will not treat this is a health issue but as an issue of privacy.

Edited June 28, 2023 by eyeball

[eyeball]

The upside of all this sexual education/grooming malarkey that deplorable conservatives are trying to stir up with their moral panic is that it only forces more progressive changes.  Things never get dialled back in this process. Sure it's always three steps forward and two back but at the end of the day the future remains ahead of us.

Shouldn't be too long now until deplorablism forces our courts to tackle and start setting climate change policy.

https://www.osler.com/en/resources/regulations/2019/climate-change-litigation-arrives-in-canada 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40041387

Good job cons, keep up the good work at forcing someone to finally take charge.

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It'll play out this way because politicians are either too afraid and or incompetent to deal with it.  There will be a duty under the law but it will be the courts that determine what that is.  And I bet it will not treat this is a health issue but as an issue of privacy.

Well the courts don't get to decide how to treat it - they just respond to the arguments made.  The court can't say "well i've heard both of your arguments but i'm going to ignore those and present my own completely different issue"

So it will depend on what the litigants alleged and what their arguments are. Privacy could be one of their issues - no law that says they can't come at it from several directions after all.

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The upside of all this sexual education/grooming malarkey that deplorable conservatives are trying to stir up with their moral panic is that it only forces more progressive changes.  Things never get dialled back in this process.

Nope.  History is replete with examples.  "progressive" ideologies go up for a time, then go down for a time. That "time" can span 50 - 150 years but it's the way it is. France, Brittan. Rome, italy,  germany, china, tonnes of other examples.

And sometimes groups go too far. And then things go the other way.

We're never going to see gays back to the way they were in the 60's because everyone's fine with gays, but we will see their support dip and less and less support for things like flying gay pride flags.  The transgenders - that's not progressive at all. Those are people with a mental illness and while we can be sympathetic to their illness and attempt to accommodate it till the day there's a treatment, i think people are already sick of  their crap.

You can't go waiving your penis in front of children and expect parents to be ok with it.

[eyeball]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Nope.  History is replete with examples.  "progressive" ideologies go up for a time, then go down for a time. That "time" can span 50 - 150 years but it's the way it is. France, Brittan. Rome, italy,  germany, china, tonnes of other examples.

And sometimes groups go too far. And then things go the other way.

Occasionally but at the rate of two steps back for every three forward....you do the math.

[CdnFox]

Just now, eyeball said:

Occasionally but at the rate of two steps back for every three forward....you do the math.

But it isn't. It's generally about 4 steps forward and then 4 steps back all of a sudden    Do THAT math.

There is a general trend for societies to be less and less bound by social restrictions over time until eventually they either collapse or reset.  You see it in big swings and little ones.  And really there isn't a nation which doesn't have that cycle given time.

Some things stick because they make sense to all sides and really always did - there's no chance we're going back to slavery and there's no chance we'll ever make it illegal to be gay. They don't make sense in the long run.  But there's a LOT of 'progressve' thinking that gets rolled back and it's usually once people get sick of it, then it happens pretty quick.

Take for example trudeau's "progressive" bail law - bet that doesn't last.  Parents will win back their rights to raise their kids, one way or another.  Companies are already steering away from openly throwing their support behind gays and trans.

Etc etc etc.

People are fairly elastic and you can stretch them and their beliefs a long ways - but stretch too far and that elastic breaks and SNAP! Things change

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

But it isn't. It's generally about 4 steps forward and then 4 steps back all of a sudden    Do THAT math.

We could argue this till the cows come home but I think this particular issue will cause courts to rule that beyond a certain age kids will have a right to privacy that must be respected.

[CdnFox]

14 minutes ago, eyeball said:

We could argue this till the cows come home but I think this particular issue will cause courts to rule that beyond a certain age kids will have a right to privacy that must be respected.

Well time will tell. I think if it does and it claims that parents don't have the right to know what's going on with their kids we'll see a pretty major backlash.

[Perspektiv]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Covid was a blessing for those types.

Danger is you keep pushing, and slowly but surely the population will trust you and your institutions less, and empathy will turn warm hearts cold and apathetic.

[CdnFox]

29 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Danger is you keep pushing, and slowly but surely the population will trust you and your institutions less, and empathy will turn warm hearts cold and apathetic.

Sure but you're probably out of office and making millions on speaking tours by that point.

[Army Guy]

26 minutes ago, eyeball said:

We could argue this till the cows come home but I think this particular issue will cause courts to rule that beyond a certain age kids will have a right to privacy that must be respected.

Why would anyone of sound mind think it would be a good idea to keep your Child's information away from the parents? The excuse that many are using is it may be dangerous for the child... What a bullshit excuse... most 99.9 % of parents are not going to resort to violence on this issue, and if they were there would have already been signs of a violent household...this is an excuse that is being used because there is NO real excuse to keep parents out of the loop.

I agree that the news is not going to be easy to accept in most homes, that's what conversations are for. 

There are already laws established for children's protection and rights, it lays out the child's responsibilities and the parents... Thinking that a child of 12 or 13 can make a sound and informed decision is just loopy....it is why we have laws to protect our children. If your child keeps information from you, then there is something wrong with your relationship with your child...and they don't trust you enough to share that... think about this for a minute they trust a complete stranger their teacher more than mom and dad, wtf...But 99 % of the time I'm sure it that conversation would happen it would NOT end up in violence... 

Making laws stating that a child can have complete privacy at whatever age is not the solution... Do you keep information from your wife or vice versa, ... Why would you want your child to keep something from you...

 

[WestCanMan]

5 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

I just hate that the politicians are dividing people vs uniting, based on this cause.

I just hate that that's the case with every cause/topic under the sun.

I'd love to see a political leader say "That's a good idea, but we'd also do this", or "we'd do it this way" instead of "THAT'S ___________!!!".

I'm not saying that PCs and the GOP are never guilty of this, but a perfect example was when Trump banned non-Americans from flying in from China and it was "RACIST!!!! SOOOOO RACIST I WANNA DIIIIEEE!" but then when "Delta threw us a curve" and was theoretically pouring in from India, and Trudeau banned non-Canadians from flying in from there, it was suddenly "a solid, science-based decision by a caring leader" and no one even whispered the word racism. 

Politics is gross and getting worse all the time. 

[TreeBeard]

31 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Why would anyone of sound mind think it would be a good idea to keep your Child's information away from the parents?

Because the chance of abuse is very real.  Why would anyone of sound mind think they should put a child in danger?

[Perspektiv]

14 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Politics is gross

I agree. My wife wanted to become a politician. We both are politically affiliated, regarding our families. I am unfortunately well represented in politics in the US, and Haiti, and her in the Philippines, in both being related to high ranking officials.

But just getting a first hand glimpse of the pressures within this environment, and how vitriolic that the hit pieces against an opponent could get, when she told me she was considering a run when we eventually choose to move back to the Philippines, I couldn't help but blurt: "Sure, let me know when, and I'll schedule the divorce". 

At least she has a sense of humor, but if only she knew how serious that statement was o_O

[herbie]

I think PP should take his own advice.

For a guy who won't get a security clearance and demands to know security matters, to knowing better than all of Corrections Canada and blurts out personal opinion, to now telling others to STFU on issues that aren't his concern that might possibly be theirs.

Useless twat with a big mouth.

[WestCanMan]

19 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

But just getting a first hand glimpse of the pressures within this environment, and how vitriolic that the hit pieces against an opponent could get,

I've even heard musicians and actors say the same thing. Once you become famous there are people who will just lie about you on social media and in print for whatever reason, and others who cheer for you to fail.

[eyeball]

52 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Why would you want your child to keep something from you...

I wouldn't. I'd rather let them learn to trust that they can talk about anything they like by letting them know I trust them with the right to their privacy. I think this would help instill a better sense of responsibility.

[CdnFox]

23 minutes ago, herbie said:

I think PP should take his own advice.

Uhhh - he did.  He literally left it to the province and parents and didn't comment on if the law was good or not.

 

Quote

For a guy who won't get a security clearance and demands to know security matters, to knowing better than all of Corrections Canada and blurts out personal opinion, to now telling others to STFU on issues that aren't his concern that might possibly be theirs.

I realize you didn't have much of an education but in Canada we have what's called a FEDERAL gov't and a PROVINCIAL gov't .  You're talking about him being involved in FEDERAL issues.  He's SUPPOSED to be involved in FEDERAL issues.

I'll see if Dr Seuss has put out any books explaining the difference for you.