# Idiotic Canadian Court Makes Idiotic Decision



## Toro

A court reverses a parent's grounding of his 12 year-old daughter.

globeandmail.com: Father doesn't know best, court rules in girl's fight to get grounding overruled


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Toro said:


> A court reverses a parent's grounding of his 12 year-old daughter.
> 
> globeandmail.com: Father doesn't know best, court rules in girl's fight to get grounding overruled



And the Liberals want US to emulate them.


----------



## Diuretic

On the face of it, dumb decision, should be overruled on appeal.


----------



## BrianH

This is


----------



## dread

This isnt the only idiodic decision that Canadian judges have made as of late...Most recently they are going for a communist run state where they take care of your kids AND tell you what you can preach and what you can say.


----------



## Toro

dread said:


> Most recently they are going for a communist run state where they take care of your kids AND tell you what you can preach and what you can say.



No they're not.  Don't be silly.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Toro said:


> No they're not.  Don't be silly.



No Orwell comes to mind though.


----------



## My Winter Storm

Parents are losing control over their children, and this ruling doesn't help. Children seem to have more rights than their parents nowadays, and it's about time parents stood up and took a stand against this crap.
I mean, I'm not for spanking, but if that is the way a parent chooses to disipline their child, they can do so.
Now a bratty 12 year old has more control over her parents than they do over here. What is the world coming to?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

My Winter Storm said:


> Parents are losing control over their children, and this ruling doesn't help. Children seem to have more rights than their parents nowadays, and it's about time parents stood up and took a stand against this crap.
> I mean, I'm not for spanking, but if that is the way a parent chooses to disipline their child, they can do so.
> Now a bratty 12 year old has more control over her parents than they do over here. What is the world coming to?



In the US we have an entire Unconstitutional court system for that. A system where the rules and edicts of the Constitution do not apply at all. A system where if you make a public complaint about said court system they can and will punish you for it "legally".


----------



## dread

Toro said:


> No they're not.  Don't be silly.




You are joking...Right?


http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...government-to-pastor-renounce-your-faith.html


----------



## cbi0090

My Winter Storm said:


> Parents are losing control over their children, and this ruling doesn't help. Children seem to have more rights than their parents nowadays, and it's about time parents stood up and took a stand against this crap.
> I mean, I'm not for spanking, but if that is the way a parent chooses to disipline their child, they can do so.
> Now a bratty 12 year old has more control over her parents than they do over here. What is the world coming to?



I spanked one of my daughters once.  She was about 4 and had gotten out of her car seat (they never invented one that could hold her) in the back seat of the car and leapt for the door handle with the intent of jumping out while I was going 65 mph down the interstate.  I caught the whole incident out of the corner of my eye.  After putting the car into a sideways spin to throw her away from the door, sliding into the shoulder throwing cubic yards of dirt and sod in every direction and bringing the highway to a screeching halt I got out, pulled her out of the back and spanked her in front of God and everyone on the highway.  I don't think a single soul on the road was objecting to my actions and she never got out of her car seat again.  There are certain lessons that require a forceful response to make an impression that will never go away and leaves no doubt as to its intent.


----------



## Toro

dread said:


> You are joking...Right?
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...government-to-pastor-renounce-your-faith.html



No, that's not "communist."  Communism is a socioeconomic political system where the productive assets of the country are owned by the state.  As much as I disagree with the Human Rights Council ruling - as I often do - this is not evidence of a communist government.

Extremist rhetoric does not help your argument.


----------



## BrianH

cbi0090 said:


> I spanked one of my daughters once.  She was about 4 and had gotten out of her car seat (they never invented one that could hold her) in the back seat of the car and leapt for the door handle with the intent of jumping out while I was going 65 mph down the interstate.  I caught the whole incident out of the corner of my eye.  After putting the car into a sideways spin to throw her away from the door, sliding into the shoulder throwing cubic yards of dirt and sod in every direction and bringing the highway to a screeching halt I got out, pulled her out of the back and spanked her in front of God and everyone on the highway.  I don't think a single soul on the road was objecting to my actions and she never got out of her car seat again.  There are certain lessons that require a forceful response to make an impression that will never go away and leaves no doubt as to its intent.



Exactly....


----------



## dread

Toro said:


> No, that's not "communist."  Communism is a socioeconomic political system where the productive assets of the country are owned by the state.  As much as I disagree with the Human Rights Council ruling - as I often do - this is not evidence of a communist government.
> 
> Extremist rhetoric does not help your argument.




Wow! I never knew communism allowed for free speech and freedom of religion.


----------



## Diuretic

dread said:


> Wow! I never knew communism allowed for free speech and freedom of religion.



As Toro pointed out, an economic system doesn't care about free speech or freedom of religion, it's an economic system.  The folks who run the country make the decisions about human rights.  It doesn't follow that communism=totalitarianism.


----------



## Toro

dread said:


> Wow! I never knew communism allowed for free speech and freedom of religion.



Courts, interpreting the constitution, don't allow the 10 Commandments posted inside government buildings, which is a restriction on free speech and religion.

I guess the US is a communist country then.


----------



## dread

Toro said:


> Courts, interpreting the constitution, don't allow the 10 Commandments posted inside government buildings, which is a restriction on free speech and religion.
> 
> I guess the US is a communist country then.




HUGE difference between what goes on inside a government (taxpayer paid) building and what an INDIVIDUAL says out in public. To ORDER someone to renounce their faith???????

And....YOU KNOW THAT!


----------



## Swamp Fox

Toro said:


> Courts, interpreting the constitution, don't allow the 10 Commandments posted inside government buildings, which is a restriction on free speech and religion.
> 
> I guess the US is a communist country then.



Last time I checked it still says "In God We Trust" on all of our currency.  And NOWHERE in the US Constitution are the words "seperation of church and state."  That phrase comes from our "beloved" Supreme Court in some of their more assine decisions.


----------



## Toro

Swamp Fox said:


> Last time I checked it still says "In God We Trust" on all of our currency.  And NOWHERE in the US Constitution are the words "seperation of church and state."  That phrase comes from our "beloved" Supreme Court in some of their more assine decisions.



Well, in Canada, the national anthem references God, so what is your point?  There is no law, nor has there ever been any interpretation of the Canadian constitution which proclaims a separation between church and state, as there is in America.  You can put up the 10 Commandments in a Canadian court house if you want.

Thus, by this standard, America is more "communist" than Canada.

But can't you see how stupid this line of reasoning is?  What you are saying is that a place is becoming communist because someone's religious practices are being restricted.  Religious practices are being restricted all the time in all countries.  There is no absolute right to practice religion in any way one sees fit in America.  And this does not make America "communist."

I have no use for the Human Rights Commissions in Canada, but to say that their rulings are evidence of "communism" merely reflects one's ignorance and lack of understanding of what communism is about.


----------



## Toro

dread said:


> HUGE difference between what goes on inside a government (taxpayer paid) building and what an INDIVIDUAL says out in public. To ORDER someone to renounce their faith???????
> 
> And....YOU KNOW THAT!



I "know that?"

Well, what I do know is that the headline you posted is misleading

Government to pastor: Renounce your faith!

and I'm pretty sure you didn't read the link from the Alberta HRC here

http://albertahumanrights.ab.ca/Lund_Darren_Remedy053008.pdf

Because this is what the ruling said.  



> That Mr. Boissoin and the Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. be formally disallowed to *publish* discriminatory letters in newspapers by email, on the radio, in public speeches and on the internet in the future. Further, that they be *prohibited from making disparaging remarks* in the future against the complainant or any of the complainants witnesses relating to their involvement in the complaint.



I've highlighted the important parts.

Nowhere does it say the guy has to "renounce" his faith.  What it says is that he is not allowed to promote homophobia in print or in speeches.

It also says



> The Panel also agrees with the submissions of Mr. Boissoin when he states that this is not a criminal case. It would be inappropriate to punish Mr. Boissoin for his actions and I find that the purpose of the remedy in this case, is not to punish but rather to attempt as far as possible, to ameliorate the effects of the discrimination insofar as is possible and to denunciate the actions which were the subject of the complaint with a view to educate and hopefully prevent actions of this nature in future.



It says absolutely nothing about him having to change his beliefs.

Now, I have not heard him speak. I have no idea if what he said was hateful or not, though I often think the HRCs are wrong in their decisions.  However, based on the facts above, your conclusions based on the case about the guy having to renounce anything, or anything to do with communism is simply wrong.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Toro said:


> Well, in Canada, the national anthem references God, so what is your point?  There is no law, nor has there ever been any interpretation of the Canadian constitution which proclaims a separation between church and state, as there is in America.  You can put up the 10 Commandments in a Canadian court house if you want.
> 
> Thus, by this standard, America is more "communist" than Canada.
> 
> But can't you see how stupid this line of reasoning is?  What you are saying is that a place is becoming communist because someone's religious practices are being restricted.  Religious practices are being restricted all the time in all countries.  There is no absolute right to practice religion in any way one sees fit in America.  And this does not make America "communist."
> 
> I have no use for the Human Rights Commissions in Canada, but to say that their rulings are evidence of "communism" merely reflects one's ignorance and lack of understanding of what communism is about.



Hog wash. The Canadian system is ordering a main stream Christian religious figure to cease practicing his religion. That is ignorant and tyranical. A sight different then some court ordering some murderous vampire worshipper from not slaughtering people for his "religion"

Go ahead keep justifying the actions of Canada, it just shows how ignorant you are on the subject.


----------



## Toro

RetiredGySgt said:


> Hog wash. The Canadian system is ordering a main stream Christian religious figure to cease practicing his religion. That is ignorant and tyranical. A sight different then some court ordering some murderous vampire worshipper from not slaughtering people for his "religion"
> 
> Go ahead keep justifying the actions of Canada, it just shows how ignorant you are on the subject.



First, it wasn't "Canada."  It was a provincial human rights council.  BIG BIG difference.  So, perhaps before you go about proclaiming the ignorance of others, you first understand the difference between "Canada" and a province.  

Second, anyone who thinks Canada is becoming "communist" probably has never been to Canada, and may not even know what side of the border Canada is on.  

Besides, this is not an argument about whether or not the guy should be able to preach.  Its about the nature of communism, which is what was said earlier.  Why is this so hard to understand?


----------



## Diuretic

RetiredGySgt said:


> Hog wash. The Canadian system is ordering a main stream Christian religious figure to cease practicing his religion. That is ignorant and tyranical. A sight different then some court ordering some murderous vampire worshipper from not slaughtering people for his "religion"
> 
> Go ahead keep justifying the actions of Canada, it just shows how ignorant you are on the subject.



Bullshit, all of it, utter and total hyperbole and inaccurate to boot.  

No-one has been ordered to stop practising their religion.  Absolute bullshit and a complete misrepresentation.  The facts are there but you continue to make assertions to the contrary.  You need to get a job with Fox


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Diuretic said:


> As Toro pointed out, an economic system doesn't care about free speech or freedom of religion, it's an economic system.  The folks who run the country make the decisions about human rights.  It doesn't follow that communism=totalitarianism.



So this never happened?

Government to pastor: Renounce your faith!


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Diuretic said:


> Bullshit, all of it, utter and total hyperbole and inaccurate to boot.
> 
> No-one has been ordered to stop practising their religion.  Absolute bullshit and a complete misrepresentation.  The facts are there but you continue to make assertions to the contrary.  You need to get a job with Fox



I repeat, this did not happen?

Government to pastor: Renounce your faith!


----------



## BrianH

Communism is not a political structure or government.  It is a socioeconomic system.  Hence why a country can be Communist-Dictatorship.  It would be fairly close to say that Free Market Capitalism is a political structure.  You can have Democratic-Communist nation.  Communist is an economic system, not a political one.  However, communist nations do seem to have more of a tendency to evolve into dicatorships or can be totalitarian.  I could be wrong, but I believe Russia is now a Democratic-Federation...but is their economy still communist?  (I need help on that one).

The problem, is people still compare Democracy with Communism, as if they are the same type of bird.


----------



## Diuretic

RetiredGySgt said:


> I repeat, this did not happen?
> 
> Government to pastor: Renounce your faith!





> "Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by e-mail, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals. Further, they shall not and are prohibited from making disparaging remarks in the future about &#8230; Lund or &#8230; Lund's witnesses relating to their involvement in this complaint. Further, all disparaging remarks versus homosexuals are directed to be removed from current Web sites and publications of Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc.," the lawyer opined.



Nowhere is that ordering someone to cease practising their religion, unless his religious practice involves spreading hatred.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Diuretic said:


> Nowhere is that ordering someone to cease practising their religion, unless his religious practice involves spreading hatred.



Wrong again. I suggest you learn how and why religion works, especially Christian religion. If I can be ordered to not write about my disgust with something to an OP ED section of a news paper, why have the op ed? Christians are instructed to spread the word and to educate. 

He has been ordered to stop practicing his religion, that is not only censorship that is invasion of HIS rights. But then we have been reminded again that the English system ( which Canada uses) has no protections for its subjects. The Government is free to do what ever they wish and the only recourse the citizenry has is to elected a large enough majority of people that disagree to change the offending law or policy.

He has been told how to think and how to express himself, he has been ordered to stop practicing his religion and to cease informing others of its tenants and beliefs. And that you are fine with that tells us tons about your mind set.


----------



## Diuretic

When he is told he can't hold a service or preach to his congregation then I'll be happy to be up in arms.  He hasn't been.  He has been told to cut the hate speech.  It would be the same for a Muslim Imam who tried this crap and was told cut the hate speech.  By all means keep worshipping but cut the hate speech.

There, that wasn't so bad was it?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Diuretic said:


> When he is told he can't hold a service or preach to his congregation then I'll be happy to be up in arms.  He hasn't been.  He has been told to cut the hate speech.  It would be the same for a Muslim Imam who tried this crap and was told cut the hate speech.  By all means keep worshipping but cut the hate speech.
> 
> There, that wasn't so bad was it?



Yup sure thing and all the idiot that made the claim has to do is attend his services and lodge the EXACT same complaint. But hey no problem, you do not mind being a subject so more power to your powerless self.

We have retards in this country that want the same thing.


----------



## Chris

Toro said:


> A court reverses a parent's grounding of his 12 year-old daughter.
> 
> globeandmail.com: Father doesn't know best, court rules in girl's fight to get grounding overruled



The Canadians are kicking our ass thanks to George Bush.

The Canadian dollar is now worth the same as ours, and Toyota just located a plant in Canada because they have national health insurance, and thus lower expenses for big companies.


----------



## politicsezine

I think this is fundamentally just an argument between a teenager against over protective parents. Parents need to learn to "chill out" more often. The father in this case was being unreasonable and the daughter decided that she felt strongly enough that she was going to take him to court over it.


----------



## dread

If something happened to that girl you wouldnt being saying that. Then you would be screaming at the top of your lungs that the father didnt do enough and that he should be hung by his toenails.

Cant have it both ways toots!


----------



## RetiredGySgt

politicsezine said:


> I think this is fundamentally just an argument between a teenager against over protective parents. Parents need to learn to "chill out" more often. The father in this case was being unreasonable and the daughter decided that she felt strongly enough that she was going to take him to court over it.



It is not a matter for the Government or courts to be involved in. That you think it is, is part of the problem. This should never have gotten close to a judge, it should have been thrown out at the first point it entered the system.


----------



## politicsezine

dread said:


> If something happened to that girl you wouldnt being saying that. Then you would be screaming at the top of your lungs that the father didnt do enough and that he should be hung by his toenails.
> 
> Cant have it both ways toots!



She posted photos of herself on a dating website...? What was going to happen to her beyond the chance of meeting some guy who might not call her again after the first date?

Seriously.

People are way too paranoid about rapists/etc on the internet when it comes to their teenagers. The Paul Bernardos of the world don't pick up girls online because they know there will be an electronic record of their conversation that the police can trace back to them.

And its not like she wasn't going to be cautious anyway. Meet in a public place, tell her friends who she was meeting, where and when, and then maybe to go a dinner and a movie.

Statistically a young woman is more likely to be raped at a friend's party while everyone is passed out on the floor from drinking too much (because then the rapist can claim they were both drunk and that she was willing). That or date rape by some guy on the football team.

The girl in question probably has a tonne of photos on Facebook or some other website anyway. Who doesn't these days? Parents haven't caught up with the technology and how society has changed.

Call it the classic struggle of the over-protective parent vs the teenager who wants to spread their wings.

_The internet doesn't rape people, people rape people._


----------



## bush lover

Obama wants to take away our rights as parents and indoctrinate our children with his Moslem terrorist-loving, gay-loving and anti-American black power philosophy. He should go run for King of Canada.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

politicsezine said:


> She posted photos of herself on a dating website...? What was going to happen to her beyond the chance of meeting some guy who might not call her again after the first date?
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> People are way too paranoid about rapists/etc on the internet when it comes to their teenagers. The Paul Bernardos of the world don't pick up girls online because they know there will be an electronic record of their conversation that the police can trace back to them.
> 
> And its not like she wasn't going to be cautious anyway. Meet in a public place, tell her friends who she was meeting, where and when, and then maybe to go a dinner and a movie.
> 
> Statistically a young woman is more likely to be raped at a friend's party while everyone is passed out on the floor from drinking too much (because then the rapist can claim they were both drunk and that she was willing). That or date rape by some guy on the football team.
> 
> The girl in question probably has a tonne of photos on Facebook or some other website anyway. Who doesn't these days? Parents haven't caught up with the technology and how society has changed.
> 
> Call it the classic struggle of the over-protective parent vs the teenager who wants to spread their wings.
> 
> _The internet doesn't rape people, people rape people._



You are ignorant of the facts. But it does not matter. It is NOT the Governments job to tell parents how to raise their children unless they are abusing them. That you think it is, is part of the problem with why children have so many problems now.


----------



## dread

politicsezine said:


> She posted photos of herself on a dating website...? What was going to happen to her beyond the chance of meeting some guy who might not call her again after the first date?
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> People are way too paranoid about rapists/etc on the internet when it comes to their teenagers. The Paul Bernardos of the world don't pick up girls online because they know there will be an electronic record of their conversation that the police can trace back to them.
> 
> And its not like she wasn't going to be cautious anyway. Meet in a public place, tell her friends who she was meeting, where and when, and then maybe to go a dinner and a movie.
> 
> Statistically a young woman is more likely to be raped at a friend's party while everyone is passed out on the floor from drinking too much (because then the rapist can claim they were both drunk and that she was willing). That or date rape by some guy on the football team.
> 
> The girl in question probably has a tonne of photos on Facebook or some other website anyway. Who doesn't these days? Parents haven't caught up with the technology and how society has changed.
> 
> Call it the classic struggle of the over-protective parent vs the teenager who wants to spread their wings.
> 
> _The internet doesn't rape people, people rape people._





Oh Jesus fuckin H Christ you are fuckin naive! Go do the world a favor and get yourself sterilized


----------



## Canucklehead

bush lover said:


> Obama wants to take away our rights as parents and indoctrinate our children with his Moslem terrorist-loving, gay-loving and anti-American black power philosophy. He should go run for King of Canada.



Wow. By this comment, I can tell that Canada's exports of BC Bud reaches far south of the border. Enjoy our foliage, good sir. We'll talk when you come to.


----------

