[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

Or it could be that there is a genuine concern that some parents will react to the news that their child is in an LGBTQ club in the manner demonstrated by the guy who uttered the quote that started off this conversation.

"Don't worry ma, I'm just making new friends and expanding my horizons"I don't see why that would go wrong...Ok, I'm on the fence on this.  I think parents have a right to know what their kids are doing after school. I understand the concerns about having very religious parents learn their children is gay while he's still a minor, but I think it's the wrong way to tackle the issue.

If religion is the problem, then tackle the religious issues so we have less bigots.  Restrict religious freedoms, not parent's rights.

I think the solution of not telling does less violence to the right to freedom of religion.  Note that the freedom includes the freedom from religion for minors who choose not to follow the religious beliefs of their parents and so I think it strikes the correct balance.

[viper37]

Or it could be that there is a genuine concern that some parents will react to the news that their child is in an LGBTQ club in the manner demonstrated by the guy who uttered the quote that started off this conversation.

"Don't worry ma, I'm just making new friends and expanding my horizons"I don't see why that would go wrong...Ok, I'm on the fence on this.  I think parents have a right to know what their kids are doing after school. I understand the concerns about having very religious parents learn their children is gay while he's still a minor, but I think it's the wrong way to tackle the issue.

If religion is the problem, then tackle the religious issues so we have less bigots.  Restrict religious freedoms, not parent's rights.

I think the solution of not telling does less violence to the right to freedom of religion.  Note that the freedom includes the freedom from religion for minors who choose not to follow the religious beliefs of their parents and so I think it strikes the correct balance.

but parents have a right to know what their minor children are doing, what they are taught at school, or after school.

[Oexmelin]

this right is not absolute.

[crazy canuck]

but parents have a right to know what their minor children are doing, what they are taught at school, or after school.

I am not sure how you are using the word "right'.  There is no legal right to that effect.  In fact when a child is at school, the school has a significant legal duty which rises to the level of a Parens Patriae.  So arguably the school has a legal duty NOT to tell a parent in circumstances where it is reasonable to infer it would create some harm to the child.  This legislation is an extension of that common law duty.

[PRC]

Human rights trump religious rights.

[Barrister]

Human rights trump religious rights.

Rights to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion is a human right.  One recognized in our Charter of Rights.

[crazy canuck]

Human rights trump religious rights.

Rights to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion is a human right.  One recognized in our Charter of Rights.

You are correct but for the wrong reason.  Human Rights are defined and protected under provincial and federal human rights codes not the Charter.  The distinction is important both because of who they apply to and what is actually protected.

[viper37]

this right is not absolute.

The State decides in advance who is worthy or not of receiving information, and what information should the parents receive.

You like it.  I don't.  I can see where it leads, and I don't like it.  You're trying to fix a problem by misidentifying it and using the wrong solution: restrict ALL parent's rights because some of them may be unfit to be parent.

[viper37]

So arguably the school has a legal duty NOT to tell a parent in circumstances where it is reasonable to infer it would create some harm to the child.  This legislation is an extension of that common law duty.

yes, but it's not what it's doing.  It decides in advance that some parents are unfit and as such restrict all information to all parents.

I can imagine a situation where a school decide that some Muslim parents are violent toward their child they learn they have bad grades and as such will no longer make report cards available to Muslim parents.  Would that be a good policy?

[crazy canuck]

So arguably the school has a legal duty NOT to tell a parent in circumstances where it is reasonable to infer it would create some harm to the child.  This legislation is an extension of that common law duty.

yes, but it's not what it's doing.  It decides in advance that some parents are unfit and as such restrict all information to all parents.

I can imagine a situation where a school decide that some Muslim parents are violent toward their child they learn they have bad grades and as such will no longer make report cards available to Muslim parents.  Would that be a good policy?

That is what "this legislation is an extension of the common law duty" means

[Grey Fox]

So arguably the school has a legal duty NOT to tell a parent in circumstances where it is reasonable to infer it would create some harm to the child.  This legislation is an extension of that common law duty.

yes, but it's not what it's doing.  It decides in advance that some parents are unfit and as such restrict all information to all parents.

I can imagine a situation where a school decide that some Muslim parents are violent toward their child they learn they have bad grades and as such will no longer make report cards available to Muslim parents.  Would that be a good policy?

School would report the case to Child security agencies.

[viper37]

School would report the case to Child security agencies.

Yes, they would.  But they would not prevent parents from seeing their children's grades because their religious beliefs are fucked up.

[Grey Fox]

Grades are not identity tho. I am not sure it is an apt analogy.

[Barrister]

So if we're still interested in the saga of Tony Clement (I'm not particularly): yes, he also had at least one affair, there were pictures, and his young mistress had asked for help landing an articling position once the affair was over.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/tony-clements-former-mistress-allegedly-offered-1000-for-explicit-photos-by-group-claiming-liberal-support

[Malthus]

So if we're still interested in the saga of Tony Clement (I'm not particularly): yes, he also had at least one affair, there were pictures, and his young mistress had asked for help landing an articling position once the affair was over.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/tony-clements-former-mistress-allegedly-offered-1000-for-explicit-photos-by-group-claiming-liberal-support

Apparently, alternatives to the articling program can't arrive fast enough ...