ontario passes bill allowing for .gov to take kids away from christian families

[createdtoworship]

Ontario passes ‘totalitarian’ bill allowing gov’t to take kids from Christian homes

 

[EpiscipalMe]

This is old news, and already debunked.

The law applies to children already in foster care and has nothing to do with the situations in which the state may remove a child from his or her parents.

No, Canada Will Not Take Your Child Away If You Disagree With Their Gender Identity

And, if you don't trust Buzzfeed, you can read the bill yourself:
Bill 89, Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario | Bills & Lawmaking | Current Parliament

 

[tulc]

or not:
No, Canada Will Not Take Your Child Away If You Disagree With Their Gender Identity

"Bill 89 does not give the government power to seize children from families based on a parent that disagrees with a child’s gender identification. Any suggestion of the sort is false," Alicia Ali, a spokesperson for Michael Coteau, Ontario's Minister of Children and Youth Services, told BuzzFeed News in an email.

Coteau said earlier this year that it could be considered abuse "when a child identifies one way and a caregiver is saying no," according to QP Briefing.

Coteau appears to have been talking specifically about children in foster care. He said denying a child's gender identity would be akin to "a child in care being told not to believe in Jesus Christ."

The Ontario child advocate’s office, an independent watchdog organization that reports to the provincial legislature, also said fears over Bill 89 were not matched by what is in the legislation.

tulc(in case anyone was interested)

 

[createdtoworship]

This is old news, and already debunked.

The law applies to children already in foster care and has nothing to do with the situations in which the state may remove a child from his or her parents.

No, Canada Will Not Take Your Child Away If You Disagree With Their Gender Identity

And, if you don't trust Buzzfeed, you can read the bill yourself:
Bill 89, Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario | Bills & Lawmaking | Current Parliament

so stating the government "does not have unfettered" ability to take one's kids, is supposed to comfort us how?

 

[EpiscipalMe]

so stating the government "does not have unfettered" ability to take one's kids, is supposed to comfort us how?

Did you read the bill?

You claimed it allowed Ontario to take kids away from their families based on sexual orientation. It does no such thing.

Don't change the subject.

 

[tulc]

so stating the government "does not have unfettered" ability to take one's kids, is supposed to comfort us how?

Well you seemed quite worked up about it in the OP so it should be a great comfort knowing the OP was completely wrong.
tulc(thinks this calls for coffee all around!)

 

[PeachyKeane]

Ontario? We're still in American Politics here, right?

Have we invaded Canada already?

 

[Truthfrees]

MOD HAT

off topic posts have been removed

moving thread to international politics

 

[createdtoworship]

so again is government supposed to have the ability to go into your homes and take kids, for nothing other than a theological difference?

 

[EpiscipalMe]

so again is government supposed to have the ability to go into your homes and take kids, for nothing other than a theological difference?

Nope - that's not what it says at all - see above.

 

[PeachyKeane]

so again is government supposed to have the ability to go into your homes and take kids, for nothing other than a theological difference?

Already debunked.

 

[createdtoworship]

Nope - that's not what it says at all - see above.

But it is never refuted the the government can't go into ones homes and remove children based on theology. Fake news may or may not post about foster care, it matters not. Without proof it applies to foster care it does not matter

 

[EpiscipalMe]

But it is never refuted the the government can't go into ones homes and remove children based on theology. Fake news may or may not post about foster care, it matters not. Without proof it applies to foster care it does not matter

The proof is in reading the bill. I posted the link above. The government cannot take your children away based on religious beliefs.

 

[Occams Barber]

Sorry I won't address blocked content.

I had no difficulty getting through to either link from EpiscipalMe's post #2 and I live half a world away.

If you're having trouble with links, sometimes running your PC under a hot tap for a few minutes will help fix the problem.
OB

 

[MrSpikey]

Sorry I won't address blocked content.

So, you won't address the bill you've spent the whole thread complaining about because you say it's "blocked"?

How do you know it says the things you say it does, rather than the things EpiscipalMe says it does?

Someone unfamiliar with your posts might conclude you jump to conclusions based on articles that don't address the actual subject matter you talk about, and then ignore the facts when they are presented to you.

Obviously, we both know you'd never do anything so dishonest, but I do think you should consider how people might perceive your honesty when dealing with things such as this in such blinkered terms.

 

[createdtoworship]

So, you won't address the bill you've spent the whole thread complaining about because you say it's "blocked"?

How do you know it says the things you say it does, rather than the things EpiscipalMe says it does?

Someone unfamiliar with your posts might conclude you jump to conclusions based on articles that don't address the actual subject matter you talk about, and then ignore the facts when they are presented to you.

Obviously, we both know you'd never do anything so dishonest, but I do think you should consider how people might perceive your honesty when dealing with things such as this in such blinkered terms.

I don't need to address people who flame, and belittle. Sorry you can reply if you wish.

 

[MrSpikey]

I don't need to address people who flame, and belittle. Sorry you can reply if you wish.

I'm only concerned with your own credibility.

If you want to discuss what a particular law does, refusing to actually look at the text of the law can only make people think you are dishonest.

Neither of us wants that, obviously.

 

[Occams Barber]

It seems to me that Mr Spikey has gone out of his way to suggest, very politely, that you are mistaken in your assumptions about the legislation.

But it is never refuted the the government can't go into ones homes and remove children based on theology. Fake news may or may not post about foster care, it matters not. Without proof it applies to foster care it does not matter

I've parsed this paragraph up, down and sideways and I am still not able to get any meaning out of it. Things like this create the impression, rightly or wrongly, that you are being evasive.

Given the number of posts you post, is it possible that, on this occasion, you may have misread the newspaper article?
OB

 

[createdtoworship]

I'm only concerned with your own credibility.

If you want to discuss what a particular law does, refusing to actually look at the text of the law can only make people think you are dishonest.

Neither of us wants that, obviously.

I don't care about credibility, the fear of man brings a snare the bible says

 

[createdtoworship]

It seems to me that Mr Spikey has gone out of his way to suggest, very politely, that you are mistaken in your assumptions about the legislation.




I've parsed this paragraph up, down and sideways and I am still not able to get any meaning out of it. Things like this create the impression, rightly or wrongly, that you are being evasive.

Given the number of posts you post, is it possible that, on this occasion, you may have misread the newspaper article?
OB

Please prove all assertions thank you