QUOTE(Gord S. @ Nov 29 2005, 02:03 PM)
QUOTE(Slavik44 @ Nov 29 2005, 03:14 AM)
QUOTE("Gord S.")
Liberal values allow women to drink and take drugs while pregnant. Thousands of children are born with physical and mental defects.
Really???? is that so, cause you know I think you might be wrong. Just an inkling, but what do you suggest, that any Parent who has a child with FAS gets 5 years in prison, cause you know every one knows they are pregnant within ten seconds of conception, so clearly anyone who has a baby born with FAS, drank alcohol with the full knowledge that they were pregnant. You know I just don't think so.
Sure
Maybe we could introduce a bill that states after having sex you must be strapped to a chair and monitored 24/7 for three weeks and if you are found to be pregnant your must remain for the remainder of the pregnancy, if not...well you will be back in a day. Of course we don't really know when everyone is having sex...so in every Bedroom, bathroom, backseat, and kitchen(hey thats where sex starts right) we can place a sentry. Other than that, what do you propose to ensure no women can drink alcohol while pregnant???
Posting responses with such faulty logic only hurts the credibility of the poster - it definitely doesn't damage the point I put forward.
I notice that the part you clipped in my original post was:
Of individuals with FAE between the ages of 12 and 51,
· 95% will have mental health problems;
· 68% will experience trouble with the law;
· 55% will be confined in prison, drug or alcohol treatment centre or mental institution;
· 52% will exhibit inappropriate sexual behaviour
http://www.fasworld.com/facts.ihtmlI consider that to be serious child abuse.
Manitoba tried to lock up a pregnant glue sniffer a few years ago to protect the unborn child. (That woman had already produced damaged babies.) The system lost.
Last year I had a pregnant tenant in my suite who was stoned daily on crack cocaine. I went to the police and social services. The police said they could not do anything under the law; social services said they would take the baby away after it was born - and they did...
Is it just me that believes ruining a child's life before it comes out of the womb to be disgusting???
How in the world can any caring individual think otherwise???
.
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, and Wrong again.
First off I did not clip out the stats as a way to avoid them, and your inferences that I did are simply false. I clipped out those stats because at previous times when I posted here I recieved a number complaints, some about my spelling and others about how I needlessly quoted huge documents when a couple sentences would suffice. Infact I was told that needlessly quoting text was more offensive than saying Fuck You to a poster, being the polite person I am I am not going to say "Fuck You gord" and I certainly wouldn't want to be more offensive than that so I simply cut out a portion of the text that took up alot of space to avoid complaints. My intention was not to avoid the statistics just keeping more post down to a more managable size.
Secondly, while you can consider those statistics child abuse, I do not know how many cases of FAS were caused by people not knowing they are pregnant. Lets face it it takes a while for people to find out. As well it hasn;t been until recently that scientific advancement has tuaght us about nutritional practices and therefore there could be a lag time in statistics, the statistics obviously are following children who must be atleast 18 years old. Therefore we are looking at a society from 20 years ago, not today and 20 years ago was well 20 years ago and in 20 years alot has changed. In your haste what you have done infact is use present day information to draw and quater a parent from the 1970's and 1980's. It is then very hard for any rational person to cast judgement that all or even most cases of FAS are caused by evil parents. When there are many factors surrounding the situation that would prohibt such a judgement from being made. Although a very serios matter none the less you are using it out of context as a means to advance a political smearing.
Of this you should be ashamed of yourself, what you ahve done is not further the cause of suffering children you have used suffering children to further your own cause, and that is dispicable. These children are not the priority of your post but a casualty of your post you have used them to make inciteful remarks agaisnt the Liberal party of Canada. to be honest with you, I fell that if you truly cared about the children you should have made a non-partisan and non-sensationalist thread about what the government could and should do to stop this very serious problem. But Instead you refused to take the high road or the moral road, you used it to launch a sensationalist attack, shame on you.
As for the manitoba case, it is just that a case, meaning one, you know before two and after zero. As you might have gathered I am not one who is into this whole sensationalism binge the canadian media has put us on. One case is not enough to base a whole arguement, niether is two or three cases. There are thousands and thousands of babies born every year in Canada, and of that you can pick out one case of abuse, one case of failure??? And based on this you are going to call a whole political party a bunch of prostitute loving, child hating, daughter fuckers????
As for your story, it remains just that a story, we are on an onlien message board, I can tell stories about anything. I coudl tell people last night I saw you sodomizing a thirteen year old boy and therefore you are a hipocrite. But the fact is I can't actually proove it...it is plain and simple hearsay, and just like sensationalism I am not willing or interested in making an arguement based on hearsay or allowing someone else to make such an arguement. For someone who remarked about my faulty logic I feel I must remind you about throwing stones while living in a glass house.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
Exactly.
If you state you are opposed to Same Sex Mariage, that is "gay bashing".
If you (as the owner of a print shop) refuse to print literature because what is being goes against your religious beliefs, you lose at the Human Rights Commission.
If you as a teacher, write a letter to the editor in a local newspaper stating you are opposed to Same Sex Marriage, you get fired from your job.
These are not theoretical examples; they happened prior to "gay bashing" being put into legislation. That is why the Conservatives opposed that legislation...
Wow you are a very Liberal person, I never would have guessed, or is it that you just liberaly interpret laws you don't like so as to give yourself an avenue to attack them????
Because what bill C-250 did was include sexual orientation under hate crimes. If you look at previous cases of hate crimes you would find your worries to be expelled. For instance I will use James Keegstra(simply because I have it infront of me) A quick background woudl be that in this case an Albertan teacher told his students that the holocaust never happend, he was charged with commiting a hate crime. He applied to the queens bench to have the charge dismissed on the gorunds that it violated his freedom of expression under S. 2(
of the charter. This request was denied, he was tried and convicted. On his appeal his arguements were accepted. The reason for their acceptance was that
QUOTE
The promotion of hatred in this case does not assume a form which falls outside the protected sphere of s. 2(
. The accused's communications were offensive and propagandistic, but they do not constitute threats in the usual sense of that word. The accused's statements did not urge violence against the Jewish people. They were not made with the intention and do not have the effect of compelling Jewish people or anyone else to do one thing or another. Nor do the accused's statements constitue violence...violence conotes actual or threatend physical interference with the activities of others. Moreover, statements promoting hatred are not akin to threats or violence. There is nothing in the form of such statements which subverts democracy or our basic freedoms in a way in which violence or threats of violence may. Finally to suggest that speech, like ahte propaganda, which undermines the credibility of speakers belonging to particular groups doe snot fall within s. 2(
of the charter, is to remove from the protection of the charter an enormous amount of speech which has long been accepted as important and valuable.
In other words unless your speech incites violence against the gay community you have nothing to worry about, you will not be held criminally responsible. You can write a newspaper and say you do not support homosexual marrige or even homosexual acts. You are still free to do so, under the condition that you don't write P.S next monday at seven we should meet at McDonalds with some guns and go kill gay people. Just like, as has been demonstarted, you can say the holocaust never hapened. The Precedent has been set that as long as your speech or writing does not incite violent acts it is not a hate crime. Personally my values and apparently the values of the Liberal party do not include protecting someones right to incite violence.
Yes, I agree, if we want the vote of parents, these issues are very important to them. 
