[Xort]

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

Please please start with this pot smoker...

If he is walking around stinking like pot, it would be my obligation to punch him in the face. Rules you know.

[Zipperfish]

Xort Xort:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Yes, Xort, so easy to criticize from sitting on your fat ass in front of a monitor. I'd like to see you, as a social worker, go door to door on a remote Indian reserve with the local cop and demand they turn over their children to foster care. See how that works for you.

Are you saying because it's hard we don't help?

WTF are you even Canadian?

Help? We aleady tried takgin gehir children away to civilize them. It's not generally construed these days to have helped them. As a matter of fact, it was quite a sory affair and a blot on Canada's history.

[Benn]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Agreed Jeff.

I think you also have to look at the costs of other emergency services. In my local city we have 12 cops on duty at any one time. At the same time we have 8 fire stations with 5 guys minimum sleeping. All paid the same as cops.

Now don't be like that EB. We all know cops really all wanted to be fire fighters.

Then of course they turned 12.


You did question someone about proof of not following order though. Both in Manitoba and I believe Ontario courts put forth lawful orders to remove protesters which where not followed and the orders to not follow those rulings (not enforce the law) were given to the rank and file by someone wearing a badge. Somewhere in the police service the police refused to enforce the law.

I'm sure however rank and file officers are more than willing to go do it however.

Its just setting a dangerous precedent when someone is telling the police to not enforce laws. How can they (the police)not look like schmucks now if they enforce a similar order against Muslim protesters blockading a railroad for some reason?

[Xort]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Help? We aleady tried takgin gehir children away to civilize them. It's not generally construed these days to have helped them. As a matter of fact, it was quite a sory affair and a blot on Canada's history.

So by the book the child needs to be removed from a home, you think we shouldn't because of the res schools?

Is that what you ment to say?

You do know what we are talking about right? A social worker that finds children in need of critical help, children that need to be removed from the house for their protection. However, they are not removed because of the scary natives, leaving the children to suffer.

Just making sure we are on the same page here.

[EyeBrock]

It's a rocky road Benn. One the police leaders have been on for a while. Diversity isn't a problem for the guys on the front lines, but it scares the shit out of the bosses.

A simple solution is to enforce parliament's laws equitably (as per the Charter)but it 'aint gonna happen.

Race/ethnicity is brought into everything.

Six Nations near us is basically a 'no-go zone'. It's the epicentre of huge vehicle theft operation but nobody can touch them. The media don't want to report on it and the OPP won't interfere.

There's much more to this police 'non-engagement' policy with FN's. It's been happening for years and it mirrors federal and provincial political policy.

It's not just the police commanders who have let us down, but the politicians who have appointed them and support them.

[Public_Domain]

[Benn]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

It's a rocky road Benn. One the police leaders have been on for a while. Diversity isn't a problem for the guys on the front lines, but it scares the shit out of the bosses.

A simple solution is to enforce parliament's laws equitably (as per the Charter)but it 'aint gonna happen.

Race/ethnicity is brought into everything.

Six Nations near us is basically a 'no-go zone'. It's the epicentre of huge vehicle theft operation but nobody can touch them. The media don't want to report on it and the OPP won't interfere.

There's much more to this police 'non-engagement' policy with FN's. It's been happening for years and it mirrors federal and provincial political policy.

It's not just the police commanders who have let us down, but the politicians who have appointed them and support them.

Well there is always the fire department I guess lol

[Dayseed]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

It's a rocky road Benn. One the police leaders have been on for a while. Diversity isn't a problem for the guys on the front lines, but it scares the shit out of the bosses.

A simple solution is to enforce parliament's laws equitably (as per the Charter)but it 'aint gonna happen.

Race/ethnicity is brought into everything.

Six Nations near us is basically a 'no-go zone'. It's the epicentre of huge vehicle theft operation but nobody can touch them. The media don't want to report on it and the OPP won't interfere.

There's much more to this police 'non-engagement' policy with FN's. It's been happening for years and it mirrors federal and provincial political policy.

It's not just the police commanders who have let us down, but the politicians who have appointed them and support them.

No shit. There was a local couple that sued the OPP over non-enforcement of the judge's removal order for the Caledonia protesters. The OPP rank and file lined up just salivating to tell the court how they had been ordered not to engage the protesters and how it was a complete travesty.

The OPP brass? They settled out of court and hit the "That Was Easy" button and heaved a sigh of relief.

[Zipperfish]

Xort Xort:

So by the book the child needs to be removed from a home, you think we shouldn't because of the res schools?

Is that what you ment to say?

You do know what we are talking about right? A social worker that finds children in need of critical help, children that need to be removed from the house for their protection. However, they are not removed because of the scary natives, leaving the children to suffer.

Just making sure we are on the same page here.

Yes, that would be my point. We already, in the past, determined that it was a bad thing to take childrenfrom their parents because we deemed their care insufficient and sent them to residential schools, where they were widely abused.

So, the question is, are to leaving them to suffer, or, by forcibly tearing them from their homes nad putting them in state care, leading them to suffer?

And it wasn't really a question, just a desire on my part to be a fly on the wall as Xort the social worker goes door-to-door- in, say, Fort Ware and informs the armed and inebriated residents therein that you're from the government and you've come to take their chidlren away. I'd especially like the part where you folowed up your demand to turn over their children by punching them in the face.

[Xort]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Yes, that would be my point. We already, in the past, determined that it was a bad thing to take childrenfrom their parents because we deemed their care insufficient and sent them to residential schools, where they were widely abused.

Are you acutally saying that when child services remove children from homes for their safety and protection are just a modern form of the native residential school program?

$1:

So, the question is, are to leaving them to suffer, or, by forcibly tearing them from their homes nad putting them in state care, leading them to suffer?

Residential schools didn't work, so native children do not get the same protections other children get.

?

$1:

And it wasn't really a question, just a desire on my part to be a fly on the wall as Xort the social worker goes door-to-door- in, say, Fort Ware and informs the armed and inebriated residents therein that you're from the government and you've come to take their chidlren away.

With an armed police officer as escort because social workers tend not to be armed.

Don't want to upset you too much, but people with guns while a threat that I'd need to manage are not a terror inducing factor for me.

$1:

I'd especially like the part where you folowed up your demand to turn over their children by punching them in the face.

LOL that would be funny as hell.
My child! Waaa!
Oh Sir by the way...
Eh?
*smack*
The hell was that for!?
You stink like pot, clean yourself up.

[CanadianJeff]

Wow. This is right up there with the guy the other week who made the huffington post by calling a raped little girl evil on public TV during a discussion on morality with the Atheist Experience show.

Seriously how on earth does my neighbor smoking pot have a negative effect on me in any way at all. I bet next your going to tell us that homophobes are justified in punching anyone kissing a same sex partner in public because it annoys them.

Pot is decriminalized for a reason. I suggest you grow the hell up and realize that the world is a much more diverse and complex place then your being.

If you have any actual valid and thoughtful reasons of harm then it's more then fine to discuss them and that's party why we are freedom of speech but we will never have the freedom of punching people in the face who annoy you for a reason.

[Zipperfish]

Xort Xort:

Are you acutally saying that when child services remove children from homes for their safety and protection are just a modern form of the native residential school program?

That is what I'm saying yes.

$1:

Residential schools didn't work, so native children do not get the same protections other children get.

Well, from your general demeanour, I'd suspect you would have been one of the first in line to send off native children to residential schools--for their safety and protection of course.

$1:

With an armed police officer as escort because social workers tend not to be armed.

OK, so now you're going to basically start a war in order to take these children away from their parents.

$1:

Don't want to upset you too much, but people with guns while a threat that I'd need to manage are not a terror inducing factor for me.

Yawn. Internet tough guy.

$1:

LOL that would be funny as hell.
My child! Waaa!
Oh Sir by the way...
Eh?
*smack*
The hell was that for!?
You stink like pot, clean yourself up.

yes, I'm sure that's how it would play out. You only have two inklings, Xort. Unfortunately in takes eight inklings to make a clue.

[Unsound]

I don't wanna speak for Xort, but a few thoughts I'm having here...

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Xort Xort:

Are you acutally saying that when child services remove children from homes for their safety and protection are just a modern form of the native residential school program?

That is what I'm saying yes.

Then what you're saying is wrong. First of all, res schools were intended to destroy native culture and turn those children, culturally, into white children. Assimiation was the entire purpose. Social workers removing children is meant to protect those children from abusive dangerous situations. It doesn't happen nearly as often as it should because the authorities are scared of being called racist and of the specter of those res schools. One of the saddest legacies of the schools imo is how hard it makes it to protect these children. One of the other factors is that if they do remove children they are supposd to try to place them with family, or atleast with culturally similiar families. Which are too often no better than the parents, so why bother? Of course, when the children are left in the situation and end up dead, social sevices gets the blame for not doing more to protect them.

[Unsound]

[quote="Zipperfish"]
OK, so now you're going to basically start a war in order to take these children away from their parents.
[quote]

The kind of parents who have their children removed are not the type to meekly obey a court order being handed to them by social worker.

That said, I def don't agree that social workers should go around removing every child on a reserve or anything lke that. Knowing when the rules need to be "massaged" is probably one of the most important skills for anyone in a position of authority to learn when dealing with people.

[Zipperfish]

Unsound Unsound:

I don't wanna speak for Xort, but a few thoughts I'm having here...

Then what you're saying is wrong. First of all, res schools were intended to destroy native culture and turn those children, culturally, into white children. Assimiation was the entire purpose. Social workers removing children is meant to protect those children from abusive dangerous situations. It doesn't happen nearly as often as it should because the authorities are scared of being called racist and of the specter of those res schools. One of the saddest legacies of the schools imo is how hard it makes it to protect these children. One of the other factors is that if they do remove children they are supposd to try to place them with family, or atleast with culturally similiar families. Which are too often no better than the parents, so why bother? Of course, when the children are left in the situation and end up dead, social sevices gets the blame for not doing more to protect them.

Should I count you in as wanting to punch the parents in the face as you take their children away too?

And, I don't think I am wrong. The residential school business was all done with the best intentions. Assimilate the Indians, make them productive citizens, and be done with it. A senitment still exprssed frequently here, ironically. It was not done to destroy them; it was not done so they could get diddled by pedophiles, or beaten by sadists in the residential school staff rolls.

And I would offer it isn't done because the repercussions of systematically removing all the children from a given community is not necessarily going to end up better for the children. Where would they go? White foster homes? How is that not destroying native culture?

The reason they are not taken from their homes is--yes--no one wants to be called a racist, but also that tearing an entire community's children away from them is not likely to result in better outcomes.

And yes, I agree, the front line social workers bear the brunt either way. Easy to blame them.