Beware Parents - Canada's new 'gender identity' law.

a reply to: whatnext21

Ya this is Ontario. I wonder how far down the road to Sodom and Gomorrah this perverted premier Whynn, will take us before she is ousted on July 8, 2018. I despise her she is wicked.

I despise WYNNE as well but, you should really delve deeper into the bill before looking more ignorant...

Those who truly care about the welfare of children would not oppose the new bill.

a reply to: Sheye

Reasoning with the french is 'futile'.

a reply to: silo13

So, the schools will be pushing kids to "identify" as something else, and the government will step in if parents balk? What the heck were they thinking?!?!? This is madness.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

That is not true. The OP has been proven to be an hoax. They will not take kids away from parents if they disagree with gender identity. And the schools are not pushing kids to identify as something else.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Just got back to the thread. What's been said as a hoax?

I see this now on Fox news - all over the place?

Thanks

a reply to: silo13

“You can’t remove a kid because the parent disagrees with the fact that a child is gay. What you can do is remove a child if that child is being abused because of that,” Coteau told QP Briefing. 

www.lifesitenews.com...

You said you would take a look at the bill. Have you done that yet?
Of course Fox News would cover this. They have a strong Christian bias.

a reply to: silo13

Please give me links to Fox News articles on this. I seem to have hard time finding them.
Thanks.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

I posted the same earlier in this thread..it obviously needs repeating..I guess until Fox news..lmao reports it, it will discarded.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Why is government getting involved in this. Kids do not know anything about gender choice, they should only be able to choose after they are old enough to do it, the human mind does not totally mature till around twenty four years old, at eighteen it is fairly well developed. Kids are too impressionable before that, they could make hasty decisions. They have not developed the ability to reason.

If they pass this law then they should also pass a law that states kids are liable for crimes they commit. None of this letting them off with a less sentence if they are juveniles, if they are considered mentally capable of changing their gender, they are mentally capable of being completely liable for crimes they commit, no purging of records for juviniles.

These two are closely related, if you say a kid is mature enough to have gender identity than they are mature enough to toss in prison. These two are inseparable.

I do not think parents should be forced by the state to allow their kids to make choices they are not mature enough to make yet. I do think the courts should realize kids do make mistakes and that they should be given a break from juvinile crimes initially though. We are talking about similar moral issues here, kids do not mature that young that they should be allowed to make changes in gender.

This bears repeating!! Common sense is a rare thing these days, and you demonstrate quite a lot here!

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

That is not true. The OP has been proven to be an hoax. They will not take kids away from parents if they disagree with gender identity. And the schools are not pushing kids to identify as something else.

Nothing of the sort has been "proven"; it's been claimed that isn't the case, but the wording is vague enough, it could easily happen. All someone has to do is claim it's "abuse" for parents to not allow a small child to behave like the opposite sex, and social services would sweep right in. Watch. I'll go so far as to say it WILL happen, and before too long.

originally posted by: silo13
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Just got back to the thread. What's been said as a hoax?

I see this now on Fox news - all over the place?

Thanks

I think they must use the CNN method of "proving" something; repeating it so often that many assume it must be true, with no facts in evidence! The bill is written in a way that is just vague enough, it will require cases to define the limits, or lack thereof, and it's just a matter of time till someone's child is removed for this. Excellent thread, btw!

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

So you don't advocate counseling for children with gender dysphoria? See that's why this bill exists.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Oh it has been proven many times. I dare you to read the bill and prove me wrong.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Yep.. sure looks like Slience is trying to include... prepubescent CHLDREN...
Prepubescent children

The question of whether to counsel young children to be happy with their assigned sex, or to encourage them to continue to exhibit behaviors that do not match their assigned sex—or to explore a transsexual transition—is controversial. Some clinicians report that a significant proportion of young children diagnosed with gender dysphoria later do not exhibit any dysphoria.[32]

Professionals who treat gender identity disorder in children have begun to refer and prescribe hormones, known as a puberty blocker, to delay the onset of puberty until a child is believed to be old enough to make an informed decision on whether hormonal gender reassignment leading to surgical gender reassignment will be in that person's best interest.[33]

en.wikipedia.org...

granted.. it's wikipedia link.... but ....

ONe has to wonder about so called academics delving into pre pubescent children for LGBTQ efforts..

Sad... I know some homosexuals that hate that their fight for acceptance has now been watered down by double dealers and body changers..

Let's get real.. what's next ? foks friendly with goats included in the alphabet soup of deception?

a reply to: JacKatMtn

The slippery slope argument is a fallacy. Just a friendly FYI.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Oh it has been proven many times. I dare you to read the bill and prove me wrong.

Have it your own way.

Direction for legal representation
(3) Where the court determines that legal representation is desirable to protect a child’s interests, the court shall direct that legal representation be provided for the child. Criteria (4) Where, (a) the court is of the opinion that there is a difference of views between the child and a parent or a society, and the society proposes that the child be removed from a person’s care or be placed in interim or extended society care under paragraph 2 or 3 of subsection 101 (1); (b) the child is in the society’s care and, (i) no parent appears before the court, or (ii) it is alleged that the child is in need of protection within the meaning of clause 74 (2) (a), (c), (f), (g) or (j); or (c) the child is not permitted to be present at the hearing, legal representation is deemed to be desirable to protect the child’s interests, unless the court is satisfied, taking into account the child’s views and wishes, given due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity, that the child’s interests are otherwise adequately protected.

Bill

Note, the "views and wishes" of the child are specifically mentioned.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

So you don't advocate counseling for children with gender dysphoria? See that's why this bill exists.

Counseling of what sort? I'd certainly recommend counseling, but I am certain you and I would disagree as to the purpose and goal of said counseling.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Yep if it is suspected that the child is being abused due to not getting the prroper help for it. As I have stated a parent can disagree with homosexuality and yet still support and nurture their gay child.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

So you don't advocate counseling for children with gender dysphoria? See that's why this bill exists.

Counseling of what sort? I'd certainly recommend counseling, but I am certain you and I would disagree as to the purpose and goal of said counseling.

And if the counseling doesn't go your way then what?

More backwards lunacy from the left. Children are the "parents" now. LOL, a 6-year-old knows what's best?

Taking children away just because they were told "no?" THAT IS ABUSE.