News for Youse: Religious wingnuts oppose McGuinty's "radical" sex agenda, Nanaimo school board trustee has hissy fit
Before we get deep into the snark today, please take a moment to remember the 22nd anniversary of the École Polytechnique massacre in Montreal, in which 14 young women were killed.
No, seriously. The snark will wait.
Gatineau, Quebec, we're a little stunned by your city's decision to put out a new guide for immigrants. It's not that the idea is bad; it's just that it's kind of, well, paternalist, perhaps even a tad racist. The 16-point guide covers salient "values" like avoiding cooking stinky food and try not to bribe anyone. Also, honour killing is a no-no and will go on your permanent record.
Some religious leaders in Ontario have their noses out of joint because of new anti-bullying legislation. What's that, you say? How could religious leaders be opposed to stopping bullies from beating the ever-loving shit out of their peers and setting those kids up for years of therapy and potential maladjustment? Oh, well it's all part of the gay agenda, didn't you know. Christian, Jewish, and Muslim representatives came together in opposition to Premier Dalton McGuinty's new legislation, which they believe pushes a "radical sex education agenda". Holy shit, people. This isn't about any agenda except for the one where fewer kids get beat up and teen suicide rates go down. And if you can come up with some bullshit justification for opposing that, then maybe you're just bullies too.
A member of the Nanaimo school board refused to be sworn in yesterday (December 5) because she discovered that—shock! Horror!—another elected trustee had once been convicted of running a grow-op. Donna Allen, who was ready to serve her third term on the board, instead resigned in protest. Trustee Bill Bard, who was sworn in, plead guilty to running a grow-up back in 2007 and served a one-year conditional sentence.
Hear that, Allen? Debt to society, paid. And now Bard's trying to give back to the community and you throw a hissy fit because he didn't disclose he committed a crime and made amends for it? Here's a thought: do you know how many grow-ops there are in Nanaimo? It's not a small number. You know what's also not a small number? 100,000. That's the number of dollars running a by-election for your arguably useless position is. Way to serve the taxpayers.
Someone's finally getting charged for that rave in Pitt Meadows last year. Yeah, you remember, the one where a 16-year-old girl was allegedly raped, possibly by multiple people. This horrific crime was captured by dumb kids with cellphone cameras, and one of those dumb dumbs pled guilty to distributing obscene materials. The Edmonton Journal noted: "The victim’s father also noted that the teens at the party appeared to be 'desensitized' to the alleged sexual violence and saw nothing wrong with posting it online."
And people say that we don't live in a sick society.
And just in case you needed any further proof that the end times are among us, Newt Gingrich is now the front-runner in the Republican leadership race. Well, at least in Iowa.
Comments
8 Comments
Gentleman Jack
Dec 6, 2011 at 11:23am
I fail to see how there is any need for anything more than the Criminal Law to punish bullies. Of course, the Criminal law requires due process, and most school "conduct codes" are enforced by jackbooted authoritarians who get off on extrajudicial punishment.
If you're going to punish someone, you should need a duly authorized judge determining the punishment, as well as an open process where the accuser may be cross-examined.
Absent that, it's nothing short of tyranny---but let's be honest, that's the sort of Dirty Pool cultural theorists jack off about; a world where the tyrannical judeo-christian paternalism of due process of law is replaced with doubleplusgoodgroupthink and shaming where the basic premse is "guilty until proven innocent."
Dude
Dec 6, 2011 at 12:36pm
I think those policies are about more than just punishing bullies. There's also the issue of preventing bullying.
Anthony Hill
Dec 6, 2011 at 12:39pm
There are laws against assault and making threats and anything else that comes up between people. We do not need more laws to cover specific groups, no matter who they, as they are already covered by the laws that apply to us all.
Dumb & Dumber
Dec 6, 2011 at 3:25pm
At least I know that small business guys like that have a clue about balancing the books :)
Birdy
Dec 6, 2011 at 5:22pm
Kids bully because that's how they've learned to interact with people. They learn this from their parents. This is not a theory.
Bullying will not end until parents understand why yelling at, threatening, and hitting children is counter-productive and immoral.
Until then, our society will continue to crumble in the hands of grown-up children who can't escape their abusive family dynamic. They will forever need Daddy Harper to run their lives with threats and bullying, and Mommy NDP to validate the bullying with complicated guilt trips.
Taseko
Dec 7, 2011 at 12:54am
Newt and Harper; separated at birth?
Patrick Longworth1969
Dec 7, 2011 at 9:38am
Why the use of the word "wingnuts"? Is it your assertion that all religious people or people of faith are "wingnuts" or just the ones that press against agendas that you believe are right?
As for the issue of bullying, I firmly believe that all bullying is wrong regardless of who is being bullied. Does that mean that a special curriculum needs to be devised for schools?
No, I assert that the teachers have to teach and the principals have to do their job in ensuring that all students are protected and all bullies are punished. There is no need to start teaching a curriculum about sexual orientation, aside from stating that those who are of different orientations are also deserving of respect and consideration by all people.
Perhaps from kindergarten through grade 12 there needs to be a mandatory course teaching all kids or definitely the bullies about the need to treat parents, teachers, the public, and other students with courtesy and respect?
Yak
Dec 7, 2011 at 10:00am
Donna Allen should have expressed her indignation towards the criminal screening process BEFORE the election. To cost taxpayers $100,000 for her arguably flimsy principle at this stage of the game is atrocious and ridiculous. My guess is, if she was on the hook for the $100,000, she wouldn't be so principled.
You've made your point and got your attention baby, now do us all a kindness and get back to the work you were elected for and make the changes you seek from within.