The UN slams Canada for its punative laws against children

[gordo]

"The federal government's tough-on-crime agenda is excessively
punitive for youth and is a step backwards for Canada's child rights
record, says a United Nations group."
Can't wait for the UN haters go nuts in trying to justify Perogy
Harpers tough on children. Even the UN knows it is wrong.
https://news.google.ca/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn

[Chom Noamsky]

On 10/9/2012 6:30 PM, gordo wrote:
> "The federal government's tough-on-crime agenda is excessively
> punitive for youth and is a step backwards for Canada's child rights
> record, says a United Nations group."
> Can't wait for the UN haters go nuts in trying to justify Perogy
> Harpers tough on children. Even the UN knows it is wrong.

The committee pretty much discredits itself:

"Previously in the House of Commons, Conservative parliamentary
secretary Bob Dechert lashed out at the UN committee because one of its
members is from Syria."

“Syria, a country whose rulers are stealing the innocence of an entire
generation of its children, is criticizing Canada,” he said. “Imagine that."

Yeah, imagine that...

[Gil]

The UN? Oh,...you mean that third-world driven organization whose
fanatical members go around stoning women, killing others who are not of
the Islamic faith, etc. I'm surprised that you find any credibility with
anything they say.

Time we pulled out of that organization. It's not what it was fifty
years ago. The inmates are now running the asylum.

[Viejo Vizcacha]

So, basically, Bob Dechert did not know how to deny the accusation that
Canada has punitive laws against children, so he resorted to "Tu quoque".

Nice try.

[Chom Noamsky]

On 10/9/2012 7:55 PM, Viejo Vizcacha wrote:
> On 09/10/2012 09:44 p.m., Chom Noamsky wrote:
>> On 10/9/2012 6:30 PM, gordo wrote:
>>> "The federal government's tough-on-crime agenda is excessively
>>> punitive for youth and is a step backwards for Canada's child rights
>>> record, says a United Nations group."
>>> Can't wait for the UN haters go nuts in trying to justify Perogy
>>> Harpers tough on children. Even the UN knows it is wrong.
>>
>> The committee pretty much discredits itself:
>>
>> "Previously in the House of Commons, Conservative parliamentary
>> secretary Bob Dechert lashed out at the UN committee because one of its
>> members is from Syria."
>>

>> �Syria, a country whose rulers are stealing the innocence of an entire
>> generation of its children, is criticizing Canada,� he said. �Imagine

>> that."
>>
>> Yeah, imagine that...
>
> So, basically, Bob Dechert did not know how to deny the accusation that
> Canada has punitive laws against children, so he resorted to "Tu quoque".
>
> Nice try.

If you beat your kids then wag your finger at your neighbour for doing
the same thing, your first course of action should be to correct your
own bad behavior, right?

[gordo]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 20:06:32 -0700, Chom Noamsky <ch...@noamsky.here>
wrote:

>On 10/9/2012 7:55 PM, Viejo Vizcacha wrote:
>> On 09/10/2012 09:44 p.m., Chom Noamsky wrote:
>>> On 10/9/2012 6:30 PM, gordo wrote:
>>>> "The federal government's tough-on-crime agenda is excessively
>>>> punitive for youth and is a step backwards for Canada's child rights
>>>> record, says a United Nations group."
>>>> Can't wait for the UN haters go nuts in trying to justify Perogy
>>>> Harpers tough on children. Even the UN knows it is wrong.
>>>
>>> The committee pretty much discredits itself:
>>>
>>> "Previously in the House of Commons, Conservative parliamentary
>>> secretary Bob Dechert lashed out at the UN committee because one of its
>>> members is from Syria."
>>>

>>> “Syria, a country whose rulers are stealing the innocence of an entire
>>> generation of its children, is criticizing Canada,” he said. “Imagine

>>> that."
>>>
>>> Yeah, imagine that...
>>
>> So, basically, Bob Dechert did not know how to deny the accusation that
>> Canada has punitive laws against children, so he resorted to "Tu quoque".
>>
>> Nice try.
>
>If you beat your kids then wag your finger at your neighbour for doing
>the same thing, your first course of action should be to correct your
>own bad behavior, right?

The UN does not beat kids.

[gordo]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 18:44:17 -0700, Chom Noamsky <ch...@noamsky.here>
wrote:

Yes Canada was criticized by the UN. It was not criticized by Syria.
The government was quick to try to make it a I hate the UN campaign
and you were quick to parrot it.

Can't wait for the UN haters go nuts in trying to justify Perogy

Harpers tough on children laws.

[gordo]

The UN does not stone women and kill others except when the US says
to. The topic was punative laws against children made by the Harper
government.
>
>

[Viejo Vizcacha]

On 09/10/2012 11:06 p.m., Chom Noamsky wrote:
> On 10/9/2012 7:55 PM, Viejo Vizcacha wrote:
>> On 09/10/2012 09:44 p.m., Chom Noamsky wrote:
>>> On 10/9/2012 6:30 PM, gordo wrote:
>>>> "The federal government's tough-on-crime agenda is excessively
>>>> punitive for youth and is a step backwards for Canada's child rights
>>>> record, says a United Nations group."
>>>> Can't wait for the UN haters go nuts in trying to justify Perogy
>>>> Harpers tough on children. Even the UN knows it is wrong.
>>>
>>> The committee pretty much discredits itself:
>>>
>>> "Previously in the House of Commons, Conservative parliamentary
>>> secretary Bob Dechert lashed out at the UN committee because one of its
>>> members is from Syria."
>>>

>>> “Syria, a country whose rulers are stealing the innocence of an entire
>>> generation of its children, is criticizing Canada,” he said. “Imagine

>>> that."
>>>
>>> Yeah, imagine that...
>>
>> So, basically, Bob Dechert did not know how to deny the accusation that
>> Canada has punitive laws against children, so he resorted to "Tu quoque".
>>
>> Nice try.
>
> If you beat your kids then wag your finger at your neighbour for doing
> the same thing, your first course of action should be to correct your
> own bad behavior, right?

If your neighbour beats his kids and then admonishes you when you do the
same your first course of action should be to remind him that he does
the same, right?

[Tom Farnsworth]

Is an ad hominem against an organization an ad orgsnizationimem? Does
being right wing mean you can never make a rational argument?

It is possible to make arguments in favour of harsher laws against
children... lots of countries have them... Iran, Saudi, Afghanistan,
Pakistan... countries Noam, and Gil do so admire.

But seriously... Rational argument is possible and perhaps it could be
instructive.

[Chom Noamsky]

You haven't actually read those laws and the intent of those laws, have
you gordoo. The laws make it more difficult for violent, repeat,
unrepentant young offenders to evade criminal, moral and legal
culpability, just because of their age status. We're talking young
offenders who *repeatedly* commit violent attacks, murders and rapes.
We're not talking about rebellious teens who commit property crimes and
do mischief.

BTW, the UN is not a democratic institution. It's actually quite
undemocratic, considering that five members have supervotes and special
membership status. In a real democracy all votes carry equal weight.
Canada is a real democracy where the votes are equal and there is no
special membership status, therefore Canada's mandates are legitimate
according to democratic principles.

But, *sigh*, when has the left not adored fascistic pseudo-authorities
with illegitimate and token mandates.

[Chom Noamsky]

On 10/9/2012 9:00 PM, gordo wrote:

Maybe there should be 'punative' laws for guys like you who habitually
exaggerate, distort, and commit spelling crimes. I bet you can't
actually detail which laws in Canada are 'punative' for children. If
you do attempt then use official sources... not slanted media or reports
from undemocratic institutions like the UN.

[Chom Noamsky]

You would have to inform yourself, first, before attempting rational
discussion on the topic. I hope gordoo does so as well.

[Chom Noamsky]

Except Syria isn't just beating its kids, it's murdering and maiming
them with impunity. Seriously, Syria contributing to a report on rights
of the child? Too absurd to even laugh. Maybe the UN should do a study
on moral credibility and get back to Canada when it has some.

[MANITOBIAN]

On Tuesday, 9 October 2012 20:44:21 UTC-5, Chom Noamsky wrote:
> On 10/9/2012 6:30 PM, gordo wrote:
>
> > "The federal government's tough-on-crime agenda is excessively
>
> > punitive for youth and is a step backwards for Canada's child rights
>
> > record, says a United Nations group."
>
> > Can't wait for the UN haters go nuts in trying to justify Perogy
>
> > Harpers tough on children. Even the UN knows it is wrong.
>
>
>
> The committee pretty much discredits itself:
>
>
>
> "Previously in the House of Commons, Conservative parliamentary
>
> secretary Bob Dechert lashed out at the UN committee because one of its
>
> members is from Syria."
>
>
>

> �Syria, a country whose rulers are stealing the innocence of an entire
>
> generation of its children, is criticizing Canada,� he said. �Imagine that."

Yep! Not enough OIL in Syria for ameriKKKa and the sock puppets
ruling Canada to go in as in Libya!!

[MANITOBIAN]

Are you going to vote for OBAMA, or ROMNEY??

[Barry Bruyea]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 18:30:34 -0700, gordo <grme...@shaw.ca.remove>
wrote:

Canada is an easy target for the social engineers of the U.N. while
they ignore dozens of countries where children have no rights at all.
They are becoming an even bigger joke than usual.

[SaPeIsMa]

"Tom Farnsworth" <tommy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:687ds.6384$Hp3....@newsfe23.iad...

So when are YOU going to start ?
We are more than willing to wait for you...
And while you're at it, getting yourself up to speed on what the UN has
become would also be a good idea

[Dave Smith]

On 10/10/2012 1:53 AM, Chom Noamsky wrote:

>> The UN does not stone women and kill others except when the US says
>> to. The topic was punative laws against children made by the Harper
>> government.
>
> Maybe there should be 'punative' laws for guys like you who habitually
> exaggerate, distort, and commit spelling crimes.

I guess he doesn't understand that his use of hyperbole is one of the
reasons people don't take him seriously.

> I bet you can't
> actually detail which laws in Canada are 'punative' for children. If
> you do attempt then use official sources... not slanted media or reports
> from undemocratic institutions like the UN.

You are talking to someone who has repeatedly claimed that Omar Khadr
deserves the protection of the UN protocols on child soldiers but who
doesn't understand them well enough to see that the guy does not. It was
not a recognized state army and he was over the age of 15 and with his
parents consent.

[simplicity]

On Oct 10, 2:27 am, Barry Bruyea <damnthetorped...@duck.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 18:30:34 -0700, gordo <grmerr...@shaw.ca.remove>

Gordo, in his typical fashion, is barking at the wrong tree - what's
new. Canada is certainly not without faults and misconducts when it
comes to protecting children. In Ontario alone, the provincial
ombudsman recorded more than 2,500 complaints against CAS - with no
power and authority to investigate them.

But using UN as a credible argument? Only in Gordo's fantasy land...

[Viejo Vizcacha]

We are talking about the same Syria where Maher Arar was sent by the US,
based on information provided by Canadian secret police, with the
indifference, and sometimes support, of many in this group.

As for moral credibility, Canada is rapidly losing the little it still has.

[Tom Farnsworth]

I could argue this from either side:

Affirmative: One does not want to apprehend a youth who has committed
minor crime and put him in the prison system where he will become a
confirmed criminal. It is wiser to divert him.

Negative: Yes but Youth who are violent or repeat offenders need to be
removed for the community for the benefit of all.

Affirmative: The problem is how you define violent and who is judging.
There are communities where there is little choice but to be violent.
Some cases are easy... others are hard.

Negative: Sure but in balance it is better to lock up a few salvageable
kids than to have others on the street who will commit terrible acts.
Chimp studies show that removing aggressive members from the community
causes long term decreases in aggression.

Affirmative: The Harper gov't doesn't trust Judges and will have a fixed
system rather than serious evaluation of each offender. They will end up
painting with a broad brush and imprisoning large numbers of kids who
could well end up fine.

sort of like that... The side that I'm on depends entirely on how this
is done... but knowing Harper, I believe it will be done poorly.

[SaPeIsMa]

"Tom Farnsworth" <tommy...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:ghids.6686$EP3....@newsfe07.iad...

LOL
Poor baby has a "Harper" hard-on
Everything you post always seems to end in slam against Harper

Just a variant of BDS, Bush Derangement Syndrome, I'm willing to bet.

[Chom Noamsky]

It's a really straight forward argument: after failed attempts to
rehabilitate a young offender, to the best of the system's ability, the
young offender should be treated as an adult for the purposes of moral,
legal and criminal liability. If the argument is really about rights,
as the goofy bozo OP alludes, then the rights of victims need to be
taken into consideration as well, and there needs to be reasonable
balance.

[SaPeIsMa]

"Chom Noamsky" <ch...@noamsky.here> wrote in message
news:k54ecp$mk5$1...@dont-email.me...

Funny how the rights of the victims don't count for much with the
bleeding-heart crowd

[Tom Farnsworth]

I can't really disagree with your first sentence... The problem lies in
who judges, and what attempts are made by the system to rehabilitate and
divert. Nobody wants young rapists and murders on the street. But mostly
things are not this clear.

Some communities are violent, and to survive non-violently in them as a
kid is just about impossible. On the other hand we really don't want
youth spaying bullets in the streets mowing down our children no matter
what their excuse is. Questions this difficult are not answered with
minimum sentences, and a cookie cutter one size fits all approach.

The Harper gov't's disturbing (and self stated)lack of interest in
objective evidence, preferring instead to rely on doctrine is hardly
promising.

The issue of victim's rights is so complex. Rights are something we all
have by virtue of our laws and constitution. Vengeance is not usually
one of them in civilized countries. Once you are victimized your right
have already been violated. Accused have the right in civilized
countries, to a fair trial...

[gordo]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 22:42:31 -0700, Chom Noamsky <ch...@noamsky.here>

We are talking about kids again.

>BTW, the UN is not a democratic institution. It's actually quite
>undemocratic, considering that five members have supervotes and special
>membership status. In a real democracy all votes carry equal weight.
>Canada is a real democracy where the votes are equal and there is no
>special membership status, therefore Canada's mandates are legitimate
>according to democratic principles.

Canada is democracy in name only. No one elected Harper or any PM to
be PM. We vote for one person in our riding. In this case my MP voted
on every issue that Harper dictated even though his constituents were
opposed to it.
We know what the UN is. We also know you and Harper hate it.

>But, *sigh*, when has the left not adored fascistic pseudo-authorities
>with illegitimate and token mandates.

The UN is not left or right. It is all the nations of the world
including communists,fascists, democracies etc.

[gordo]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 22:53:14 -0700, Chom Noamsky <ch...@noamsky.here>
wrote:

What I do know is that the UN slammed Canada for its punative laws and
you tried to defend Harper by attacking the committee which had a
member from Syria on it.

[gordo]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:44:21 -0400, Dave Smith
<adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>On 10/10/2012 1:53 AM, Chom Noamsky wrote:
>
>>> The UN does not stone women and kill others except when the US says
>>> to. The topic was punative laws against children made by the Harper
>>> government.
>>
>> Maybe there should be 'punative' laws for guys like you who habitually
>> exaggerate, distort, and commit spelling crimes.
>
>I guess he doesn't understand that his use of hyperbole is one of the
>reasons people don't take him seriously.

Oh but you respond .

> > I bet you can't
>> actually detail which laws in Canada are 'punative' for children. If
>> you do attempt then use official sources... not slanted media or reports
>> from undemocratic institutions like the UN.
>
>
>You are talking to someone who has repeatedly claimed that Omar Khadr
>deserves the protection of the UN protocols on child soldiers but who
>doesn't understand them well enough to see that the guy does not. It was
>not a recognized state army and he was over the age of 15 and with his
>parents consent.

I would call 16 being over the age of 15 . He was not 16. So this was
about the UN and Perogy Harper your leader who passes omnibus bills
hundreds of pages long.

[gordo]

On 10 Oct 2012 14:59:46 GMT, Nobody <n...@home.anymore> wrote:

>What a moronic comment gordo.

>
>> The topic was punative laws against children made by the
>> Harper government.
>

>If you read what Chom replied to you, you wold see you are talking out
>of your arse. What would YOU do with these repeat offenders.
>'Ground' them for a couple ays?

And I make spelling errors?
Treating kids as adults is not tough on crime. Taking away judges
ability to judge is not tough on crime.
The reason that the UN gave is because the Tory crime bill no longer
conforms to international child rights convention .
From what I understand the Canadian government was not only a signer
of the convention but a leader in getting it signed.

[Dave Smith]

On 10/10/2012 4:38 PM, gordo wrote:

>>
>> You are talking to someone who has repeatedly claimed that Omar Khadr
>> deserves the protection of the UN protocols on child soldiers but who
>> doesn't understand them well enough to see that the guy does not. It was
>> not a recognized state army and he was over the age of 15 and with his
>> parents consent.
>
> I would call 16 being over the age of 15 . He was not 16. So this was
> about the UN and Perogy Harper your leader who passes omnibus bills
> hundreds of pages long.
>

You are correct that 16 is over the age of 15. Fifteen years and one
day is over the age of 15. The drinking age here is 19. That means that
a person who is 19 can drink. People can get a drivers licence at 16, or
16 years 1 day.


And there you go associating Khadr's situation with Harper again. Jean
Chretien and Paul Martin didn't interfere in Khadr's case either. They
learned the hard way after Chretien intervened on behalf of Khadr's
father to get him out of jail in Pakistan where he was being held on
terrorism charges. As it turned out, he was a terrorist. He was killed
in a battle with coalition forces. Unlike your, our PMs learned from
that mistake.

[Chom Noamsky]

On 10/10/2012 1:27 PM, gordo wrote:
> Canada is democracy in name only. No one elected Harper or any PM to
> be PM. We vote for one person in our riding. In this case my MP voted
> on every issue that Harper dictated even though his constituents were
> opposed to it.

You need to take a basic civics course and learn how Canadian democracy
works.

> We know what the UN is. We also know you and Harper hate it.

We... you using that imperious we again? I consider the UN an
irrelevant body with no moral authority and no genuine mandate. And you
need to believe that my objection is based on political affiliation, or
something silly like that, which is about as cerebral as you get.

>> But, *sigh*, when has the left not adored fascistic pseudo-authorities
>> with illegitimate and token mandates.
>
> The UN is not left or right. It is all the nations of the world
> including communists,fascists, democracies etc.

The inclusion of non-democracies is precisely why the UN has no moral
authority and why its work can't be taken seriously. Really, this
committee devoted TEN YEARS to studying the rights of children in
Canada? Why not focus those precious committee resources on the
millions of criminally abused, murdered and exploited children suffering
in backwards shit-holes. Or better yet, instead of holding committees
and making recommendations for stable democracies, get on some blue hats
and actually go out and PROTECT children in those shit-holes. The
problem with that, though, is children run namby-pamby UN workers out of
the country in places like Syria. In Haiti, most of the UN workers sent
to assist after the earthquake never left the safety of the cruise chip
they were living on.

[Chom Noamsky]

In other words you don't actually know any of the facts involved... or
the correct spelling of punitive. Get back to me when you actually read
the laws and know what you're talking about.

[Chom Noamsky]

On 10/10/2012 1:47 PM, gordo wrote:

> And I make spelling errors?
> Treating kids as adults is not tough on crime. Taking away judges
> ability to judge is not tough on crime.
> The reason that the UN gave is because the Tory crime bill no longer
> conforms to international child rights convention .
> From what I understand the Canadian government was not only a signer
> of the convention but a leader in getting it signed.

Yesterday the Taliban boasted about shooting a little girl who was on
her way to school (they don't tolerate that sort of thing)... and not a
peep from you. One of Canada objectives in that part of the world is to
make it safe for little girls to go to school, yet you scream about
Canada's involvement. Me thinks you don't give a shit about children,
you'll just exploit any excuse you can to throw partisan mud. You're a
real cheesy, mushy fellow... gordoo.

[Barry Bruyea]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:38:29 -0700, Chom Noamsky <ch...@noamsky.here>
wrote:

With a base philosophy of generalized hypocrisy.

[Barry Bruyea]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:15:10 -0700, Chom Noamsky <ch...@noamsky.here>
wrote:

The U.N. has become a job creation program for bureaucrats from third
world shit-holes.

[Dave Smith]

Funny thing about that.... a religious zealot, prepared to kill for his
god, shoots a girl and hits her in the head. Yet, the girl survives.
Should the Taliban read that as a message that god is on her side?

[Chom Noamsky]

The fact that a 14-y-o blasphemer survived a point-blank gunshot by a
courageous soldier of radical Islam should be cause for a serious
examination of faith. You would think.

[gordo]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 23:00:23 -0700, Chom Noamsky <ch...@noamsky.here>
wrote:

>On 10/9/2012 9:50 PM, Tom Farnsworth wrote:

>> On 10/9/2012 7:49 PM, Gil wrote:
>>> On 09/10/2012 9:30 PM, gordo wrote:
>>>> "The federal government's tough-on-crime agenda is excessively
>>>> punitive for youth and is a step backwards for Canada's child rights
>>>> record, says a United Nations group."
>>>> Can't wait for the UN haters go nuts in trying to justify Perogy
>>>> Harpers tough on children. Even the UN knows it is wrong.
>>>> https://news.google.ca/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn
>>>
>>>
>>> The UN? Oh,...you mean that third-world driven organization whose
>>> fanatical members go around stoning women, killing others who are not of
>>> the Islamic faith, etc. I'm surprised that you find any credibility with
>>> anything they say.
>>>
>>> Time we pulled out of that organization. It's not what it was fifty
>>> years ago. The inmates are now running the asylum.
>>>
>>>
>>>

>> Is an ad hominem against an organization an ad orgsnizationimem? Does
>> being right wing mean you can never make a rational argument?
>>
>> It is possible to make arguments in favour of harsher laws against
>> children... lots of countries have them... Iran, Saudi, Afghanistan,
>> Pakistan... countries Noam, and Gil do so admire.
>>
>> But seriously... Rational argument is possible and perhaps it could be
>> instructive.
>
>You would have to inform yourself, first, before attempting rational
>discussion on the topic. I hope gordoo does so as well.

You spelt my name wrong.
I gave the reason why the UN slapped Canada on the wrist. It is
because they broke the international childs right convention that
Canada signed.

[gordo]

Harper has broken more agreements than any PM in Canada's history. He
is the worst PM we have ever had and there have been some doozys.

[Chom Noamsky]

On 10/10/2012 4:42 PM, gordo wrote:

> I gave the reason why the UN slapped Canada on the wrist. It is
> because they broke the international childs right convention that
> Canada signed.

Do you consider the UN a higher authority than your own government?

[gordo]

On 10 Oct 2012 21:34:43 GMT, Nobody <n...@home.anymore> wrote:

>gordo wrote:
>
>

>> The UN is not left or right.
>

>BULLSHIT!!!!! gordo
Don't shout it is bad manners. The governments of the world make up
the UN . A commisson of the UN went public with a criticism of Canada
and that made you angry. Examine the criticism and see if it warranted
or not. It is bigger than just Perogy Harper and his tough on crime
bill.

[Dave Smith]

One has to admit that it is a bit of a paradox that we accept a vote on
an issue when many of the countries whose delegates are not elected
democratically, or whose elections are rigged.

[gordo]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:15:10 -0700, Chom Noamsky <ch...@noamsky.here>
wrote:

For brevity I will not respond to the first part of your post but I
will the latter.The authority comes from the nations who are the
members. The committee did spend 10 years of study. It was the mandate
of the committee to do this. The UN is very much involved in backward
shitholes as you describe it. It is a world body. Ah you mention Blue
Hats , Canada's real huge contribution to the UN and one that Harper
has removed us from as he turned us from a peace
keeping nation to a warring nation. The blue hats are still there you
just don't see Canadians much anymore.

Now back to the study. Do you object to the study because of blind
devotion to Harper or to what the contents actually said?

[gordo]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:05:10 -0400, Dave Smith
<adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>On 10/10/2012 4:38 PM, gordo wrote:
>
>>>
>>> You are talking to someone who has repeatedly claimed that Omar Khadr
>>> deserves the protection of the UN protocols on child soldiers but who
>>> doesn't understand them well enough to see that the guy does not. It was
>>> not a recognized state army and he was over the age of 15 and with his
>>> parents consent.
>>
>> I would call 16 being over the age of 15 . He was not 16. So this was
>> about the UN and Perogy Harper your leader who passes omnibus bills
>> hundreds of pages long.
>>
>
>
>
>You are correct that 16 is over the age of 15. Fifteen years and one
>day is over the age of 15. The drinking age here is 19. That means that
>a person who is 19 can drink. People can get a drivers licence at 16, or
>16 years 1 day.

Nice try but he was still 15 not 16 and he could not get a drivers
licence because he was not 16 he was still 15. silly game you are
playing.

>
>
>And there you go associating Khadr's situation with Harper again. Jean
>Chretien and Paul Martin didn't interfere in Khadr's case either. They
>learned the hard way after Chretien intervened on behalf of Khadr's
>father to get him out of jail in Pakistan where he was being held on
>terrorism charges. As it turned out, he was a terrorist. He was killed
>in a battle with coalition forces. Unlike your, our PMs learned from
>that mistake.

Dave said "You are talking to someone who has repeatedly claimed that
Omar Khadr deserves the protection of the UN protocols etc. when I was
talking about Harper and how the UN did a study of how children are
let down in Canada. Why you would want to divert attention from what
the reports says is easy to understand. It is damning to Canada and
Harper and is true.

[gordo]

On 10 Oct 2012 21:36:14 GMT, Nobody <n...@home.anymore> wrote:

>Hard to talk sense to gordo when he has such hatred for the elected
>officials of the country.
Hard to get you do discuss the actual report. You should be ashamed.

[Dave Smith]

On 10/10/2012 2:00 AM, Chom Noamsky wrote:

>> being right wing mean you can never make a rational argument?
>>
>> It is possible to make arguments in favour of harsher laws against
>> children... lots of countries have them... Iran, Saudi, Afghanistan,
>> Pakistan... countries Noam, and Gil do so admire.
>>
>> But seriously... Rational argument is possible and perhaps it could be
>> instructive.
>
> You would have to inform yourself, first, before attempting rational
> discussion on the topic. I hope gordoo does so as well.

Speaking of informed..... here is the text of the plain language version
of the declaration of the rights of the child:

Declaration of
the Rights of the Child
Plain Language Version
1 All children have the right to what follows, no matter what their
race, colour sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, or
where they were born or who they were born to.
2 You have the special right to grow up and to develop physically
and spiritually in a healthy and normal way, free and with dignity.
3 You have a right to a name and to be a member of a country.
4 You have a right to special care and protection and to good food,
housing and medical services.
5 You have the right to special care if handicapped in any way.
6 You have the right to love and understanding, preferably from
parents and family, but from the government where these cannot help.
7 You have the right to go to school for free, to play, and to have
an equal chance to develop yourself and to learn to be responsible and
useful.

Your parents have special responsibilities for your education and guidance.
8 You have the right always to be among the first to get help.
9 You have the right to be protected against cruel acts or
exploitation, e.g. you shall not be obliged to do work which hinders
your development both physically and mentally.

You should not work before a minimum age and never when that would
hinder your health, and your moral and physical development.
10 You should be taught peace, understanding, tolerance and
friendship among all people.

[gordo]

>Use what skill you have to give valid points instead of being a
>spelling Kop.

>
>> Treating kids as adults is not tough on crime.
>

>Wanna bet. These kids know the system and play it. They know
>exactly what they can get away with and only get a slap on the
>wrist. Things need to change.

>
>> Taking away judges ability to judge is not tough on crime.
>

>Who did that?

>
>> The reason that the UN gave is because the Tory crime bill no
>> longer conforms to international child rights convention.
>

>Personally, I figure the UN can go screw themselves. They fuck with
>anyone that will listen to them and run from doing any real good in
>any country that actually needs it.

>
>> From what I understand the Canadian government was not only a
>> signer of the convention but a leader in getting it signed.
>

>So?
>
>“Our legislation reflects the need to protect society from serious
>and violent young offenders,” Di Mambro said. “It targets the small
>number of violent, repeat young offenders and its measures are
>balanced, effective, and responsible.”
>
>In my view if that stops even ONE kid from a criminal, it is worth
>it.
Time to read what the report is all about.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/10/09/un-canada-crime-bill_n_1951935.html?ir=Canada+Politics

[gordo]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:23:30 -0700, Chom Noamsky <ch...@noamsky.here>

Get back to me when you read what the UN said about Canada not how the
government wants to run away from the report.

[gordo]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:38:29 -0700, Chom Noamsky <ch...@noamsky.here>
wrote:

You really must learn how to spell . There are after all only 5
letters in Gordo
Are you crazy. I feel terrible about the brave child. That you throw
this out against me is disgusting. We are talking about children for
gods sake and fundamentalists religious and others who commit crimes
against children. You are the one supporting jailing children not me.

[M.I.Wakefield]

"gordo" wrote in message news:md6c785ccudkee01c...@4ax.com...

> It is damning to Canada and Harper and is true.

The sun coming up tomorrow will probably be damning to Canada and Harper in
One-note-gordo's books.

[gordo]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:22:09 -0700, Chom Noamsky <ch...@noamsky.here>
wrote:

>On 10/10/2012 10:30 AM, Tom Farnsworth wrote:

>> On 10/9/2012 11:00 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote:
>>> On 10/9/2012 9:50 PM, Tom Farnsworth wrote:

>>>> On 10/9/2012 7:49 PM, Gil wrote:
>>>>> On 09/10/2012 9:30 PM, gordo wrote:
>>>>>> "The federal government's tough-on-crime agenda is excessively
>>>>>> punitive for youth and is a step backwards for Canada's child rights
>>>>>> record, says a United Nations group."
>>>>>> Can't wait for the UN haters go nuts in trying to justify Perogy
>>>>>> Harpers tough on children. Even the UN knows it is wrong.
>>>>>> https://news.google.ca/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The UN? Oh,...you mean that third-world driven organization whose
>>>>> fanatical members go around stoning women, killing others who are
>>>>> not of
>>>>> the Islamic faith, etc. I'm surprised that you find any credibility
>>>>> with
>>>>> anything they say.
>>>>>
>>>>> Time we pulled out of that organization. It's not what it was fifty
>>>>> years ago. The inmates are now running the asylum.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>

>>>> Is an ad hominem against an organization an ad orgsnizationimem? Does

>>>> being right wing mean you can never make a rational argument?
>>>>
>>>> It is possible to make arguments in favour of harsher laws against
>>>> children... lots of countries have them... Iran, Saudi, Afghanistan,
>>>> Pakistan... countries Noam, and Gil do so admire.
>>>>
>>>> But seriously... Rational argument is possible and perhaps it could be
>>>> instructive.
>>>
>>> You would have to inform yourself, first, before attempting rational
>>> discussion on the topic. I hope gordoo does so as well.
>>

>> I could argue this from either side:
>>
>> Affirmative: One does not want to apprehend a youth who has committed
>> minor crime and put him in the prison system where he will become a
>> confirmed criminal. It is wiser to divert him.
>>
>> Negative: Yes but Youth who are violent or repeat offenders need to be
>> removed for the community for the benefit of all.
>>
>> Affirmative: The problem is how you define violent and who is judging.
>> There are communities where there is little choice but to be violent.
>> Some cases are easy... others are hard.
>>
>> Negative: Sure but in balance it is better to lock up a few salvageable
>> kids than to have others on the street who will commit terrible acts.
>> Chimp studies show that removing aggressive members from the community
>> causes long term decreases in aggression.
>>
>> Affirmative: The Harper gov't doesn't trust Judges and will have a fixed
>> system rather than serious evaluation of each offender. They will end up
>> painting with a broad brush and imprisoning large numbers of kids who
>> could well end up fine.
>>
>> sort of like that... The side that I'm on depends entirely on how this
>> is done... but knowing Harper, I believe it will be done poorly.
>
>It's a really straight forward argument: after failed attempts to
>rehabilitate a young offender, to the best of the system's ability, the
>young offender should be treated as an adult for the purposes of moral,
>legal and criminal liability. If the argument is really about rights,
>as the goofy bozo OP alludes, then the rights of victims need to be
>taken into consideration as well, and there needs to be reasonable
>balance.

You did not bother to read why the UN commission found fault with
Canada did you? Chompski wants to justify jailing children while at
the same time accusing me of not caring about a child that was shot by
the taliban. I do care about both. Guess who doesn't. care about both.

[Chom Noamsky]

On 10/10/2012 5:57 PM, gordo wrote:

> For brevity I will not respond to the first part of your post but I
> will the latter.

Of course not, that would only illustrate your ignorance,

The authority comes from the nations who are the
> members.

For a substantial number of member nations authority comes from the
point of a gun. Quiz: is that good authority, or bad authority?

> The committee did spend 10 years of study. It was the mandate
> of the committee to do this.

Mandate from who?

> The UN is very much involved in backward shitholes as you describe it.

It would be terrific if the UN left shitholes a better place, but I bet
you can't name one that was.

> It is a world body.

So is the World Organization of Girl Scouts.

> Ah you mention Blue
> Hats , Canada's real huge contribution to the UN and one that Harper
> has removed us from as he turned us from a peace
> keeping nation to a warring nation. The blue hats are still there you
> just don't see Canadians much anymore.

The Blue Hats are ineffective as pillows...the road to hell is paved
with good intentions. If you can provide a case example of the UN
making the world a better place, I'm all eyes.

> Now back to the study. Do you object to the study because of blind
> devotion to Harper or to what the contents actually said?

Did you rape your mother before or after you molested your sister?

[Chom Noamsky]

On 10/10/2012 6:32 PM, gordo wrote:

> You really must learn how to spell . There are after all only 5
> letters in Gordo
> Are you crazy. I feel terrible about the brave child. That you throw
> this out against me is disgusting. We are talking about children for
> gods sake and fundamentalists religious and others who commit crimes
> against children. You are the one supporting jailing children not me.

You prefer focusing your indignant outrage at stable, humanitarian,
democratically elected governments, while little girls get shot in the
head by religious radicals just for going to school. You have very
disturbing priorities. Can you explain why you care so much about the
finer points of Canadian youth justice, while ignoring the murder of
children in other UN member nations?

[Chom Noamsky]

On 10/10/2012 6:07 PM, gordo wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:05:10 -0400, Dave Smith
> <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 10/10/2012 4:38 PM, gordo wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> You are talking to someone who has repeatedly claimed that Omar Khadr
>>>> deserves the protection of the UN protocols on child soldiers but who
>>>> doesn't understand them well enough to see that the guy does not. It was
>>>> not a recognized state army and he was over the age of 15 and with his
>>>> parents consent.
>>>
>>> I would call 16 being over the age of 15 . He was not 16. So this was
>>> about the UN and Perogy Harper your leader who passes omnibus bills
>>> hundreds of pages long.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You are correct that 16 is over the age of 15. Fifteen years and one
>> day is over the age of 15. The drinking age here is 19. That means that
>> a person who is 19 can drink. People can get a drivers licence at 16, or
>> 16 years 1 day.
>
> Nice try but he was still 15 not 16 and he could not get a drivers
> licence because he was not 16 he was still 15. silly game you are
> playing.

A 16-yo is morally responsible for throwing a grenade, or similar
crimes... but a 15-yo is not? Can you describe the distinguishing
factor, gordoo?

[Dave Smith]

On 10/10/2012 9:39 PM, gordo wrote:

>
> You did not bother to read why the UN commission found fault with
> Canada did you? Chompski wants to justify jailing children while at
> the same time accusing me of not caring about a child that was shot by
> the taliban. I do care about both. Guess who doesn't. care about both.
>
>

I hope that you are not suggesting that there are not any children who
need to be incarcerated for the safety of the public. The reason that
he accused you of not caring about a child who was shot is that it is
typical of you to whine and carry on about anything that you think that
you can blame on Harper while ignoring all sorts of atrocious behaviour.
You say you care about both, but that tends to come out only after your
one sided rants.


BTW..... that report also wants Canada to rehabilitate Omar Khadr.
Khadr is not a child. He was when he was in Pakistan. When he was old
enough to fight he went to Afghanistan. Then he was incarcerated by the
US. We <?> agreed to let him finish his sentence in Canada and under
Canadian rules, meaning an earlier release. He is not a child any more.

[Eric�]

gordo wrote...

> >?Our legislation reflects the need to protect society from serious
> >and violent young offenders,? Di Mambro said. ?It targets the small

> >number of violent, repeat young offenders and its measures are

> >balanced, effective, and responsible.?

> >
> >In my view if that stops even ONE kid from a criminal, it is worth
> >it.
> Time to read what the report is all about.
> http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/10/09/un-canada-crime-bill_n_1951935.html?ir=Canada+Politics

"Governments should determine why so many aboriginal and black children
and youth are involved in the criminal justice system and figure out how
to reduce the disparity, the report recommended."

Simple - arrest more Asian and Caucasian kids. There's also a gross
disparity between the numbers of males vs females involved in the
system. Clearly we've got to do a better job of incarcerating young
women and girls to make things more equitable.

[Barry Bruyea]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:44:22 -0700, gordo <grme...@shaw.ca.remove>
wrote:

How many of the 'governments' of the world who make up the U.N. are
dictatorships, Gordo? That alone destroys any credibility the U.N.
posers wave around like a bloody flag.

[Barry Bruyea]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 18:59:23 -0700, Chom Noamsky <ch...@noamsky.here>
wrote:

The "Blue Hats" always had an impossible task, in that they were
always called "Peace Keepers" when there was no peace to keep. They
should have been called "Peace Makers" for true credibility but too
many times they were ridiculously restricted from making anything
other than lip service to U.N. hypocrisy.
>

[Dave Smith]

On 11/10/2012 6:41 AM, Barry Bruyea wrote:

>
> The "Blue Hats" always had an impossible task, in that they were
> always called "Peace Keepers" when there was no peace to keep. They
> should have been called "Peace Makers" for true credibility but too
> many times they were ridiculously restricted from making anything
> other than lip service to U.N. hypocrisy.

They have been successful in a few cases. In many cases they were
absolutely useless because they were ill equipped and, worse, had their
hands tied by rules of engagement. Look at the situation in Rwanda.
Many of the troops send to Dallaire had no equipment. *IF* the UN forces
got into a firefight, they had only enough ammunition for about 20
minutes. Even thought the Hutus were getting increasingly violent, UN
would not Dallaire interfere.



AFAIAC, if the situation in a country is so bad that peace keepers
(makers?> have to be called in, they should have relaxed rules of
engagement. They should be able to start shooting at the first signs of
resistance, and they should have ready access to air support and re-supply.

[Dave Smith]

On 10/10/2012 10:55 PM, Eric© wrote:
ime to read what the report is all about.
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/10/09/un-canada-crime-bill_n_1951935.html?ir=Canada+Politics
>
> "Governments should determine why so many aboriginal and black children
> and youth are involved in the criminal justice system and figure out how
> to reduce the disparity, the report recommended."
>
> Simple - arrest more Asian and Caucasian kids. There's also a gross
> disparity between the numbers of males vs females involved in the
> system. Clearly we've got to do a better job of incarcerating young
> women and girls to make things more equitable.
>

We keep hearing about how racist our system is, and people point to the
fact that natives and blacks are over represented in the prison system.
We don't need an inquiry to determine the reason for that. There is
more crime in native communities than in the rest of the country. It is
not just a statistically significant difference. Crime on reserved and
in native communities is many times higher. That is why there are so
many natives in jail.A staggeringly high percentage of firearms
homicides in the country are committed by young black males, mostly in
the drug gangs, and mostly of Jamaican or Somali backgrounds.

[Dave Smith]

On 10/10/2012 9:49 PM, Nobody wrote:

> gordo wrote:

>>>
>>> Hard to talk sense to gordo when he has such hatred for the elected
>>> officials of the country.
>> Hard to get you do discuss the actual report. You should be
> ashamed.
>>
>>
>

> I read the intended new rules you are whining about.
> As others have pointed out, you haven't.
> I see nothing wrong with them.
>


OTOH, there are the "rights" upheld in the UN's declaration

- the right to what follows ??? WheverTF that means,

- the right to grow up free and to develop spiritually and in a healthy
manner


- the right to special care if handicapped in any way.
Yeah.... and who is going to offer that care?

- the right to go to school for free
Apparently it costs nothing to run a school in the undeveloped world

Here's a good one.... the right to be among the first to get help.



Rather than paying lip service to the UN bureaucrats wrote this
declaration, people should be asking some serious questions about how
they expect ensure these "rights", and why they would dare to criticize
Canada, considering the situation for billions of kids in other
countries. For that matter, you might also ask how it took then ten
years on the UN teat to come up with that farce of a declaration, and
how they could suddenly come up with a condemnation of a proposed n
amendment to a Canadian law that was only recently announced.

It is interesting to note that in one of the documents I read, they
expect Canada to rehabilitate Omar Khadr, who is no longer a child and
hasn't been for years, but they said nothing about taking action against
the people who got him into that mess..... his own family and their
friends in the Taliban.

[Dave Smith]

On 10/10/2012 9:07 PM, gordo wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:05:10 -0400, Dave Smith

>>

>> You are correct that 16 is over the age of 15. Fifteen years and one
>> day is over the age of 15. The drinking age here is 19. That means that
>> a person who is 19 can drink. People can get a drivers licence at 16, or
>> 16 years 1 day.
>
> Nice try but he was still 15 not 16 and he could not get a drivers
> licence because he was not 16 he was still 15. silly game you are
> playing.

Bullshit. A person is over the age of 15 once they pass their 15th
birthday. Your argument cannot be so lame that you would haev to rely on
that asinine interprettion of "age". A person who is 15 years and one
day is over 15.

>>
>> And there you go associating Khadr's situation with Harper again. Jean
>> Chretien and Paul Martin didn't interfere in Khadr's case either. They
>> learned the hard way after Chretien intervened on behalf of Khadr's
>> father to get him out of jail in Pakistan where he was being held on
>> terrorism charges. As it turned out, he was a terrorist. He was killed
>> in a battle with coalition forces. Unlike your, our PMs learned from
>> that mistake.
>
> Dave said "You are talking to someone who has repeatedly claimed that
> Omar Khadr deserves the protection of the UN protocols etc. when I was
> talking about Harper and how the UN did a study of how children are
> let down in Canada. Why you would want to divert attention from what
> the reports says is easy to understand. It is damning to Canada and
> Harper and is true.
>

Maybe, aside from discrediting a questionable source, an organization
that has representatives from oppressive dictatorships, the criticism is
pretty vague. After taking 10 years of work <?> to come up with this
report, they can suddenly slam Canada for changes to the youth justice
laws which were only recently even announced. They use vague terms
about the harsher laws for youths and making it easier to try them as
adults without getting into specifics.

Maybe if you could detail how the proposed changes are harsher, or how
much easier it will be to try a young offender as an adult.

Please do not try to deny that young offenders do not play the system
knowing full well that they will get the wet spaghetti treatment if
caught before they turn 18.

[Dave Smith]

On 10/10/2012 9:24 PM, gordo wrote:
ember from Syria on it.
>>
>> In other words you don't actually know any of the facts involved... or
>> the correct spelling of punitive. Get back to me when you actually read
>> the laws and know what you're talking about.
>
> Get back to me when you read what the UN said about Canada not how the
> government wants to run away from the report.
>

How about you get back to us when you have some specifics about how
horrible this proposed law is harsher, how is so harsh that the UN, with
so many clusterfuck nation members, would feel inspired to slam us,
while some of its members use child soldiers, which still have slavery,
where young children are forced to work in unacceptable conditions.

[Chom Noamsky]

On 10/11/2012 9:19 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 9:07 PM, gordo wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:05:10 -0400, Dave Smith
>
>>>
>>> You are correct that 16 is over the age of 15. Fifteen years and one
>>> day is over the age of 15. The drinking age here is 19. That means that
>>> a person who is 19 can drink. People can get a drivers licence at 16, or
>>> 16 years 1 day.
>>
>> Nice try but he was still 15 not 16 and he could not get a drivers
>> licence because he was not 16 he was still 15. silly game you are
>> playing.
>
>
> Bullshit. A person is over the age of 15 once they pass their 15th
> birthday. Your argument cannot be so lame that you would haev to rely on
> that asinine interprettion of "age". A person who is 15 years and one
> day is over 15.

In Iran 15 is old enough to volunteer for the Basij Forces. D'ya think
gordoo will express outrage over these Iranian child soldiers? Is there
even a UN committee dedicated to this?

>>>
>>> And there you go associating Khadr's situation with Harper again. Jean
>>> Chretien and Paul Martin didn't interfere in Khadr's case either. They
>>> learned the hard way after Chretien intervened on behalf of Khadr's
>>> father to get him out of jail in Pakistan where he was being held on
>>> terrorism charges. As it turned out, he was a terrorist. He was killed
>>> in a battle with coalition forces. Unlike your, our PMs learned from
>>> that mistake.
>>
>> Dave said "You are talking to someone who has repeatedly claimed that
>> Omar Khadr deserves the protection of the UN protocols etc. when I was
>> talking about Harper and how the UN did a study of how children are
>> let down in Canada. Why you would want to divert attention from what
>> the reports says is easy to understand. It is damning to Canada and
>> Harper and is true.
>>
>
>
> Maybe, aside from discrediting a questionable source, an organization
> that has representatives from oppressive dictatorships, the criticism is
> pretty vague. After taking 10 years of work <?> to come up with this
> report, they can suddenly slam Canada for changes to the youth justice
> laws which were only recently even announced. They use vague terms
> about the harsher laws for youths and making it easier to try them as
> adults without getting into specifics.
>
> Maybe if you could detail how the proposed changes are harsher, or how
> much easier it will be to try a young offender as an adult.

Don't hold your breath. Gordoo didn't initiate this post because he
cares about children, he's just using it as an opportunity to stroke his
Harper boner.

[gordo]

The commission spent 10 years looking at how we treat our children.
They made a report. You don't like the UN so their report is not
valid. Best to examine the report and see if it is valid.

[gordo]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 18:59:23 -0700, Chom Noamsky <ch...@noamsky.here>
wrote:

Your closing remark shows the depth of your depravity.
>

[Chom Noamsky]

On 10/11/2012 11:36 AM, gordo wrote:

> Best to examine the report and see if it is valid.

Which you obviously have not done.

[Chom Noamsky]

I wrote that to illustrate your use of absurd logical fallacies... and
you still didn't get it. Ya ain't the sharpest tool in the shed....

[Barry Bruyea]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:36:54 -0700, gordo <grme...@shaw.ca.remove>

wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 06:38:05 -0400, Barry Bruyea
><damnthet...@duck.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:44:22 -0700, gordo <grme...@shaw.ca.remove>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 10 Oct 2012 21:34:43 GMT, Nobody <n...@home.anymore> wrote:
>>>
>>>>gordo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The UN is not left or right.
>>>>
>>>>BULLSHIT!!!!! gordo
>>>Don't shout it is bad manners. The governments of the world make up
>>>the UN . A commisson of the UN went public with a criticism of Canada
>>>and that made you angry. Examine the criticism and see if it warranted
>>>or not. It is bigger than just Perogy Harper and his tough on crime
>>>bill.
>>
>>How many of the 'governments' of the world who make up the U.N. are
>>dictatorships, Gordo? That alone destroys any credibility the U.N.
>>posers wave around like a bloody flag.
>
>The commission spent 10 years looking at how we treat our children.
>They made a report. You don't like the UN so their report is not
>valid. Best to examine the report and see if it is valid.

So, the liberals were in power when the "10" year report was
initiated. What did the first few years reveal?

[gordo]

On 11 Oct 2012 01:49:41 GMT, Nobody <n...@home.anymore> wrote:

>gordo wrote:
>

>> On 10 Oct 2012 21:36:14 GMT, Nobody <n...@home.anymore> wrote:
>>
>>>Dave Smith wrote:
>>>

>>>> On 10/10/2012 4:38 PM, gordo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>

>>>>>> You are talking to someone who has repeatedly claimed that
>Omar

>>>>>> Khadr deserves the protection of the UN protocols on child
>>>>>> soldiers but who doesn't understand them well enough to see
>that
>>>>>> the guy does not. It was not a recognized state army and he was
>>>>>> over the age of 15 and with his parents consent.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would call 16 being over the age of 15 . He was not 16. So
>this
>>>>> was about the UN and Perogy Harper your leader who passes
>omnibus
>>>>> bills hundreds of pages long.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

>>>> You are correct that 16 is over the age of 15. Fifteen years and
>>>> one day is over the age of 15. The drinking age here is 19. That
>>>> means that a person who is 19 can drink. People can get a drivers
>>>> licence at 16, or 16 years 1 day.
>>>>
>>>>

>>>> And there you go associating Khadr's situation with Harper
>again.
>>>> Jean Chretien and Paul Martin didn't interfere in Khadr's case
>>>> either. They learned the hard way after Chretien intervened on
>>>> behalf of Khadr's father to get him out of jail in Pakistan where
>>>> he was being held on terrorism charges. As it turned out, he was
>>>> a terrorist. He was killed in a battle with coalition forces.
>>>> Unlike your, our PMs learned from that mistake.
>>>>
>>>

>>>Hard to talk sense to gordo when he has such hatred for the elected
>>>officials of the country.
>> Hard to get you do discuss the actual report. You should be
>ashamed.
>>
>>
>
>I read the intended new rules you are whining about.
>As others have pointed out, you haven't.
>I see nothing wrong with them.

Here is a little of what the report is all about.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/09/26/un-canada-child-rights_n_1916876.html

[Chom Noamsky]

I imagine it should reveal the utter failure of the Liberal government
to end child poverty in Canada, even though they pledged to end it by
the year 2000.

[gordo]

They got most of their information from Canadian input by child and
aboriginal and justice advocates. They also got reports submitted by
the Canadian government on a regular basis to them.

>
>It is interesting to note that in one of the documents I read, they
>expect Canada to rehabilitate Omar Khadr, who is no longer a child and
>hasn't been for years, but they said nothing about taking action against
>the people who got him into that mess..... his own family and their
>friends in the Taliban.

The brief part about Omar Khadr said something about Harper being slow
in getting him back to Canada which Harper did and it mentioned
rehabilitation which if he is going to be released seems like a good
idea.

[gordo]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 21:36:33 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
wrote:

It is about this
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/09/26/un-canada-child-rights_n_1916876.html

[Chom Noamsky]

In typical gordoo fashion you evade a specific question. Again,
specifically, what changes to our laws have made them more punitive for
children?

[gordo]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 19:36:02 -0700, Chom Noamsky <ch...@noamsky.here>
wrote:

I pointed out his age of 15 or 16 was a distraction from a report that
will not go away as you would like,..

[gordo]

I have no idea of all of the cases coming before the courts. I have
no idea how many are the result of child abuse,drugs, mental illness,
gangs etc. You would rather talk about Omar than talk about the report
.

[gordo]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 12:22:57 -0400, Dave Smith
<adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>On 10/10/2012 9:24 PM, gordo wrote:
>ember from Syria on it.
>>>
>>> In other words you don't actually know any of the facts involved... or
>>> the correct spelling of punitive. Get back to me when you actually read
>>> the laws and know what you're talking about.

It was a cut and paste heading from one of the newspapers.

>>
>> Get back to me when you read what the UN said about Canada not how the
>> government wants to run away from the report.
>>
>
>
>How about you get back to us when you have some specifics about how
>horrible this proposed law is harsher, how is so harsh that the UN, with
>so many clusterfuck nation members, would feel inspired to slam us,
>while some of its members use child soldiers, which still have slavery,
>where young children are forced to work in unacceptable conditions.

How dare Canada object to a process it helped formulate and signed on
to.

[Chom Noamsky]

Dave raised a good point, which you evaded in typical gordoo fashion.
What is being done to deal with Omar's momma, who is unrepentant about
sending her son off to Central Asia to become a holy
warrior/jihadist/terrorist. SHE, along with Omar's terrorist father,
are the ones directly responsible for violating Omar's rights.

[M.I.Wakefield]

"gordo" wrote in message news:0q7e781po0dda5bf4...@4ax.com...

"They said they are concerned that many vulnerable groups are
overrepresented in detention centres, the health-care system and foster
care."

Message to vulnerable children: You will no longer be taken into foster
care, and away from your unfit parents, because gordo and the UN disapprove.
Sorry for the inconvenience.

[Dave Smith]

On 11/10/2012 12:46 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote:
>ay.
>>>
>>> Nice try but he was still 15 not 16 and he could not get a drivers
>>> licence because he was not 16 he was still 15. silly game you are
>>> playing.
>>
>>
>> Bullshit. A person is over the age of 15 once they pass their 15th
>> birthday. Your argument cannot be so lame that you would haev to rely on
>> that asinine interprettion of "age". A person who is 15 years and one
>> day is over 15.
>
> In Iran 15 is old enough to volunteer for the Basij Forces. D'ya think
> gordoo will express outrage over these Iranian child soldiers? Is there
> even a UN committee dedicated to this?

Not a fucking chance of him offering it up on his own. He only jumps on
non-Harper issues after being shamed over his hypocricy.

>> Maybe if you could detail how the proposed changes are harsher, or how
>> much easier it will be to try a young offender as an adult.
>
> Don't hold your breath. Gordoo didn't initiate this post because he
> cares about children, he's just using it as an opportunity to stroke his
> Harper boner.

LOL. It is interesting that he keeps telling us that we should read the
report... on in his case the news report about the report.

I did a little research to see if the proposed bill is getting tough
enough to suit me. They are talking about being able to release the
names of young offenders who have been convicted of serious crimes like
murder, and repeat offenders. I think the public has a right know of
there is a young murderer or sex offender in their midst. Hell, if it
is some Big Brother giving his time freely to help troubled youths they
have no problems smearing the guy's name all over the papers, even
though the majority of those complaints are false and malicious.

>
>> Please do not try to deny that young offenders do not play the system
>> knowing full well that they will get the wet spaghetti treatment if
>> caught before they turn 18.

FWIW, a number of years ago there was a burglary at my house while we
were away. The police could not tell me who the culprits were, but
living in a small town I found out from the grapevine. Telephone,
telegraph or tell Bernice (or neighbour). All four of them were within
two months of their 18th birthdays. The police were able to close the
books on dozens of B&Es once the busted those four kids. The kid who
was driving the attempted getaway car was two weeks short of 18.
Curiously, his whole damned family was on welfare and this kid owned his
own car. .. go figger. Our house was under surveillance and when the
cops tried to arrest the driver he tried to drive away with a cop
hanging out the window on each side. One of them got injured. So he was
charged with dangerous driving. He got the stiffest sentence of the
bunch.... two years..... probation.

[gordo]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 19:20:27 -0700, Chom Noamsky <ch...@noamsky.here>
wrote:

>On 10/10/2012 6:32 PM, gordo wrote:
>
>> You really must learn how to spell . There are after all only 5
>> letters in Gordo
>> Are you crazy. I feel terrible about the brave child. That you throw
>> this out against me is disgusting. We are talking about children for
>> gods sake and fundamentalists religious and others who commit crimes
>> against children. You are the one supporting jailing children not me.
>
>You prefer focusing your indignant outrage at stable, humanitarian,
>democratically elected governments, while little girls get shot in the
>head by religious radicals just for going to school. You have very
>disturbing priorities. Can you explain why you care so much about the
>finer points of Canadian youth justice, while ignoring the murder of
>children in other UN member nations?

I posted an article about my country. I live here. The subject was
about Canada ,our government and children that live in Canada.
I actually keep on topic. I can do absolutly nothing about the child
who was shot but I can do something about raising awareness of
problems we have at home regarding children.

[Dave Smith]

On 11/10/2012 2:36 PM, gordo wrote:

> The commission spent 10 years looking at how we treat our children.
> They made a report. You don't like the UN so their report is not
> valid. Best to examine the report and see if it is valid.
>

Considering the treatment of kids in the countries from which some of
the delegates who wrote the reports must be turning a blind eye to their
world to dump on Canada, a land with labour laws, government health
care, social welfare, free public education, minimum wage laws....

[Dave Smith]

He doesn't need to. He read the headlines on a brief newspaper
article. That is all he needs to do to launch an attack on Harper.
Bear in mind that it took 10 years for them to write the report. To do
so in less time would have denied them their positions and expense
accounts. During most of that time we had a Liberal government.

[Chom Noamsky]

As you can judge by the government's response they don't seem to be
concerned in the least about what the UN has to say. As for Omar's age,
that's something you've been obsessed with for some time now... and now
it's a 'distraction'?

[gordo]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 22:39:03 -0400, Dave Smith
<adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>On 10/10/2012 9:39 PM, gordo wrote:
>
>>
>> You did not bother to read why the UN commission found fault with
>> Canada did you? Chompski wants to justify jailing children while at
>> the same time accusing me of not caring about a child that was shot by
>> the taliban. I do care about both. Guess who doesn't. care about both.
>>
>>
>
>
>I hope that you are not suggesting that there are not any children who
>need to be incarcerated for the safety of the public. The reason that
>he accused you of not caring about a child who was shot is that it is
>typical of you to whine and carry on about anything that you think that
>you can blame on Harper while ignoring all sorts of atrocious behaviour.
>You say you care about both, but that tends to come out only after your
>one sided rants.
>
>
>BTW..... that report also wants Canada to rehabilitate Omar Khadr.
>Khadr is not a child. He was when he was in Pakistan. When he was old
>enough to fight he went to Afghanistan. Then he was incarcerated by the
>US. We <?> agreed to let him finish his sentence in Canada and under
>Canadian rules, meaning an earlier release. He is not a child any more.

I agree that there should be an attempt of rehabilitation and
evaluation. Maybe you don't . As for a rant if you follow the thread
my rant has consisted mostly on trying to get you to read the sites
that I posted. You did . Now you are better informed and lest likely
to rant about the UN or Syria.

[gordo]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 21:18:35 -0400, Dave Smith
<adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>On 10/10/2012 2:00 AM, Chom Noamsky wrote:
>
>>> being right wing mean you can never make a rational argument?
>>>
>>> It is possible to make arguments in favour of harsher laws against
>>> children... lots of countries have them... Iran, Saudi, Afghanistan,
>>> Pakistan... countries Noam, and Gil do so admire.
>>>
>>> But seriously... Rational argument is possible and perhaps it could be
>>> instructive.
>>
>> You would have to inform yourself, first, before attempting rational
>> discussion on the topic. I hope gordoo does so as well.
>
>
>
>Speaking of informed..... here is the text of the plain language version
>of the declaration of the rights of the child:
>
>Declaration of
>the Rights of the Child
>Plain Language Version
>1 All children have the right to what follows, no matter what their
>race, colour sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, or
>where they were born or who they were born to.
>2 You have the special right to grow up and to develop physically
>and spiritually in a healthy and normal way, free and with dignity.
>3 You have a right to a name and to be a member of a country.
>4 You have a right to special care and protection and to good food,
>housing and medical services.
>5 You have the right to special care if handicapped in any way.
>6 You have the right to love and understanding, preferably from
>parents and family, but from the government where these cannot help.
>7 You have the right to go to school for free, to play, and to have
>an equal chance to develop yourself and to learn to be responsible and
>useful.
>
>Your parents have special responsibilities for your education and guidance.
>8 You have the right always to be among the first to get help.
>9 You have the right to be protected against cruel acts or
>exploitation, e.g. you shall not be obliged to do work which hinders
>your development both physically and mentally.
>
>You should not work before a minimum age and never when that would
>hinder your health, and your moral and physical development.
>10 You should be taught peace, understanding, tolerance and
>friendship among all people.

Thanks for posting it. Canada signed on and also was instrumental in
getting the commission to evaluate countries as to their compliance.
They do report to the commission as they said they would.

[Dave Smith]

On 11/10/2012 3:26 PM, gordo wrote:

>>>
>>
>> I read the intended new rules you are whining about.
>> As others have pointed out, you haven't.
>> I see nothing wrong with them.
>
> Here is a little of what the report is all about.
> http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/09/26/un-canada-child-rights_n_1916876.html
>
>

Okay... like I said, you read a report about the report.

There are some gems in there.... like how we will allow corporal
punishment. Spanking? It will not be legal to beat kids, and it will
not be a court ordered punishment.

It says that we have to raise the bar on how we protect the rights of
children, especially aboriginal and immigrant children? We spend many
billions of dollars every year on native programs. We tried to educate
the native children but most of them tried to claim that they were
physically and sexually abused and that is why they are all drunks and
drug addicts. I see no reason for us to have to bend over backwards for
immigrant kids. What are we supposed to do???? Deprogram them if they
are Black or Muslim? A lot of immigrant children do very well here. A
lot of immigrants do very well here. It seems that there is one main
group that has trouble..... apparently because whites are all racist and
holding them down. They are free to leave.


Apparently, according to this report, every child across the country has
to have the same opportunities. In what world is that even reasonable?
Where is it possible?

[Dave Smith]

On 11/10/2012 3:33 PM, gordo wrote:

> The brief part about Omar Khadr said something about Harper being slow
> in getting him back to Canada which Harper did and it mentioned
> rehabilitation which if he is going to be released seems like a good
> idea.
>

Since you the report........ what does it recommend that we do with
immigrant parents who brainwash their kids into violent religious
extremism and take them off to fight jihad half way around the world?

Did the report recommend some sort of international jurisdiction for
Canadian law?

[Dave Smith]

On 11/10/2012 3:46 PM, gordo wrote:

>> Maybe, aside from discrediting a questionable source, an organization
>> that has representatives from oppressive dictatorships, the criticism is
>> pretty vague. After taking 10 years of work <?> to come up with this
>> report, they can suddenly slam Canada for changes to the youth justice
>> laws which were only recently even announced. They use vague terms
>> about the harsher laws for youths and making it easier to try them as
>> adults without getting into specifics.
>>
>> Maybe if you could detail how the proposed changes are harsher, or how
>> much easier it will be to try a young offender as an adult.
>>
>> Please do not try to deny that young offenders do not play the system
>> knowing full well that they will get the wet spaghetti treatment if
>> caught before they turn 18.
>
> I have no idea of all of the cases coming before the courts. I have
> no idea how many are the result of child abuse,drugs, mental illness,
> gangs etc. You would rather talk about Omar than talk about the report
> .
>

No. I only referred to Omar and your labelling him a child soldier. You
must have read in a news article and, rather than go to the source and
see what the UN protocol on child soldiers says about it. That's what I
did, and,having read it, I was convinced that he does not fit the bill.
In this case, you read a brief news article about a UN report that,
the news item says, slammed Canada. But you apparently are not prepared
to discuss the issues that were raised. You would rather accuse us of
not reading your linked article that to have to go to the effort to
learn more about the issues yourself.

You still haven't cited what it is about the proposed changes that is so
hard to cope with. Reporting the names of YA murderers and sex
offenders? Longer sentences for really serious crimes like first degree
murder?

[Chom Noamsky]

On 10/11/2012 12:46 PM, gordo wrote:

> I have no idea of all of the cases coming before the courts. I have
> no idea how many are the result of child abuse,drugs, mental illness,
> gangs etc. You would rather talk about Omar than talk about the report
> .

Why not just give one example of someone under age 18 who was tried in
adult court that should not have been. That shouldn't be too tough for
you, considering this is the main criticism the UN is raising. And
don't be evasive like you usually are.

[Chom Noamsky]

On 10/11/2012 12:54 PM, gordo wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 12:22:57 -0400, Dave Smith
> <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 10/10/2012 9:24 PM, gordo wrote:
>> ember from Syria on it.
>>>>
>>>> In other words you don't actually know any of the facts involved... or
>>>> the correct spelling of punitive. Get back to me when you actually read
>>>> the laws and know what you're talking about.
>
> It was a cut and paste heading from one of the newspapers.

Are headlines as deep as you get?

>>> Get back to me when you read what the UN said about Canada not how the
>>> government wants to run away from the report.
>>>
>>
>>
>> How about you get back to us when you have some specifics about how
>> horrible this proposed law is harsher, how is so harsh that the UN, with
>> so many clusterfuck nation members, would feel inspired to slam us,
>> while some of its members use child soldiers, which still have slavery,
>> where young children are forced to work in unacceptable conditions.
> How dare Canada object to a process it helped formulate and signed on
> to.

You're being evasive, again. Explain, specifically, how the laws are
excessively punitive.

[Chom Noamsky]

Your post directly involves the UN, an international organization, so
you don't get to claim that what happens to children in Pakistan isn't
in the scope of this post. And yes, you can do something... you can
support Canada's efforts to drive out radical Islam. The UN will not
help you there, seeing that it works hard to appease Muslim nations that
wipe their ass with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The left
and radical Islam are actually close bedfellows... so of course you
won't say anything critical.