Bill 89 discussion continued Old : >>128470460

goddamn it canada

File: 1483253286934.png (40KB, 152x254px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 152x254px

OY VEY!

File: 1465748976810.jpg (27KB, 399x385px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 399x385px

>>128480946
ITT 100 paranoid /pol/acks and a single Israeli poster who actually read the bill arguing until he's red in the face and getting bombed with merchant memes

CHRIST KEKS BTFO

File: ONTARIO CHILD RAPE.png (1MB, 1098x1036px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1098x1036px

>>128480946
Dyke Premier Wynne has just passed Bill 89, which allows for Children's Aid to seize your kids (biological/adopted/step children) if you hold anti-LGBTQ/binary gender/anti-gay marriage views and place them in LGBTQ gay-couple homes (friendly reminder that 40%+ of gays are pedophiles). Muslims/Sikhs are exempt because the bill is worded to consider the child's "creed".

“Even before Bill 89 was passed, but immediately after its introduction in December, I learned of several Christian couples who were turned down for adoption on account of their deeply held religious beliefs about traditional marriage and human sexuality,” he told LifeSiteNews.

>TORONTO, June 1, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — Ontario’s Kathleen Wynne Liberals have passed what critics describe as “totalitarian” Bill 89 on the last day before Queen’s Park adjourns for the summer.

>Pro-family advocates warn Bill 89 gives the state more power to seize children from families that oppose the LGBTQI and gender ideology agenda, and allows government agencies to effectively ban couples who disagree with that agenda from fostering or adopting children.

>Children’s Aid agencies now have “a type of police power to bust down your door, and seize your biological children if you are known to oppose LGBT ideology and the fraudulent theory of ‘gender identity', if for instance, some claim is made that your child may be same-sex attracted or confused about their ‘gender,’” according to Fonseca.

>“We already see similar tyranny happening in other jurisdictions, such as Norway, where the main child protection service there, Barnevernet, has been involved in numerous high profile seizures of children from traditionally-principled families,” he added.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-ontario-passes-totalitarian-bill-allowing-govt-to-take-kids-from-c

>Bill 89
http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=4479&detailPage=bills_detail_the_bill

>>128480946
defend yourself if they come

>>128481338
it's only canada that was btfo
and it was btfo by itself
how the fuck are you so bad at existing?
Is it too cold for you to care or something?

File: cat.webm (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

meow

>>128481287
took your proxy off?

>>128481495
cute :3

What the fuck is wrong with you cunts?

Fuck the rake, we need an incinerator.

>>128480946
>Refusing to let your son chop off his dick is grounds to have him taken away and given to dick-chopping gay pedophile SJWs

File: 1496602042638.png (20KB, 940x208px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 940x208px

>>128481662
>>128480946

Directly from the bill:

74 (2)
(e) the child requires treatment to cure, prevent or alleviate physical harm or suffering and the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child does not provide the treatment or access to the treatment, or, where the child is incapable of consenting to the treatment under the Health Care Consent Act, 1996 and the parent is a substitute decision-maker for the child, the parent refuses or is unavailable or unable to consent to the treatment on the child’s behalf;

>Translation: your son wants to cut off his dick but you refuse to let him, the court will take him away from you for child abuse to alleviate his "suffering"

74 (1) In this Part, “child protection worker” means a Director, a local director or a person who meets the prescribed requirements and who is authorized by a Director or local director for the purposes of section 81 (commencing child protection proceedings) and for other prescribed purposes; (“préposé à la protection de l’enfance”) “extra-provincial child protection order” means a temporary or final order made by a court of another province or a territory of Canada, or of a prescribed jurisdiction outside Canada if it meets prescribed conditions, pursuant to child welfare legislation of that province, territory or other jurisdiction, placing a child into the care and custody of a child welfare authority or other person named in the order; (“ordonnance extraprovinciale de protection d’un enfant”) “parent”, when used in reference to a child, means each of the following persons, but does not include a foster parent:

74 (3) Where a person is directed in this Part to make an order or determination in the best interests of a child, the person shall, (c) consider any other circumstance of the case that the person considers relevant, including, (iii) the child’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression,

>>128481909
If you allow your child to be brainwashed you're not that good of a parent to be honest.

File: 58091e566b3dda361011eca67d3c3bf0cfbc34cf.png (155KB, 440x440px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 440x440px

>>128482018
>74 (3) Where a person is directed in this Part to make an order or determination in the best interests of a child, the person shall, (c) consider any other circumstance of the case that the person considers relevant, including, (iii) the child’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression,

>(c) consider any other circumstance of the case that the person considers relevant
>literally any reason

>>128481287
Pretty much this. I feel pretty sorry for the guy.

>>128482051
>you're not good for parenting meme

File: faggots pedophiles.png (89KB, 895x931px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 895x931px

>40-73% of gays are pedophiles
>Only families that can adopt must be pretty much gay faggots (can't adopt if you're not pro LGBTQ, gender identity, gay orgies, anal fisting, Islam, diversity, gay marriage, refugees, race mixing, etc)
>Kid gets adopted by gay couple
>Couple proceeds to rape him daily

profit

File: child in need of protection.png (62KB, 539x773px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 539x773px

Posting this again: this is the definition of a child in need of protection in the bill. no where in the bill it says that they are going to take away children from parents with anti-LGBT views.

Stop preying on the stupid and actually read what the bill says.

The bill does mention gender identity and sexual orientation, but not in the part which defines which children are going to be taken - it's only a part of the definition "needs of the child" when the authorities are taking care of him and when they place him in a new home.

The section about child placement is different from the section about which children are taken, geniuses

File: 1496484347531.jpg (260KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 1280x720px

>>128482947
Here he is

74 (2) (a)-(0) deals directly with harm to the child

73 (3) lets the judge/aid worker consider fucking anything when they make their decision, in particular gender identity, gender expression, sexuality + literally anything else

>Go back to the oven, you're too stale for this new bread

>>128481445
AAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

>>128482873
perfect setup for future monarch butterflies.

and you people thought pizzagate was how they recruit their children for their satanic rituals

>>128482947
I'll copy what I just posted in the other thread:
>74 (2) (f) can be interpreted to be anything, and 74 (3) sets the standard for the (((emotional harm))), including suppressed gender expression

>>128482947
Then why make all the gay, tranny, and anti-Christian changes if they're not relevant? They wouldn't add it in if it weren't important

>>128483177
I read the part which defines emotional harm. it defines it as as "depression, anxiesty, self-destructive or aggressive behaviour and delayed development which resulted from abuse or neglect".

Do you honestly think emotional harm due to child neglection or abuse is not a good reason to take away a children from his parents? i think its very reasonable

The Canadian Association of Social Workers says:

"Social workers should advocate within their profession, with other professionals, and within the broader society to ensure gender diverse young people receive affirmation in all aspects of their lives. Social workers will work with medical practitioners as needed to respond to young people’s requests for medical treatment to suppress puberty and/or to transition to a new gender."

Consider the implications of this with Bill 89 in mind.

File: 1362707982224.png (297KB, 444x467px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 444x467px

delete your country

>>128483357
The parts where they mention gender identity and sexual orientation are not irrelevant, they are just not a part of the definition of which children are going to be taken.

They are in the parts which talk about the authorities who take care of the child and child placement.

File: 1496420757758.jpg (475KB, 969x581px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 969x581px

>>128483463
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it"
>Joseph Goebbels

>>128483463
>>128482448
They're not defining what emotional harm is, they say IT IS DEMONSTRATED BY depression anxiety and stuff.
DEMONSTRATED BY
DIFFERENT FUCKING THING.
You can have emotional harm about a hundred different things and they all manifest as depression or anxiety. I know a thousand people who fake anxiety to get out of things. According to you and that piece of shit bill you defend, that's good enough to take them from their families.

>>128477836
>DEMONSTRATED BY
You don't even read your own fucking screencap and you paraphrase like a faggot to fit your rhetoric. Congratulations.

>child neglection is not a serious issue
Extra congratulations on shifting the goalposts now that you suddenly see you may be in the wrong. Of course I believe child neglection is a serious issue.

You know what you believe in? You believe that if the child has a whim to change his gender because your fucking kike masters poisoned its head and you DON'T let it, then you deserve your child taken from you.
Worst fucking parent in the history (or best, according to you).

>>128482207
So in Canada now, if your a dissident, the state can now come up with a frivolous reason to take your kids. In america, our guns would prevent that from happening.

>>128483349
>74 (3) Where a person is directed in this Part to make an order or determination in the best interests of a child, the person shall, (c) consider any other circumstance of the case that the person considers relevant, including, (iii) the child’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression,

>(c) consider any other circumstance of the case that the person considers relevant
>literally any reason

>>128481287
The dirty kike might actually be right. I still think it's vague enough to potentially allow such behavior.

>>128483700
Anon, i literally tell you to read the actual bill. if you weren't so paranoid you would understand that just mentioning sexual orientation anywhere in the bill doesn't mean gay children are going to be taken from christian families.

But i guess reading comprehension is an alien concept to you

>>128483463
>Yes, goyim, your children is our property and we decide when you can to take their from you.

>>128483968
>literally any reason
...
>literally any reason
...
>literally any reason
...

Take my gun leafanon, you need it more than I do.

>>128483700
if you smell a big enough nose and keep shekling it, people will eventually become racemixed.

>>128483827
At least you admit that the part about which children are going to be taken says absolutely nothing about the LGBT community.

Your criticism now is entirely different. your claim now is that "the definition of emotional harm is vague".

>>128481287
>Be kike
>Say this has nothing to do with LGBT issues
>Get btfo'd
>Move goalposts
>Repeat ad infinitum
Uncle Adolf was right about the fruitlessness of arguing with Jews

>>128484017
That's a different matter to what OP and the article are talking about though.

>>128482947
It isn't what they said, it's what they didn't omit, as in, "The Children in a Conservative Christian home shall be removed only on Grounds of Actual abuse, physical and or Emotional. In no way is their belief, i.e., Marriage is between a man and a woman and or the frowning of sexual engagement before one is married, to be considered a part therein of abuse under article 74 subsection (2) (a)-(0); 73 subsection (3)."

By not saying enough you're literally leaving the door open for fags who are in office to force their agenda. Literally a Civil War in the making.

File: 1493511419592.jpg (65KB, 500x483px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 500x483px

>>128484001
From time immemorial, however, the Jews have known better than any others how falsehood and calumny can be exploited. Is not their very existence founded on one great lie, namely, that they are a religious community, where as in reality they are a race? And what a race! One of the greatest thinkers that mankind has produced has branded the Jews for all time with a statement which is profoundly and exactly true. Schopenhauer called the Jew "The Great Master of Lies". Those who do not realize the truth of that statement, or do not wish to believe it, will never be able to lend a hand in helping Truth to prevail.

>Adolf Hitler

>>128483968
74 (3) is how to choose the new family for the child already taken.
You think race is a reason to take a child from parents? Or sexual orientation? Those are important when replacing the child. Read the quote you are posting ffs

>>128482051

True. Hopefully this will wake some normies up and force more rational people to pull their kids from public school.

>>128484268
Not only is it vague, but the precedent can be taken from the very same bill describing a child's best interest as free expression of gender. If you can't see the direct implications of that, your interpretation is clearly inadequate.

>>128484268
My claim was never different. I told you the fucking bill is intentionally coy and you need to read between the fucking lines. It's not in your agenda to do such a thing, though, you're just here to call right wingers stupid and stuff.

The entire bill is reeking with LGBT stuff. Anyone with average intellect can do the reasonable connections to understand what it entices for a family with racist or anti-LGBT sentiment. They can all lose their children according to the bill. They all do stuff that can harm the children in the eyes of the CAS.

Oh and I'm not calling you less intelligent, by all means you're extremely intelligent, that's why you're trying to shill and pacify the cattle before you fucking slaughter it.

>>128484756
>>128484756
As someone who grew up to a brutally abusive family, i think its a very positive thing that emotional abuse is included in the bill.

This is a direct copy-paste from the bill:
" (f) the child has suffered emotional harm, demonstrated by serious,
(i) anxiety,
(ii) depression,
(iii) withdrawal,
(iv) self-destructive or aggressive behaviour, or
(v) delayed development,
and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the emotional harm suffered by the child results from the actions, failure to act or pattern of neglect on the part of the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child;"

This is the way the bill defines emotional harm. it says nothing about LGBT issues, but let me tell you this: if a parent abuses a child to a point the child commits self-harm, wouldn't it be in the best interest of the child to take him away?

>>128484700
>You think race is a reason to take a child from parents? Or sexual orientation?
of course it is. It is stated a thousand times in the bill that GENDER IDENTITY IS OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE. Can you read between the lines or are you like the other kike?

God forbid your 10 year old says ''I'm a womyn now'' and you don't support it. Minus a 10 year old for you.

File: 1485196935437.jpg (30KB, 228x351px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 228x351px

>>128484700
109 (1)-(2) is the law that deals with placement of the child once a decision has been made to remove the child from the current home under 101 (1) and new custody has been given under 102 (1).

101 (1) Where the court finds that a child is in need of protection and is satisfied that intervention through a court order is necessary to protect the child in the future, the court shall make one of the following orders or an order under section 102, in the child’s best interests:

102 (1) Subject to subsection (6), if a court finds that an order under this section instead of an order under subsection 101 (1) would be in a child’s best interests, the court may make an order granting custody of the child to one or more persons, other than a foster parent of the child, with the consent of the person or persons.


Placement of children
109 (1) This section applies where a child is in interim society care under an order made under paragraph 2 of subsection 101 (1) or extended society care under an order made under paragraph 3 of subsection 101 (1) or clause 116 (1) (c).
Placement
(2) The society having care of a child shall choose a residential placement for the child that,
(a) represents the least restrictive alternative for the child;
(b) where possible, respects the child’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression;
....
(e) takes into account the child’s views and wishes, given due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity, and the views and wishes of any parent who is entitled to access to the child.

>>128485329
>This is the way the bill defines emotional harm.
Now I know for sure that you don't even read or care about the responses you're getting. You're just a broken record repeating the same things over and over again. I told you here>>128483827 that they do NOT DEFINE what emotional harm is. It says DEMONSTRATED BY

You can demonstrated anxiety from a thousand different things, does that mean any child with some kind of emotional harm needs to be dragged from its home because the state says so, why, just because you grew up with brutal parents?

>>128485629
Which is exactly what i said.

Gender identity and sexual orientation are considered when the child is taken care off and when they find a new place for him. NOT when they are taking children away.

For example:
If you hold anti-LGBT views but you don't abuse your children, your children won't be taken away.

But if you hold strong anti-LGBT views and you want to adopt an openly gay child, it will be much harder for you to do so

This is honestly a sensible as fuck bill

>>128484433
It's another step to this. Etatism hates the family because people with the family don't so need in government.

>>128485329
You didn't address what either >>128484939 or I was actually arguing. The cause of the emotional abuse is left to be as vague as possible, and the very same bill defines emotional wellbeing in part as being able to freely express one's gender.

74 (2) (f) is an "or" statement, not an "and" statement. Anxiety, deemed to be serious by the state and with indeterminate cause, is a direct indicator of a child "in need of protection."

>>128486069
>NOT when they are taking children away.
KEK of course they are considered when taking the child away.

>be leafboy
>tell dad you want to chop benis and be girl
>dad says no
>call CAS and tell them you're suffering emotionally
>cya anti-LGBT dad

THIS IS YOUR SENSIBLE FUCKING BILL

File: levin cuckdeau wynne.jpg (48KB, 810x500px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 810x500px

The ontario legislature site is down? WTF?

>>128483827
Don't expect >>128477836 to understand the subtleties of the arguments you're making. It's a part of the stealth .. to conceal in the language of the bill the tools by which an agenda can be furthered, and he will be all to happy to leverage it. Anon that you're debating has cherry-picked excerpts from an atrociously written bill and is going to beat people over the head with them until they submit. They will rail against others saying they're too dimwitted to understand the language of the bill, or read, when all along the nuances of the bill which you are pointing, the weaponized language concealed within it, will fly right over their heads. You're pointing at the moon, anon, and the adversary is looking at your finger. Not you fault. Not your fault at all.

>>128486069
>Yes, goy, if you against that your 5 year boy will become open gay we take your child from you due to abuse.

>>128485997
Listen young one, what they're doing is giving people the right to define what constitutes what. This is the gender equality cluster Frakk all over again. Obama the bastard forced that in America and Immediately the fags benefited. Then they tried that shit here and claimed it in no way gives fags rights and this was two years after we saw fags take over after Obama the piece of shit, force the very same bill. Of course we overwhelmingly told them to shove it up their arse.

>>128486069
It says a Social Worker can define it as abuse, it's open to interpretation, man.

>>128486412
When this kind of things are being taken care of, there must be a psychologist evaluation to prove that the action of the parents are what causes emotional harm to the child.

Do you honestly think the child can just go and say "my parents cause my extreme anxiety" and he will get taken away?

Also, sometimes you need more than one reason in order to take a child away. it depends on the weight of the abuse

>>128486578
That's not the bill, you fucking idiot.

>>128486788

More likely than that is it'll go to a "human's rights tribunal" aka a bunch of dyke feminists with extra judicial power.

>>128481445
>Muslims/Sikhs are exempt because the bill is worded to consider the child's "creed".
How exactly is this true?

>>128486920
>>128486788
>>128486069

Shenis

Vageenis

Pengina

>>128481489
>bad at existing
>too cold for you to care
kek

>>128487162
Let me tell you something. here in israel, i don't think causing harm to children is even illegal.

My parents defended my sister when she said she wants me to commit suicide. My dad said he would like to take a dumbbell and hit my head with it. they sometimes don't let me take water and they don't give me keys to our home, even though my brother and sister to get to have a key.

It's hard to define clearly what is emotional harm because there are so many different instances which can be defined as emotionally harmful, and one bill cannot contain all of them

File: 4513456136356.png (44KB, 1530x488px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 1530x488px

>>128486412
Those fucking lawyer larpers either don't know how to read between the lines or simply are flat out shilling.

Like I said this is classic butcher trick. Pacify the cattle before you slaughter it.

The concept of a traditional family is getting destroyed, the state is willing to uproot your kids to freely indoctrinate them elsewhere and the kike is defending it because his parents happened to be brutal motherfuckers or whatever.

>>128486920
Mothefucker TELL ME HOW MY STORY IS NOT FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE BILL.
THE FUCKING 10 YEAR OLD DECIDES IT'S IN EMOTIONAL DISTRESS BECAUSE DADDY WON'T LET HIM CHOP OFF BENIS AND BE A GIRL. IT'S 100% LEGAL STATE TAKES IT ELSEWHERE BECAUSE THE PARENT DOES NOT RESPECT OR SUPPORT ITS IDENTITY.

>>128487689
Let me tell you something. here in israel, i don't think causing EMOTIONAL harm to children is even illegal.

Physical harm is 100% illegal, im just talking about emotional harm here

Fuck you guys for making me read some leaf bill.
So it's not about the relocation.

74 (2) is child in need of protection
74 (3) is "Best interest of a child"
>Where a person is directed in this Part to make an order or determination in the best interests of a child, the person shall,
So what is (3) used for? I can't find it referenced anywhere else in the bill, like 74 (2) is referenced multiple times.

How is race important when deciding if a child is in need of protection?

File: codecucks.png (604KB, 722x666px)

604KB, 722x666px

>>128487689
cuck: the post.

>>128486069
Holding anti-LGBT views IS abusing your children.

>>128487689
>>128487834

The fuck does that have to do with anything?

You want to support the Canadian government robbing children from christian households because you have shitty Jewish parents half way across the planet? Fuck outta here Kike.

File: Justin Trudeau Hero.png (499KB, 370x1094px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 370x1094px

>>128488196
bait: the post.

>>128481445
How does the term creed not apply to muslims?

>>128485329
>if a parent abuses a child to a point the child commits self-harm, wouldn't it be in the best interest of the child to take him away?
And what if the child is suffering form living in an environment that neglects it's gender identity? What if the self harm is provoked by the parents failure to recognize the child's gender identity and allow treatment?

>>128486788
>When this kind of things are being taken care of, there must be a psychologist evaluation to prove that the action of the parents are what causes emotional harm to the child.
Gender identity is included in the human rights bill. If the parents deny the child's human rights, how are they going to dodge that?

>>128486788
>Also, sometimes you need more than one reason in order to take a child away. it depends on the weight of the abuse
Now you are just making things up. Do you work in a Canadian children protection agency? I think not.

>>128487689
Sounds like your parents are on the ball anon. Follow your sister's advice.

>>128488196
>>128488414
He's not baiting. He is saying EXACTLY that the bill implies, albeit not saying it directly for the purposes of
>pacifying the cattle by being coy and intentionally vague

which I said 100 times. Let intolerant parents think they're safe and then BOOM SHAKALAKA.

>>128488453
It won't. Just how whenever Muslims kill some one, it's Christianity's fault.

>>128487689
We are not talking about Israel you dumfuck.

File: 32452356623450.jpg (34KB, 641x643px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 641x643px

>>128487689
>My parents defended my sister when she said she wants me to commit suicide. My dad said he would like to take a dumbbell and hit my head with it. they sometimes don't let me take water and they don't give me keys to our home, even though my brother and sister to get to have a key.

>>128481909
honestly I wouldn't even want a child if he got past that irreversible level of stupidity

>>128488684
That doesn't answer a damn thing. What is the excuse for islam not counting as a creed?

>>128488196
Not if they're fucking normal

>>128488414
In leafland, that is. They'll consider that abuse, especially is your kid wants to be LGBT and you're opposed to it.

>>128487689
SavageJews. Government protects you, believe to government

>>128480946
Cool. So now its literally dangerous to have children and raise them conservatively. Lovely. Home school era has begun.

File: canada.png (61KB, 550x928px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 550x928px

>>128480946
Irony: the country.

File: toronto classroom ai.png (249KB, 440x440px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 440x440px

>>128487191
>>128488453

"Creed" is considered "religious/cultural tradition". You can't consider Muslims holding anti-gay, anti-SJW views because it's part of who they are essentially, that's how the liberals are letting Muslims/Sikhs off the hook. Christians can't really have creed taken into consideration because they don't follow their faith that closely, or some shit like that. Refer to 73(e)(c) because any fucking reason can be used to consider a child abused

In terms of creed, here is a portion of one debate on the bill:

>I will point out that my definition of “creed” is really—well, I think of the Apostles’ Creed, for example, of my church. It’s kind of a litany or a rendition of the core principles of the religion. “Creed” or “religion”—I consider that kind of the same word.

>My constituent goes on to say, “There is a potentially dangerous ramification from this change: The children of parents who refuse to affirm ‘progressive’ gender ideology may be more likely to be considered ‘in need of protection.’”

>It goes on to say, “Under the act, a child suffering or ‘at risk of suffering’ mental or emotional harm and whose parents do not provide ‘treatment or access to treatment’ is a child in need of protection under the law. The children’s aid society must investigate evidence that children may be in need of protection, and a court can make orders governing the care of children deemed to be in need of protection.”

>This letter goes on and on in this vein. It’s something that we all have to consider.

>My constituent concludes in the letter, “This bill is ideological and puts family integrity at risk.”

>>128481662
>>128481909
truly makes me wonder why the Jude hasn't replied to you

>>128483640
>delete your country
>comes from country full of cucks letting their women get raped by sandniggers
>day after another muslim terror attack

Go pound sand up your smug ass

>>128482873
>73 percent of homosexuals surveyed had at some time and sex with boys 16 to 19 years of age or younger
Couldn't that have just been when they themselves were around that age?

>>128489640
>>73 percent of homosexuals surveyed had at some time and sex with boys 16 to 19 years of age or younger
>73 percent of homosexuals surveyed had at some time and sex with boys 16 to 19 years of age or ages 0-15
ftfy

The fact that we have the synagogue in here telling us not to be afraid makes me very afraid.

>>128489235
>be west
>instigate religious equality and the separation of church and state
>state isn't supposed to be biased for or against any religion
>marxism happens
>atheism happens
>Christians lose social cohesion and values
>Islam comes in
>State decides that because Christians don't have a creed anymore, their values can be ignored and discriminated against
>Islam is exempt
>because of demographics the state can now impose laws designed to control the majority while not getting shot down because everyone is so fucked that they only care about the rights of the minority

Really makes you think.

File: 1494112477530.jpg (34KB, 467x350px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 467x350px

Did the Kike's Israeli Dad BTFO him with the dumbbell for advocating degeneracy?

>>128490046
He is just victim of abuse and thinks if government could to take him from his shit family he would have more happy childhood. But it's not fact.

>>128490046
The shills never break Sabbath. This one is just disturbed from emotional neglect and unconsciously argues for someone to come and take him out of his own family.

File: benjamin levy pedophile sex curriculum.jpg (3MB, 2600x3704px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2600x3704px

>>128490334
Pretty much this

"creed" looks like it's been legislated to mean "core principles of a religion".

Anti-immigration, anti gay marriage, anti-transgender, anti-gender identity, etc can't be be considered Christian "core principles religious values" so if you don't hold these (((views))), you are a danger to your children and your child must be relocated to a (((progressive))) group of homosexual pedophiles. Remember goy, it's not rape if the child consents!!

But Islam beheads anyone they don't like, so it's ok for Muslim families to hold such views since it's their "creed"

Why even use that word? Who the fuck uses the word creed? They literally picked an obscure, rarely used word to get Muslims/Sikhs/etc off the hook for the votes

>>128481909
>>128489276
It is just physical harm and physical suffering.
Emotional comes in the next section (f)
>what counts as emotional harm
>(g) the child has suffered emotional harm of the kind described in subclause (f) (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v) and the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child does not provide services or treatment or access to services or treatment, or, where the child is incapable of consenting to treatment under the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, refuses or is unavailable or unable to consent to the treatment to remedy or alleviate the harm;
So you are right
what counts is: anxiety, depression, withdrawal, self destructive or aggressive behaviour (every child kek) or delayed development

>>128491321
No, this is from a legislator debating this:

>It goes on to say, “Under the act, a child suffering or ‘at risk of suffering’ mental or emotional harm

>physical harm or suffering
Suffering is any emotional or psychological suffering with context particularly for transgender reassignment procedures in that clause

The clause you're referring to is general emotional harm

But it doesn't matter because 73 has a section saying the aid worker/judge can use literally any fucking reason deemed relevant
>literally any fucking reason deemed relevant
>literally any fucking reason
..
>literally any fucking reason
..

Ontario is common law, which is based on precedent. Legislators frequently leave laws with vague interpretations and leave it to the courts to interpret the law. Ontario family courts are all card-carrying SJW fanatics.

>>128491321
The bill is riddled with political correctness and 'gender identity' shit

>suffered emotional harm
aka dad I'm a womyn now I feel trapped inside this benis and I want to be free
>but s-son you're just sev-
>'SON'? REEEEEEEE

>does not provide services or treatment or access to services or treatment
aka not giving the young people person (puke) the hormones xe demands

Soon we 'll have our kids taken away from us BECAUSE THEY FUCKING CRY AFTER WE DENY 2ND CHOCOLATE. Poor Suomi pls be safe.

>>128491321
Keep in mind Bill 89 is repeals the old act and replaces it with a new act.
>Schedule 1 repeals the Child and Family Services Act and enacts the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 in its place.

The anxiety, depression etc is probably recycled legislation with the new SJW clauses being added, hence the apparent redundancy.

>>128488894
The purpose of the Islamic folk, in their mind at least, is to subvert Christianity. To that end, they'll excuse them.

>>128492167
>But it doesn't matter because 73 has a section saying the aid worker/judge can use literally any fucking reason deemed relevant
Exactly, there's no ''definitions'' obviously, unlikes the Jude kept saying. Saying that a child demonstrates anxiety and depression defines having emotional suffering, not WHY it has depression in the first place.

In other words, the state can barge in, grab your kid and good luck arguing in court that you're a good parent if they provide evidence you're just an intolerant racist.

>>128493160
Bill 89 also adds the words "wherever possible" in describing child services intervention. This is a radical break from the past and a clear signal that Children' Aid Society intervention is to be more readily provided, and will not be presumed to be disruptive.

>>128492167
I don't want to believe.
M-Maybe it was already in the current law, and nothing bad happened? T-This was a update of an old law right?
oh well RIP Ontario
>>128492554
I believe there's only so much they can push this bullshit until someone snaps and others will support him. The pendulum will swing back hard.

Is it publicly listed where Canadian politicians live? Are their home addresses a matter of public record? Parents could protest directly outside their homes for this.

File: child in need of protection1.png (70KB, 557x773px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 557x773px

Right wingers can't win arguments with real news, so they use fake news.

Posting this again: this is the definition of a child in need of protection in the bill. no where in the bill it says that they are going to take away children from parents with anti-LGBT views.

Stop preying on the stupid and actually read what the bill says.

The bill does mention gender identity and sexual orientation, but not in the part which defines which children are going to be taken - it's only a part of the definition "needs of the child" when the authorities are taking care of him and when they place him in a new home.

The section about child placement is different from the section about which children are taken, geniuses

>>128493693
I want to believe the same thing toveri.

>>128494180
>ignores everything and repeats his original ''argument'' like a broken record

I really hate being right

>>128494518
I repeat my argument because my argument is 100% correct.

Anyone who says the bill is about taking away children from families with anti-LGBT views is outright lying

Hitler was right

>>128480946
Cucks will defend this

File: 1486321999444.jpg (103KB, 876x954px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 876x954px

>>128494742

>>128494518
Jews don't care about truth, they care about being right.

>>128481909
we need our own trump to wipe out everything Wynne related

>>128480946
says nothing about orthodox...

>>128480946

>Chink kid placed in chink family
>Poo in loo kid placed in poo in loo family
>Nigger kid placed in nigger family
>White kid placed in white family

What's wrong with this?

>>128494180
Read section (e), (g), (h) and (j) you filthy kike, right below the section you highlighted. That is what speaks to not providing services. Now, I don't inherently disagree with this clause because it makes sense when parents are not providing vaccinations or access to care, or say if the parents are JWs and will not allow blood transfusions, but given the statements in the new bill being SO open to interpretation as anything in section (f) being the OUTCOME not the act itself, and that earlier language puts it up to the discretion of the case worker, yes, according to this document, if you cause you what the worker believes as emotional harm leading to depression, anxiety, self-destructive behavior, or delayed development by the workers assessment by, say, telling your 7 year old he can't get on hormones and chop his dick off, your child can be removed.

This is seems pretty straight forward.

>>128487689
What you're doing in this thread demonstrates your father's impulse to stove your head in with a dumbbell was 100% on point.

File: 1488840913905.png (1MB, 1104x890px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1104x890px

>>128496555
>White kid placed in white family
>White kid executed for being born and oppressing non-whites
ftfy

>>128498607

Why would the white family execute the foster child? This bill doesn't change anything other than ensuring that parents can't adopt children of a different race.

>>128482947
Wow, a Jew defending degenerate "gender identity and sexual orientation"
Who would have thought?
gas yourself

>>128482947
it shocks me none that (((you))) are attempting to write off obvious loopholes, schmo.

>>128494647
>refuse to consider context
yep, it's a (((you)))

>>128480946
I want off this ride.

>>128480946
if i lived in Canada i would bomb a federal building. thank the White American God that we still have rights. (for now)

>>128486069
Uhhh.... It is part of the consideration process, anon. The loose definition clearly states that if the child suffered emotional harm categorized by a number of symptoms(which all fall under body dysphoria) then they are to be taken away.

Remember we are dealing with children here. They are easily swayed by media.