Sapper Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 42 minutes ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said: CHILDREN CAN GET HORMONE BLOCKERS WITHOUT PARENT CONSENT!!!! end of story. Yes and no. In BC the law provides that a minor can consent but only once the medical professionals confirm mature consent from the minor .... It's not easy to do and nor could it be done on a.whim https://www.healthlinkbc.ca/healthlinkbc-files/infants-act-mature-minor-consent-and-immunization 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 1 hour ago, Wiggums said: I never said they didn't need doctor or government consent... Literally all I said was the child doesn't need their parents consent.. why is this so painfully hard? Let's make this easy. Does a child need a parent's consent to take hormone blockers. Yes or no? Yes. The onyl exception is in the laws I posted. Read them and you'll have a greater understanding of what you're insinuating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Korea Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 2 minutes ago, Sapper said: Yes and no. In BC the law provides that a minor can consent but only once the medical professionals confirm mature consent from the minor .... It's not easy to do and nor could it be done on a.whim https://www.healthlinkbc.ca/healthlinkbc-files/infants-act-mature-minor-consent-and-immunization 1 minute ago, Warhippy said: Yes. The onyl exception is in the laws I posted. Read them and you'll have a greater understanding of what you're insinuating. Thransphobic people (let's call this for what it really is, because the laws have been in place for three decades) seem to think medical care in Canada is rapid and efficient. And when it comes to doing things without parental consent? Even easier! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 (edited) 2 hours ago, Warhippy said: Kinda seems the PARENT in that story was involved. Here's the actual legalise in Canada about it. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/article12/p3a.html https://bcmj.org/articles/legal-rights-transgender-youth-seeking-medical-care#:~:text=BC law regarding transgender youth,by their health care provider. Spoiler alert. Long write up ahead. Can't put behind spoiler window on mobile. A similar statutory framework exists in British Columbia. That province’s Infants Act does not set an age at which children are presumed capable of consent. Instead, the Act provides that all children may consent to treatment where, the health care provider providing the health care has explained to the infant and has been satisfied that the infant understands the nature and consequences and the reasonably foreseeable benefits and risks of the health care, and has made reasonable efforts to determine and has concluded that the health care is in the infant’s best interests.Footnote179 Again, medical professionals are to determine whether treatment is in the child’s best interests and the child has the requisite capacity. Saskatchewan and Alberta both have legislation defining the age at which a child may provide a health directive. In Saskatchewan, the age is 16;Footnote180 in Alberta, the age is 18. Neither statute provides guidance on medical decision-making by children under those ages. Absent an application by a child protection agency for authorization to make a treatment decision on the child’s behalf, the common law “mature minor” rule would likely apply. Child Protection Legislation All Canadian jurisdictions have child protection statutes that allow a state agency to make treatment decisions on behalf of a child in certain circumstances. Where a parent refuses to consent to treatment, and this refusal places the child’s health or life in danger, child protection agencies are typically authorized to “apprehend” the child and provide the necessary consent in the place of the parent, subject to a process that requires a court order within a relatively short period of the apprehension. Parents must be notified of this process and have a right to participate. As discussed above, there are varying provincial provisions about children’s right to notice and participation in the child protection process, though in most jurisdictions older children may be involved. Where the child is a “mature minor,” either according to common law or consent to treatment legislation, and refuses treatment, the situation becomes more complicated. A “mature minor” may still be a “child” under the relevant child protection statute, and thus subject to the state’s protection powers. The leading authority on the interplay between the mature minor doctrine and child protection legislation is the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Manitoba (Director of Child & Family Services) v. C. (A.).Footnote181 The child was a 14 year-old Jehovah’s Witness who had been admitted to hospital for internal bleeding; her treating physicians expressed concern that there was a serious risk to her health, and perhaps her life, without a blood transfusion, but both the girl and her parents refused to consent to a blood transfusion. The child protection agency apprehended the child and applied to the court under Manitoba’s Child and Family Services Act for an order authorizing blood transfusions. Under s. 25(8) of the Child and Family Services Act, the court may authorize any medical treatment it considers to be in the best interests of the child. However, s. 25(9) provides that no order can issue with respect to a child 16 years of age or older without the child’s consent, unless that child cannot understand the relevant information or appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of consenting or not consenting to the treatment. The child argued that because she had capacity to make the decision to refuse the transfusion, this decision should have been respected under the mature minor doctrine. At the trial hearing, the court agreed that the child had capacity to consent, but that this was irrelevant as she was under 16 years of age. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada, though the Court adopted a more nuanced approach. Justice Abella, writing for the majority, refused to accept that the mature minor doctrine allows mature children to make all decisions related to their medical care. While a mature minor can make decisions about such issues as an abortion, different considerations apply where the child is refusing life-saving treatment. While mature minors have strong claims to autonomy, Abella J. explained, where a child protection agency has brought an application to authorize treatment for a child, the state’s interest in protecting children is engaged and the state still has the power to consider whether allowing the child to exercise autonomy accords with the child’s best interests.. According to Abella J., the best interests of the child requires that children’s views and preferences be weighed in accordance with the child’s age and maturity. The more mature the child, the more deference provided to the child’s treatment decision. It is possible, Abella J. concluded, that in certain cases the degree of maturity exhibited by the child could be so high that to disregard his or her treatment decision would not be in the child’s best interests. The court needs to take account of both the child’s maturity and the nature of the medical decision. According to Abella J., this “sliding scale” of scrutiny is consistent with Article 12 of the CRC.Footnote182 Just gonna leave this here again. So, how about that [politics] Edited January 13 by Warhippy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 36 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: I have no idea. I’d have to go back 4 or 5 pages. I was replying to two different posters regarding a question about the LGBTQ community. I really don’t want to go back and figure it out. I think you probably have an idea. It's okay, you can say it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 2 minutes ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said: I think you probably have an idea. It's okay, you can say it. No I don't. And I'm not going back 5 pages to figure it out. Also, since you keep trying to push my buttons, I will ask you one more time since you never answered my question. Why did you link a Wikipedia page to my post in reference to the Jewish supporters of Hitler? Are you trying to infer that I support Nazis? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 Well here we go. Some truth Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland says politicians have no say in operational decisions made by police — and that is why she has nothing more to say about the arrest of a Rebel News personality. David Menzies, a commentator for the online site, was arrested Monday by an RCMP officer providing security for Freeland while he was trying to ask the minister questions outside an event in Richmond Hill, Ont. A Rebel News video shows Menzies being told he was arrested for assault because he pushed into an officer. Menzies replies that the officer was the one who bumped into him. Menzies, who has been arrested previously at political events featuring Conservative politicians, said in an interview that he believes he was arrested because the Liberals do not like his outlet or its questions. Freeland, who is also deputy prime minister, said Canada is a democracy and police make operational decisions within their jurisdictions. York Regional Police said Menzies was released unconditionally after it was determined there was no credible security threat. The RCMP says it is "looking into the incident" and the actions of everyone involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 7 minutes ago, Warhippy said: Well here we go. Some truth Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland says politicians have no say in operational decisions made by police — and that is why she has nothing more to say about the arrest of a Rebel News personality. David Menzies, a commentator for the online site, was arrested Monday by an RCMP officer providing security for Freeland while he was trying to ask the minister questions outside an event in Richmond Hill, Ont. A Rebel News video shows Menzies being told he was arrested for assault because he pushed into an officer. Menzies replies that the officer was the one who bumped into him. Menzies, who has been arrested previously at political events featuring Conservative politicians, said in an interview that he believes he was arrested because the Liberals do not like his outlet or its questions. Freeland, who is also deputy prime minister, said Canada is a democracy and police make operational decisions within their jurisdictions. York Regional Police said Menzies was released unconditionally after it was determined there was no credible security threat. The RCMP says it is "looking into the incident" and the actions of everyone involved. Like...no shit? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 1 minute ago, Elias Pettersson said: No I don't. And I'm not going back 5 pages to figure it out. Also, since you keep trying to push my buttons, I will ask you one more time since you never answered my question. Why did you link a Wikipedia page to my post in reference to the Jewish supporters of Hitler? Are you trying to infer that I support Nazis? I already explained, outliers do not speak for an entire community. Jews for hitler would be a pretty obvious outlier, no? Pretty much like gay people not supporting trans rights. Because if they don't you know they're next right? You said your gay friends didn't support trans people. I was pointing out that that was bullshit. One, you probably don't have gay friends, and, if you do, they have no idea of your politics. Two, if you do, I highly doubted they don't support the trans community, but you've already admitted that. Now I'm trying to get you to admit you brought up that ridiculous, and unverifiable anecdotal evidence, to strengthen your argument against gender affirming care for children. Fair enough? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 2 minutes ago, aGENT said: Like...no shit? But wait, there's more You'll LOVE this one. Canadian government spending. All party consent $107 billion with no amendments made in the senate. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/covid19-coronavirus-ottawa-hill-economic-legislation-1.5509178 The PLAN from the Conservative party totalling an addtional $250+ billion in covid spending that was signed off on by PP https://cpcassets.conservative.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/08200659/e4cd8c0115c3ea0.pdf It's like....if you look at it. The Conservatives green lit and approved almost $300 BILLION in covid spending relief and budgets between 2020 and 2022. But, don't worry. They won't let you forget it's Trudeau's fault 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 24 minutes ago, Warhippy said: Menzies, who has been arrested previously at political events featuring Conservative politicians, said in an interview that he believes he was arrested because the Liberals do not like his outlet or its questions. My brain hurts with how stupid this individual is. He's clearly just not capable of conducting himself appropriately at political events if he's consistently getting arrested no matter what ideology the speaker represents. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 4 minutes ago, Warhippy said: But wait, there's more You'll LOVE this one. Canadian government spending. All party consent $107 billion with no amendments made in the senate. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/covid19-coronavirus-ottawa-hill-economic-legislation-1.5509178 The PLAN from the Conservative party totalling an addtional $250+ billion in covid spending that was signed off on by PP https://cpcassets.conservative.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/08200659/e4cd8c0115c3ea0.pdf It's like....if you look at it. The Conservatives green lit and approved almost $300 BILLION in covid spending relief and budgets between 2020 and 2022. But, don't worry. They won't let you forget it's Trudeau's fault Alf will not vote for a candidate who has Poo Poo as their party leader. But all our political parties worked together to help out Canadians during the Pandemic - even the Poo Poo led Con Artists. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4petesake Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 6 minutes ago, King Heffy said: My brain hurts with how stupid this individual is. He's clearly just not capable of conducting himself appropriately at political events if he's consistently getting arrested no matter what ideology the speaker represents. I wish you would stop trying to discredit this serious reporter. (Second time in drag but who’s counting.) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4petesake Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 They’re baaack… CBC B.C.'s infamous fast ferries are on Facebook Marketplace, and if they aren't bought they'll be destroyed https://ca.yahoo.com/news/b-c-infamous-fast-ferries-001047356.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 12 minutes ago, Alflives said: Alf will not vote for a candidate who has Poo Poo as their party leader. But all our political parties worked together to help out Canadians during the Pandemic - even the Poo Poo led Con Artists. They did until PP was made leader. All PP did was promote domestic terrorism. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 1 minute ago, King Heffy said: They did until PP was made leader. All PP did was promote domestic terrorism. Good point. Poo Poo is Ca Ca! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 20 minutes ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said: I already explained, outliers do not speak for an entire community. Jews for hitler would be a pretty obvious outlier, no? Pretty much like gay people not supporting trans rights. Because if they don't you know they're next right? You said your gay friends didn't support trans people. I was pointing out that that was bullshit. One, you probably don't have gay friends, and, if you do, they have no idea of your politics. Two, if you do, I highly doubted they don't support the trans community, but you've already admitted that. Now I'm trying to get you to admit you brought up that ridiculous, and unverifiable anecdotal evidence, to strengthen your argument against gender affirming care for children. Fair enough? You literally posted a Wikipedia page attached to my post without even so much as an explanation. So that is why I had no clue what you were inferring. As for those posts I made I already explained to you that I edited one of my posts to confer to my other posts and you even admitted you made a mistake in not reading the entire thread and having to “catch” up. As for your other bullshit in terms of my personal life and who I have as friends and who I don’t I really don’t need to explain my life to some anonymous poster on CFF. So you aren’t getting any explanation. You are inferring that I don’t support the trans community, or at the very least I don’t care about the kids and their well being, it’s pretty obvious. You couldn’t be further from the truth. And I really don’t want to waste my time with someone like you when I have lots of other posters on this site who I get along with and can have a legitimate discussion with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 iirc there are studies that indicate a lot of anti-gay and anti -trans sentiment is from people that had a limited same sex episode when in their early teens. A phase, in growing up; many people go through. Time passes, some figure out they are gay, some figure out they are trans, others end up straight. Unfortunately, some of those that ended up straight, just can't forgive themselves for their earlier playing around. To them, since being straight is so good for them, being gay must be bad. Thus they yell and scream, but I'm betting they are either still tempted, or simply so full of self loathing they lash out-perhaps both. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 1 minute ago, Elias Pettersson said: You literally posted a Wikipedia page attached to my post without even so much as an explanation. So that is why I had no clue what you were inferring. As for those posts I made I already explained to you that I edited one of my posts to confer to my other posts and you even admitted you made a mistake in not reading the entire thread and having to “catch” up. As for your other bullshit in terms of my personal life and who I have as friends and who I don’t I really don’t need to explain my life to some anonymous poster on CFF. So you aren’t getting any explanation. You are inferring that I don’t support the trans community, or at the very least I don’t care about the kids and their well being, it’s pretty obvious. You couldn’t be further from the truth. And I really don’t want to waste my time with someone like you when I have lots of other posters on this site who I get along with and can have a legitimate discussion with. Why are you arguing against child affirming care then? Your explanation was bullshit. You got caught in a lie so you edited your explanation. We all know your politics fella. Idgaf who you talk to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 13 minutes ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said: Why are you arguing against child affirming care then? Your explanation was bullshit. You got caught in a lie so you edited your explanation. We all know your politics fella. Idgaf who you talk to. Please reference the post where I argued against child affirming care? Also, what does my politics have to do with anything Joey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 Live look at Joey trying to find Petey's post where he said children should be denied child affirming care... I literally just went back and read all of my posts today in this thread just to make sure, and there is zero mention of this by me. Obviously, Joey has me confused with another poster. I wonder if he will apologize for it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 39 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: Please reference the post where I argued against child affirming care? Also, what does my politics have to do with anything Joey? Whoops, gender affirming care. Wtf do you think you are arguing then? I'll admit I get you and the other alt righties confused sometimes but you all seem pretty lockstep together on all this. So you're not opposed to children receiving hormone blockers if they are deemed necessary, with or without a parents consent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 20 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: Live look at Joey trying to find Petey's post where he said children should be denied child affirming care... I literally just went back and read all of my posts today in this thread just to make sure, and there is zero mention of this by me. Obviously, Joey has me confused with another poster. I wonder if he will apologize for it? I frickin hate TPS reports, what can say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Korea Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 52 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: Please reference the post where I argued against child affirming care? Also, what does my politics have to do with anything Joey? I was also under the impression that you were pro parents' rights, which is just a buzzword for being anti-trans. I thought you mentioned it somewhere in that flurry of posts. No? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 5 minutes ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said: Whoops, gender affirming care. Wtf do you think you are arguing then? I'll admit I get you and the other alt righties confused sometimes but you all seem pretty lockstep together on all this. So you're not opposed to children receiving hormone blockers if they are deemed necessary, with or without a parents consent? You are literally confusing me with the other poster who went like 5 pages back and forth with Miss Korea on that subject. I never once mentioned anything about hormone blockers. So thanks in advance for the apology. And you should never really lump any poster together with someone else, I certainly don't. Just because I am Conservative it doesn't mean that I am some Trump loving redneck from Texas. I actually voted for Jean Chretien, Paul Martin and even Trudeau in 2015. So you have my political beliefs all wrong. As for children receiving hormone blockers, I absolutely do not oppose it as long as it is being supervised by professionals and they go through the proper channels... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.