Judge orders kids to state-run daycare

[planter]

We've gone so far downhill as a society that I'm thinking that Edward has the best take on this. The hell with them all! I don't care what the idiots like this judge have to say. Let them try and take my kids and then let the chips fall where they may.

[Edward Kennedy]

It was just referring to the homeschooled kids but I do believe that the judge overstepped big time ordering the kids into daycare. I think he overstepped with the homeschooled kids too.

...in short the law is an ass or the judge is an ass or both.

[WestViking]

On a homeschooling list that I am on, one of the posters said that the problem is that Quebec law is based on Napoleonic code and not common law which is very dogmatic and this is why the justice went to great lengths to explain this wasn't about their right of religion, right of choice etc. It was simply about their failure to meet the requirements of the laws regarding homeschooling and in particular the law regarding the protection of children.

this is how he explained it....

The trouble with Napoleonic code legal systems is that the legal system then
becomes black and white. So for example, if they declared that homeschooling is illegal except under certain conditions, then if you don't follow those conditions then you've broken the law. It doesn't matter that you didn't meet condition X for religious reasons ... you simply broke the law. End of Matter. You want to argue the matter, you have to prove that the law violates some higher law.

Common law or case law legal systems, on the other hand offer defense where laws and rights clash on a case by case basis. For example "colour of right" defence ... a typical example of which is you grant me the use of your car to go to the store, but enroute, I have a call that my great aunt in New Brunswick is on her death bed, so I, knowing that you won't need your car for a few days, take it to New Brunswick. You assume I stole your car, so I face a theft charge. I can claim defense by "colour of right". I knew what I did was wrong, but I thought you wouldn't mind based on a "greater good."

The problem is that the explanation offered does not fit the case. The parents face no charges of any kind. They do not appear to have breached any law.

It appears that the Quebec Child Protection Agency petitioned the court to have the children sent to school because in the opinion of its bureaucrats, the children required 'socialization'. I strongly doubt that there is any law requiring that children be 'socialized' or that there is any legal definition of the term.

One definition of 'socialize' is to make something publicly owned - in this case, 'something' being 'children'. Quebec is a long way down the road to becoming a socialist republic.

I submit that the judge's order can be fought on two grounds - first, that the original petition had no basis in law and should have been thrown out of the court; and second that the children's and parent's freedoms and rights guaranteed under the charter contained in the constitution have been violated and the constitution overrides provincial laws.

[styky]

On a homeschooling list that I am on, one of the posters said that the problem is that Quebec law is based on Napoleonic code and not common law which is very dogmatic and this is why the justice went to great lengths to explain this wasn't about their right of religion, right of choice etc. It was simply about their failure to meet the requirements of the laws regarding homeschooling and in particular the law regarding the protection of children.

this is how he explained it....

The trouble with Napoleonic code legal systems is that the legal system then
becomes black and white. So for example, if they declared that homeschooling is illegal except under certain conditions, then if you don't follow those conditions then you've broken the law. It doesn't matter that you didn't meet condition X for religious reasons ... you simply broke the law. End of Matter. You want to argue the matter, you have to prove that the law violates some higher law.

Common law or case law legal systems, on the other hand offer defense where laws and rights clash on a case by case basis. For example "colour of right" defence ... a typical example of which is you grant me the use of your car to go to the store, but enroute, I have a call that my great aunt in New Brunswick is on her death bed, so I, knowing that you won't need your car for a few days, take it to New Brunswick. You assume I stole your car, so I face a theft charge. I can claim defense by "colour of right". I knew what I did was wrong, but I thought you wouldn't mind based on a "greater good."

The problem is that the explanation offered does not fit the case. The parents face no charges of any kind. They do not appear to have breached any law.

It appears that the Quebec Child Protection Agency petitioned the court to have the children sent to school because in the opinion of its bureaucrats, the children required 'socialization'. I strongly doubt that there is any law requiring that children be 'socialized' or that there is any legal definition of the term.

One definition of 'socialize' is to make something publicly owned - in this case, 'something' being 'children'. Quebec is a long way down the road to becoming a socialist republic.

I submit that the judge's order can be fought on two grounds - first, that the original petition had no basis in law and should have been thrown out of the court; and second that the children's and parent's freedoms and rights guaranteed under the charter contained in the constitution have been violated and the constitution overrides provincial laws.

I believe Quebec never signed on to that particular item

[Dogpatch]

Canadians are sheep. I've talked to a couple of random people about this and, invariably, their position is, "Well, the family must have been doing something wrong."

The default position of most Canadians is that the government and the police can do no wrong. Is someone's freedom is taken away, they must have deserved it.

I am very depressed for my country.

and

On a homeschooling list that I am on, one of the posters said that the problem is that Quebec law is based on Napoleonic code and not common law which is very dogmatic and this is why the justice went to great lengths to explain this wasn't about their right of religion, right of choice etc. It was simply about their failure to meet the requirements of the laws regarding homeschooling and in particular the law regarding the protection of children.

this is how he explained it....

The trouble with Napoleonic code legal systems is that the legal system then
becomes black and white. So for example, if they declared that homeschooling is illegal except under certain conditions, then if you don't follow those conditions then you've broken the law. It doesn't matter that you didn't meet condition X for religious reasons ... you simply broke the law. End of Matter. You want to argue the matter, you have to prove that the law violates some higher law.

Common law or case law legal systems, on the other hand offer defense where laws and rights clash on a case by case basis. For example "colour of right" defence ... a typical example of which is you grant me the use of your car to go to the store, but enroute, I have a call that my great aunt in New Brunswick is on her death bed, so I, knowing that you won't need your car for a few days, take it to New Brunswick. You assume I stole your car, so I face a theft charge. I can claim defense by "colour of right". I knew what I did was wrong, but I thought you wouldn't mind based on a "greater good."

The problem is that the explanation offered does not fit the case. The parents face no charges of any kind. They do not appear to have breached any law.

It appears that the Quebec Child Protection Agency petitioned the court to have the children sent to school because in the opinion of its bureaucrats, the children required 'socialization'. I strongly doubt that there is any law requiring that children be 'socialized' or that there is any legal definition of the term.

One definition of 'socialize' is to make something publicly owned - in this case, 'something' being 'children'. Quebec is a long way down the road to becoming a socialist republic.

I submit that the judge's order can be fought on two grounds - first, that the original petition had no basis in law and should have been thrown out of the court; and second that the children's and parent's freedoms and rights guaranteed under the charter contained in the constitution have been violated and the constitution overrides provincial laws.

Well said Connie and WV. Liber has a very good point.

WV - Quebec is a pro-socialist and pro-union province. Quebec also has its own charter of rights - and since education is provincial, the appeal will have to use it

I mentioned this story to my wife (she works in the English school board here) and she initially assumed the parents must have did something wrong. After she read the articles about this outrage, then she changed her tune.

But I think it will be a hard battle for the parents - because the "best interests" of the children will be the battle cry for child protection and they (supposedly) are the experts

Child protection are the experts

[Kate Shaw]

I know someone that, I think, would agree wholeheartedly with what you just posted, Narrow Back...if she didn't know where it came from.

You know my sister???

I think there are many people who embrace these failed ideas that have no idea where they come from and therefore have never considered the consequences. It's like the Soviet Empire never existed for them.

If I have to hear "it takes a village to raise a child" one more time, I might just shoot myself in the head.

Actually I believe that originally referred to community standards held in common; that is, the neighbours had the same rules at their house as your mother and father had, so they would enforce those standards just as your parents would, and you would expect to behave in their house just as you would behave at home. In the Fifties this was a good thing.

[Harry]

Quebec just gets wackier every day. Maybe we should cut them free and save a bunch of money.

[WestViking]

I submit that the judge's order can be fought on two grounds - first, that the original petition had no basis in law and should have been thrown out of the court; and second that the children's and parent's freedoms and rights guaranteed under the charter contained in the constitution have been violated and the constitution overrides provincial laws.

I believe Quebec never signed on to that particular item.

Various Quebec politicials have claimed that the constitution does not apply to them as they refused to sign on, however, nine of ten provinces representing 75% of the population did. Quebecers are poor losers unwilling to accept the will of a democratic majority. Moreover, Quebecers have filed dozens of court appeals and challenges under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is part of the constitution they claim to ignore.

[Dogpatch]

I submit that the judge's order can be fought on two grounds - first, that the original petition had no basis in law and should have been thrown out of the court; and second that the children's and parent's freedoms and rights guaranteed under the charter contained in the constitution have been violated and the constitution overrides provincial laws.

I believe Quebec never signed on to that particular item.

Various Quebec politicials have claimed that the constitution does not apply to them as they refused to sign on, however, nine of ten provinces representing 75% of the population did. Quebecers are poor losers unwilling to accept the will of a democratic majority. Moreover, Quebecers have filed dozens of court appeals and challenges under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is part of the constitution they claim to ignore.

WV, I'm surprised that you are generalizing.

It is actually the Quebec politicians who are the poor losers.

Joseph and Marie Poutine can and do use the Charter for whatever reason as is their right as citoyen(ne) canadien(ne)

[WestViking]

I submit that the judge's order can be fought on two grounds - first, that the original petition had no basis in law and should have been thrown out of the court; and second that the children's and parent's freedoms and rights guaranteed under the charter contained in the constitution have been violated and the constitution overrides provincial laws.

I believe Quebec never signed on to that particular item.

Various Quebec politicials have claimed that the constitution does not apply to them as they refused to sign on, however, nine of ten provinces representing 75% of the population did. Quebecers are poor losers unwilling to accept the will of a democratic majority. Moreover, Quebecers have filed dozens of court appeals and challenges under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is part of the constitution they claim to ignore.

WV, I'm surprised that you are generalizing.

It is actually the Quebec politicians who are the poor losers.

Joseph and Marie Poutine can and do use the Charter for whatever reason as is their right as citoyen(ne) canadien(ne)

I apologize - you are correct. However, a number of Ottawa politicians have gone along with the Quebec constitutional sham. It is time to stop the madness.

[Charles J. White]

That is DISGUSTING!!! If that was my family, I would be out of that province tomorrow!

People wanted the welfare state, now they will choke on it

[Charles J. White]

We all know what they say, 'It takes a village to raise a child'...

[Dogpatch]

I submit that the judge's order can be fought on two grounds - first, that the original petition had no basis in law and should have been thrown out of the court; and second that the children's and parent's freedoms and rights guaranteed under the charter contained in the constitution have been violated and the constitution overrides provincial laws.

I believe Quebec never signed on to that particular item.

Various Quebec politicials have claimed that the constitution does not apply to them as they refused to sign on, however, nine of ten provinces representing 75% of the population did. Quebecers are poor losers unwilling to accept the will of a democratic majority. Moreover, Quebecers have filed dozens of court appeals and challenges under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is part of the constitution they claim to ignore.

WV, I'm surprised that you are generalizing.

It is actually the Quebec politicians who are the poor losers.

Joseph and Marie Poutine can and do use the Charter for whatever reason as is their right as citoyen(ne) canadien(ne)

I apologize - you are correct. However, a number of Ottawa politicians have gone along with the Quebec constitutional sham. It is time to stop the madness.

Well, the good thing is harper doesn't need Quebec votes and will now govern properly. (hopefully)

[Connie Fournier]

We all know what they say, 'It takes a village to raise a child'...

[backhoe]

"For the sake of the children,
we had to destroy the village
in order to save it..."

I keep telling you folks, it's time for tumbrels & guillotines.

I denounce myself!