4 ms·

Sounds like an administration completely out of control. This is the kind of nonsense you actually sue a government for. Is Canada providing the support for pa

Sounds like an administration completely out of control. This is the kind of nonsense you actually sue a government for. Is Canada providing the support for parents working full time to accommodate these kinds of demands? > After a weeks-long investigation, the ministry concluded that children under the age of 10 cannot be left unsupervised — whether on a bus, riding bikes around the neighbourhood or walking to the corner store, he said. It's so sad our world has never been as safe as today.

novok 7y ago
Basically the expectation is you bring them to school yourself either via driving them or maybe walking them to the school bus, and then they stay at home or they are supervised by other adults in activities, the school/daycare, scheduled play dates and so on. Kids walking over to the neighbors house 'unsupervised', playing in your private back yard and other small things isn't enforced in practice, but stuff like this is.
qball 7y ago
>Sounds like an administration completely out of control. This isn't an administration completely out of control. This is a society completely out of control. The administration simply reflects the prevailing social attitude, and that attitude is that we want to take away the rights of children to properly develop (and more to the point, limit the rights of parents to allow their children to develop) and hand it over to concern trolls and/or the paranoid so that they may exercise power over their neighbors under the guise of looking out for them- remember, abuse from CPS is always initiated by a "concerned citizen". Oppression, after all, is always at its worst when the oppressors act with the approval of their own conscience. Societies typically fail to deal with this kind of person appropriately, because when risk is exposed it both presses emotional buttons and provides an easy way out (by banning the risk). The way it's correctly dealt with is to write laws that ban society from paying that kind of Dane-geld. These laws codify things called "rights"; and their primary function is to prevent unwarranted risk aversity (be it genuine, or fake to score political points) by setting down a baseline beyond which those that spread terror are not negotiated with (that your children will be abducted unless you pay the ransom of never letting them outside, or that they'll grow up to be mass killers unless you pay the ransom of banning rock music, D&D, and video games), even if the allegations are correct (a child raised in a locked cage will by definition never be abducted). Utah has passed such a law (I'm not sure about other places, though Red states are by current definition more likely than Blue ones to do this) explicitly codifying the right of way of minors of "sufficient age and maturity" in its state definition of "neglect" so that State power can't be abused to harass them. While it's not a permanent solution explicitly recognizing the rights of persons of sufficient age and maturity (as it could easily be changed later, and even if minors had the explicit right of way they would be unlikely to realize if it was being infringed), it's a good first step.

novok 7y ago

Basically the expectation is you bring them to school yourself either via driving them or maybe walking them to the school bus, and then they stay at home or they are supervised by other adults in activities, the school/daycare, scheduled play dates and so on. Kids walking over to the neighbors house 'unsupervised', playing in your private back yard and other small things isn't enforced in practice, but stuff like this is.

qball 7y ago

>Sounds like an administration completely out of control. This isn't an administration completely out of control. This is a society completely out of control. The administration simply reflects the prevailing social attitude, and that attitude is that we want to take away the rights of children to properly develop (and more to the point, limit the rights of parents to allow their children to develop) and hand it over to concern trolls and/or the paranoid so that they may exercise power over their neighbors under the guise of looking out for them- remember, abuse from CPS is always initiated by a "concerned citizen". Oppression, after all, is always at its worst when the oppressors act with the approval of their own conscience. Societies typically fail to deal with this kind of person appropriately, because when risk is exposed it both presses emotional buttons and provides an easy way out (by banning the risk). The way it's correctly dealt with is to write laws that ban society from paying that kind of Dane-geld. These laws codify things called "rights"; and their primary function is to prevent unwarranted risk aversity (be it genuine, or fake to score political points) by setting down a baseline beyond which those that spread terror are not negotiated with (that your children will be abducted unless you pay the ransom of never letting them outside, or that they'll grow up to be mass killers unless you pay the ransom of banning rock music, D&D, and video games), even if the allegations are correct (a child raised in a locked cage will by definition never be abducted). Utah has passed such a law (I'm not sure about other places, though Red states are by current definition more likely than Blue ones to do this) explicitly codifying the right of way of minors of "sufficient age and maturity" in its state definition of "neglect" so that State power can't be abused to harass them. While it's not a permanent solution explicitly recognizing the rights of persons of sufficient age and maturity (as it could easily be changed later, and even if minors had the explicit right of way they would be unlikely to realize if it was being infringed), it's a good first step.