|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday June 23, @09:28AM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
i'm starting to think that it might be safer for me to move out of this province after i complete my degree. on the other hand, perhaps it's time to take a stand and make a change in a place where it needs it the most.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm from Ontario as well, and I'm going to stay and fight.
Brought to you by the sham mirrors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday June 23, @12:27PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When will the men in Canada start fighting back?
They are being beaten down quite badly by the feminist, and the whole world is watching.
Don't men know how bad they have it in Canada?
This is allot like CA and Colorado. Men are ignorant of their massive loss of rights. Running to the U.S. is only slightly better depending on which state you live in.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I live here, and I think its the common ignorance of men here. Or maybe just people on a large scale. They accept whatever is being told them. The FemiNazi propaganda is thick here. It's in every institution there is. And those FemiFrauds love anything that says "family". Most all of them gurgitate the same stats and party lines that femifrauds have been spouting for years. There is no dissenting opinion. Its all very emotional, you ask someone where they got the stats for the "2/3 women are sexually assaulted" you don't get answers you get abused and ridiculed.
I'm not really sure where I stand on this name thing, as the "father role" has pretty much been all but executed from existance to the point where FemiNazis are trying to come up with a new name for parent. Something other than mother , because mother implies father. But as we know, women will get complete ownership most of the time.
I have been thinking or leaving this shithole several times. I want to stand and fight too, but where is our "voice" in ontario?
Is it just a couple of guys on line bitching while other guys seem to just think its the right choice. Try mentioning 'bill 117' to the average guy on the street, he will just look at you stupid like.
There are a dozen laws on the books that infringe the bill of rights,
section 274 of the criminal code
Family court
and Impaired Driving.
RIDE programs are actually against the bill of rights, but are deemed an necessary.
Section 274 is just a joke, its a rape shield law, that protects women from being questioned about anything. It's total bullshit and I think it should be thrown out completely.
The common excuse for that arguement is "even a prostitute could be raped". Ya so who cares, why are we protecting the lowest common denominator at the expence of the mass?? Im not saying anything against prostitutes, but the point is a jury or a judge can decided what is relevant and what isnt. We are not little children.
So of all the laws that violate the bill of rights, only one is really gender nuetral, but the ratio is 6 to 1 that men are arrested for it.
oddly I was sent information that most fatal car crashes are caused by female drivers at 5-1 over drunk drivers. I think MADD (mother's against drunk drivers) should rethink their stance.
For anyone who is in ontario where is the largest Men's rights group how are they connected and what do they do?
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to see your source of information re: females:drunks having a 5:1 fatal car crash ratio.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I would like to see your source of information re: females:drunks having a 5:1 fatal car crash ratio."
Sure, but I recieved it from the "Canadian Council for Men" email. I open for the possibility that it is skewd somehow, Im not sure of the verifying resource stats on it. But so far , This group has been straight with me.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In fact, I suspect that since there are more women drivers than drunk drivers that the 5:1 ratio is in absolute numbers which doesn't really reflect driving ability or really anything much at all. I'm in favour of RIDE programs. I figure that if you're going to get into a large chunk of metal and move it around at lethal speeds, that represents a danger to me (whether your drunk, sober, female, or male). As such you have the obligation to prove to me that you're not being irresponsible about it.
Matt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"In fact, I suspect that since there are more women drivers than drunk drivers that the 5:1 ratio is in absolute numbers which doesn't really reflect driving ability or really anything much at all."
That is one way of looking at it, I havent heard back as to how the test was done. I suspect your right. I have been seeing more and more men's rights campaigns using "feminists" tricks to mislead information. I will try to find my source now. I have read it in my law study books, I still can't remember if it was a comparitive test or not.
But while we are on it, RIDE Programs are also another violation of our rights. Your better off wipping your ass with the Bill of Rights and its charters, as it would be a more valuble use of the paper that it has been written on.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with your assessment of RIDE programs, but Dan Lynch still makes a good point: certain laws (like RIDE programs) violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but are deemed "reasonable" infringements on our rights, because in the balance, society is a better place for them. Other examples of this crop up frequently in high-security situations, such as in airports. If someone hauls you in a little room and goes through your luggage, are your rights being violated? Yes. Do we want them to stop doing that? Well, no, because having my bags searched sometimes is better than being blown up by some crazy.
This dovetails with my original point: Why do the courts strike down kiddie porn laws because they infringe on the Charter, but when faced with injustice like this against men say, "Oh, well. It's the law"? Umm... so was the kiddie porn law "the law," but that didn't stop the courts from tossing it out. I've lost count of the number of laws that our Supreme Court, in its recent fit of social activism, has tossed out because those laws put a tippie-toe on the wrong side of the sacred Charter. This law, however, stands even though it too violates the Charter. What gives?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They will have to radify the kid porn law(hopefully) it was made in jest anyways, we also need a third pary house like the states so we can stop stupid laws from being passed like bill 117 and this new mothers only law,
but bill 117, and its similars like section 274, these are the ones that make me think the Charter of Rights is toilet paper. Women have sole rights with the name, sole custody is around the corner count on it.
Canada = Socialist FemiNazi Regime
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would bet that the majority if not all of the members of this misandric crazed court are MEN.
Why are men their own worst enemies when it comes to men's rights? If they were plump fat chickens they would be fans of Colonel Sanders!
Go figure that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Why are men their own worst enemies when it comes to men's rights? If they were plump fat chickens they would be fans of Colonel Sanders!"
My opinion on this is, the men who make these laws seem to be excempt from the penalties. They have greater protection under the law, and are more familiar with the laws. In large the average Canadian man knows shit about family law, if they do, its usually to late for them. The men around here are fuking morons, anything past beer and hockey and they shut down. So there is no one around to oppose this legislation. There is also about 3 hardcore FemiNazi judges on the panel in the supreme court. This is a case of Majority rules by force. Ethics , right or wrong or fairness have absolutely nothing to do with it.
They are still very protective of women, and think feminism was needed. The men who are waking up to this have already had their lives ruined by it.
Now this law, will go one step further, which means, even if married, if the mother can name the kid her own name, custody won't even be an arguement. Think about it.
My prediction on the Supreme Court ruling will be 9 judge panel maybe 7, if its 9 I will say 6 will agree to it, and three will dissent. If 7 I say 5 will agree to it, and 2 will dissent. Which means it may go on the books, and it could be a long time to reverse. And judging by the morons of boys they are producing in our schools these days, I seriously doubt it will change. Feminist are giving them just as much Ms.Information Indoctrination day in and day out.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Odd.
I used to be proud to be Canadian. I AM, but I hate and fear my government. I'm not alone, as is fairly obvious on this forum.
One day, they might just wake up with a large group of angry, well-organized men willing to do what it would take to win back their rights.
Until then? Wee. They're just adding fuel to the fire that's going to break out.
Women aren't better than men.
Men aren't better than women.
We're just different. Deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It seems that there are at least a few Ontario (Canadian) men visiting this site. Here is an idea: Why don't we attempt to get together and form something on a grassrootas level. After all, we are always complaining about how Ontario men do nothing. At least if we meet up/plan or something, we can at least say we are beginning to do something. Just a thought...
Anyone who is interested can email me.
Brought to you by the sham mirrors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm practically speechless... not.
I'm totally against this. This is outrageous. But there are two victims here, the father and the child. Every person IMO has the right to know his biological identitity. That includes the identity of both his biological parents.
I can actually track how this has come about though. We're really had this for a long time, what with anonymous procreation (sperm or egg donation) and anonymous adoption with sealed records, and in many area mothers are able to put a child up for adoption without the father's knowledge and/or consent.
But not putting a father's name on a birth certificate to me is just plain outright falsification of a public record. It should be a criminal offense.
I'd rather we/they just abandoned birth certificates altogether rather than the government sanctioning lying and falsification on them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<But not putting a father's name on a birth certificate to me is just plain outright falsification of a public record. It should be a criminal offense.>>
Welcome to Ontario, Lori.
Our Charter of Rights is a worthless peice of shite. If you read it the charter actually legalizes RACISM and SEXISM in its charter. Its toilet paper at best.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree.
It takes TWO human beings, one male, and one female, to create a child. If they ignore 50% of a child's genetic makeup in a name...well, this is ludicrous. Period. It reminds me of the spermist/ovist debates in 17th-18th century boilogy...which parent is the "real" parent that gives life to the child. It really stinks to see Canadian women stuck in the days before the Enlightement, even though in today's world it's considered "progress".
Honest to God, I pity you Canadians. Hope it gets better up there!!
-Rivka
Learning to Adjust.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
