How do Canadians like being run by the U.N.?

by **RCglider** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 8:54 am

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35000

I shutter to think what I'd have turned out like if my parents hadn't given me knowledge from the board of education.

No offense to my Canadian brethren, but it appears your country bends over and grabs the ankles at every whim of the U.N. Do you have any freedom left at all?

by **JimmyTango** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 9:00 am

I think you missed something, here:

The United States and Somalia are the only countries that have not signed the convention, which routinely tells members appearing before its committee to pass laws banning spanking.

Basicly, since Canada is appearing before the committee, they are being told this. It could have been any nation.

by **Chacal** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 2:28 pm

RCGlider, I gather you take your news from The National Enquirer or Weekly World News... and you believe them.

As for the article, the fact that the US refused to sign says a lot about the US.

by **JAG** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 6:04 pm

Originally posted by Chacal
RCGlider, I gather you take your news from The National Enquirer or Weekly World News... and you believe them.

As for the article, the fact that the US refused to sign says a lot about the US.

I certainly understand you commenting on RC's post and comment, but I don't understand what you mean. The US didn't sign the agreement, what does that say? do we not love and protect our children or something?

Maybe the gov't just didn't want to deal with this body telling them what they should do in light of the fact that US children are likely better off than those in many of the countries that signed this agreement (I'm not saying Canada).

Ascerting that failure to sign something means something negative seems to be a hell of a lot of PC coercion to me.

by **smithpa68** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 6:14 pm

Right on Jag.

by **Cpl. Bingham** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 12:58 am

It's is tough up here in Canada. I went out to dinner last night, and I was astounded to find that the UN Tax on the meal was over 50% of the total. No worries though, as I had just cashed my UN distributed paycheck and was loaded with UN bucks.

Today wasn't great either. My UN cable was out and the guy from the UN couldn't come over to fix it. I made myself a plate of UN Fries for lunch atfer that, but damned if I wasn't out of UN Ketchup, the best kind! So in conclusion, UN UN un UUUNNN UN.

Lord, this thread is retarded.

Last edited by The UN on 10-08-2003 at 11:33 PM

by **JAG** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 1:44 am

Originally posted by Cpl. Bingham
It's is tough up here in Canada. I went out to dinner last night, and I was astounded to find that the UN Tax on the meal was over 50% of the total. No worries though, as I had just cashed my UN distributed paycheck and was loaded with UN bucks.

Today wasn't great either. My UN cable was out and the guy from the UN couldn't come over to fix it. I made myself a plate of UN Fries for lunch atfer that, but damned if I wasn't out of UN Ketchup, the best kind! So in conclusion, UN UN un UUUNNN UN.

Lord, this thread is retarded.

Last edited by The UN on 10-08-2003 at 11:33 PM

by **RCglider** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 6:52 am

Originally posted by Chacal
RCGlider, I gather you take your news from The National Enquirer or Weekly World News... and you believe them.

As for the article, the fact that the US refused to sign says a lot about the US.

Yes it does say a lot about US. We won't drop our pants for a group of America hating leftist socialists telling us we must conform to their view of how we should raise our kids. The bigger question is will your government be good little children and do what they're told....

As for the article, WND is one of the most respected news reporting agencies in the world. They report the news, you decide. Are you suggesting the article is not true?

by **RCglider** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 7:39 am

Originally posted by Cpl. Bingham
It's is tough up here in Canada. I went out to dinner last night, and I was astounded to find that the UN Tax on the meal was over 50% of the total. No worries though, as I had just cashed my UN distributed paycheck and was loaded with UN bucks.

Today wasn't great either. My UN cable was out and the guy from the UN couldn't come over to fix it. I made myself a plate of UN Fries for lunch atfer that, but damned if I wasn't out of UN Ketchup, the best kind! So in conclusion, UN UN un UUUNNN UN.

Lord, this thread is retarded.

Last edited by The UN on 10-08-2003 at 11:33 PM

At least you're beginning to understand the concept....

by **Doug the Unforgiven** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 8:57 am

Originally posted by RCglider
No offense to my Canadian brethren, but it appears your country bends over and grabs the ankles at every whim of the U.N. Do you have any freedom left at all?

I can't believe this thread was even started. RC, as much as I may generally be on your side, this comment just seems like your trying to bait people into a heated (and senseless) argument. Sure enough, Chacal answers by insulting you (and maybe insulting the U.S., his comment is vague). This kind of thread gets nowhere, except to just piss people off.

Plus, there are plenty of Americans here who hate their own country and leaders no matter what, just in the hopes of appearing "objective" or "cool" (you know who you are). This kind of thread just gives them the opportunity to once again crawl out from under their rocks and dump on America.

by **hightimber** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 10:43 am

I especially thought this part of the article was amusing:

"When a child is young and cannot understand, a tap on the hand is essential for training," he said. "We have a wood-burning stove that gets very hot. It's ridiculous that I can't save my child from burning himself by tapping his hand away from it."

However, a member of the committee responsible for communicating with Canada argued, if the child "puts his hand on a hot oven, he will be burnt and he will not do it again."

So they're saying that it's better to let a child burn him/herself on a hot stove than to tap them on the hand to avoid it????? Personally, I'd prefer the tap on the hand as opposed to the potential 3rd-degree burn. :wall:

by **Chacal** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 2:00 pm

Originally posted by RCglider
Yes it does say a lot about US. We won't drop our pants for a group of America hating leftist socialists telling us we must conform to their view of how we should raise our kids. The bigger question is will your government be good little children and do what they're told....

As for the article, WND is one of the most respected news reporting agencies in the world. They report the news, you decide. Are you suggesting the article is not true?

I'm saying the news is presented in such a way as to make it appear like a big deal and shock credulous people. It seems to have worked.

I shouldn't have reacted to this thread, I usually just shrug off flame bait. But lately, right-wing propaganda gets on my nerves.

The article tries to find something exceptional in the fact that Canada is subject to review by U.N.'s Committee on Rights of the Child.

That is a normal process and is included in the convention Canada has willingly signed.

Read the convention. It's about the well-being of children, not about spanking. It's directed at banning child abuse, slave labor, child enrollment in guerilla groups.

Why would a civilized country refuse to sign a convention on children's rights? *

Now read closely this part of the article: "The ruling cannot supersede national law, the Post said, but Ottawa wants to comply with the regulations to bolster the U.N.'s attempt to encourage international norms".

That's bending over?

Canada is still divided on spanking by parents. We'll work out something for ourselves. That doesn't mean we reject the whole Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Now, my comment about the US not signing WAS vague. What I mean is exactly this: "Yet Another Example of the US Saying "Fuck You" to the Rest of the World". Like it did with Kyoto. Or with the non-proliferation treaty. Or by refusing to pay it's dues to the UN (one of your millionaires had to shamefully pick up the tab). Oh and landmines, let's not forget that convention.

The US hates UN because it can't control it. Good neighborhood relations, after all, implies that your neighbors must obey your every wish. Especially if you're stronger and wealthier than they are.

------------------------------------

* Answer: it wouldn't, except if part of it's consumer goods was made by slave children in third-world countries.

by **JAG** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 2:26 pm

Originally posted by Chacal

Why would a civilized country refuse to sign a convention on children's rights? *

* Answer: it wouldn't, except if part of it's consumer goods was made by slave children in third-world countries. [/B]

First, I do not agree with the topic of the thread and I understand attacking it and agree with your statements regarding the convention and Canada's entering into it.

However, I think this type of obviously hate filled attack on the US is baseless. To state that the US didn't sign the agreement because it wants third world children to make our trinkets is highly offensive. The US has done a lot of good work in the human rights conventions and continues to do so. I did not want to reply to this thread anymore but the above comment just seemed brutal.

Anyway, this thread is a trainwreck and all I have left to say is

by **Evan** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 2:58 pm

Come on guys..

by **Chacal** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 3:07 pm

Agreed, JAG.

How do Canadians like being run by the U.N.?

How do Canadians like being run by the U.N.?

Re: How do Canadians like being run by the U.N.?

Who is online