Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I suspect this law was made with Canada's indigenous population in mind. If an Inuit child is adopted by a non-Inuit family, you don't want that family to stop the child from identifying with their culture, language, and beliefs of origin.
The boarding schools that tried to forcibly stamp out the culture and language of indigenous children represent a dark period of history that shouldn't be replicated in a family setting.
Kid: Mom, can I fly to Toronto for the K-pop festival next week?
Mom: No, we can't afford, plus you have school and you're too young to make trips like that.
Kid: You're denying my Korean identity! I'll call the cops and have you busted.
No, that's not going to happen under the Ontario legislation in question; at least, not as you have phrased it.
First of all, how old is Kid? Maybe 12? Maybe 14? No, all authorities would agree that those ages are too young to fly unaccompanied to something as frivolous as a concert. (Though unaccompanied minors flying to grandparents in Korea might be okay, if Grandparents agreed to meet Kid at the airport in Seoul.) The "unaffordable" and "school nights" arguments are reasonable. In other words, "Korean identity" could be trumped by age, school requirements, and family resources.
Now, is Kid 18 years old? Then things are different. But age 18 makes former kids legal adults in all provinces of Canada, and outside of the legislation we've been discussing. The adopted Korean kid can do as he or she pleases.
Finally, the police have very little jurisdiction, according to the legislation. Of course, a child can call police, and should, in the case of physical or sexual abuse. But under the legislation in question, no kid can call police because he or she has to go to bed earlier than they'd like, because parents demand that they have to eat broccoli, or because a boy wants to wear a dress to school, in defiance of what his parents want him to wear. Or because the kid wants to go to a K-Pop concert that they would need to fly to. Police can only be called if CPS feels it is necessary to enforce a court order.
In short, if a kid called the police and claimed, "My adoptive white parents are denying my Korean identity because they won't pay for me to fly by myself on a school night to Toronto for a K-Pop concert, and I want you to bust them," the police would likely just laugh and hang up the phone.
Last edited by ChevySpoons; 06-07-2017 at 01:56 AM..
I suspect this law was made with Canada's indigenous population in mind. If an Inuit child is adopted by a non-Inuit family, you don't want that family to stop the child from identifying with their culture, language, and beliefs of origin.
The boarding schools that tried to forcibly stamp out the culture and language of indigenous children represent a dark period of history that shouldn't be replicated in a family setting.
What if the kid Identifies as non-Inuit? He/she may identify as a Transgender Korean. I understand they usually come to this realization as young as 4 or 5.
The old law used to allow parents to “direct the child’s education and religious upbringing.” The new bill, however, amends such rights of the parents.
It now emphasizes a child’s “identity and allows parents only to “direct the child or young person’s education and upbringing, in accordance with the child’s or young person’s creed, community identity and cultural identity.”
This reads like something from the Evergreen State College list of student protest demands. The whole idea that adoptive parents should be required by law to raise their child to have a different ethnic identity than their own is ridiculous. It isn't enough for Canadian parents to give kids a good loving home and raise them to be good Canadian citizens?
Quote:
Ontario children and youth advocate Irwin Elman celebrated the bill and said it signals a “paradigm shift” and creates a “child-centered system of service” with “the commitment to anti-racism and children’s rights
It's a paradigm shift all right, a shift toward insanity.
Yeah, it is complete lunacy. Children can't consent to sex; they can't vote; they can't even enter into a binding contract. Yet their otherwise legally and officially incompetent judgment trumps their parents' in this one specific regard?
It's insane. It's evil.
Hey, my kids can't take aspirin at school unless I administer it myself, but if my daughter went into a Planned Parenthood for an abortion, she wouldn't need my consent to undergo a medical procedure that has the possibility of damaging her internal organs or even death.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
