To the whack jobs entering schools in the name of social protest

[W105]

just curious if a 12 year old can get Birth Control in BC without parental consent ?? ( I do not know) back in my day we had to have parental consent if under the age of 16..also can a 12 yr old get a tattoo or piercings without parental consent ?? ( again I do not know ??)

[JLives]

just curious if a 12 year old can get Birth Control in BC without parental consent ?? ( I do not know) back in my day we had to have parental consent if under the age of 16..also can a 12 yr old get a tattoo or piercings without parental consent ?? ( again I do not know ??)

Yes to birth control. You have to be 18 to consent to a tattoo. Piercings are grey area and depend on individual piercer.

[rustled]

https://www.healthlinkbc.ca/healthlinkb ... munization

In B.C., immunizations for school aged children are given in grade 6 and grade 9 (and other grades if children are behind in immunization or at risk for certain vaccine-preventable diseases). Most of the time, the vaccines are given by nurses at immunization clinics held at schools. Children may also get vaccines at a health unit, youth clinic, doctor's office or pharmacy. In all of these settings, a child can consent to the vaccine on their own behalf if the health care provider has determined that the child is capable of making this decision.

It's not an opinion. Children from the age of 12 can legally consent for themselves in most cases. Parents do not have the right to override this regardless of how many youtube videos they've watched. We don't own our children's bodies. Period. And children in Grade 6 are 11.

No age limit in what you've quoted, and children can be immunized if they're behind in the usual vaccination. Meaning, presumably, younger than grade 6. (BTW, no one said we own our children's bodies. The government doesn't own our children's bodies, either.)

We are using 12 as the age for which the Covid vaccine is currently approved for children. Many children turn 12 while they are in grade 6. And we can see your opinion has shifted from "Children 12 years and up are legally able to make health decisions for their own bodies" to "in most cases". Traditionally, though, those children's parents were involved in the traditional grade 6 vaccines - and logically ought to have been involved in the decision for this one, too. (It seems to me that people who insist adults are not capable of making this decision on behalf of their children, are not in a very good position to argue that in most cases, a 12-year-old is capable.)

See that last part of the piece you've quoted?

In all of these settings, a child can consent to the vaccine on their own behalf if the health care provider has determined that the child is capable of making this decision.

As I said earlier, we know that assessing what a child genuinely understands and does not really understand isn't easy, even for their parents and teachers who know them. So it would be interesting to watch one of these assessments in action. And it will be interesting to see whether or not there is any effort to vaccinate younger children without parental involvement once the Covid vaccine is approved for children younger than 12.

[JLives]

It wouldn't be interesting. It would be none of our business. The decision is made between the child and the medical community.

[rustled]

And it will be interesting to see whether or not there is any effort to vaccinate younger children without parental involvement once the Covid vaccine is approved for children younger than 12.

It wouldn't be interesting. It would be none of our business. The decision is made between the child and the medical community.

It may not be interesting for you, and that's fine.

I do not think we currently live in a society that has collectively made the decision that it's "none of our business" when parents' concerns vis a vis politically controversial medical interventions for their children are to be overridden by our government, without public consultation or public discussion and without protest.

It seems, rather, we are in the beginning stages of this becoming the acceptable norm.

[JLives]

Ya it's been the acceptable norm for decades. Do catch up.

[FreeSpirit4Ever]

BINGO! But it is much more fun for global news to assume that they are “terrorists”. It’s amazing to me the stupidity of the masses that they will believe anything the media tells them.

What makes them terrorists is their methods. No one has said they are not entitle to their opinions, but bringing them to the steps, doors, and inside institutions to rant their perspective, after they have been respectfully asked to leave, is what makes them terrorist. They "terrorized" the staff and students with their aggressive stands and base level lack of respect for the persons there and the fact they "DO NOT" make policy, Pretty easy for the majority to understand. So really, those who can't or won't understand, must have some serious deep level issues and it must be a sad life to lead.

If the qualifier for making them terrorists is, as you state here above, their “methods”, Then perhaps it’s important for you to clarify what those methods were rather than write some fantasy story like you’re in a literary workshop here. “Rant their perspective “ Or “being respectfully asked to leave”. (Not for nothing but I’ve never heard of any terrorist being respectfully asked to leave anywhere so that qualifier is Null and void, for starters)

First of all you don’t have any proof that that’s the way it was and I can tell you this there was a report on global news from a fellow on the phone that said they spoke to the people in the office about the situation for over an hour I heard nothing about them ranting or terrorizing or harassing. This is media BS and you are perpetuating it if you have some kind of proof please post it otherwise I’m not interested in the newest Harry Potter fantasy. In other words quit telling lies.

[Fancy]

... But it is much more fun for global news to assume that they are “terrorists”. It’s amazing to me the stupidity of the masses that they will believe anything the media tells them. ...

The original news story said nothing of "terrorists".

[FreeSpirit4Ever]

just curious if a 12 year old can get Birth Control in BC without parental consent ?? ( I do not know) back in my day we had to have parental consent if under the age of 16..also can a 12 yr old get a tattoo or piercings without parental consent ?? ( again I do not know ??)

Yes to birth control. You have to be 18 to consent to a tattoo. Piercings are grey area and depend on individual piercer.

LOL What kind of fool makes a rule that a tattoo is a bigger health risk than birth control? Something is rotten in Denmark and I think it’s our government.

[FreeSpirit4Ever]

... But it is much more fun for global news to assume that they are “terrorists”. It’s amazing to me the stupidity of the masses that they will believe anything the media tells them. ...

The original news story said nothing of "terrorists".

Is that right? Care to back it up? Why is everybody in this thread calling them terrorists then? Why are they talking about putting a bubble around schools and hospitals so these “terrorists” cannot enter that area?

That aside I’m obviously referring to the people here calling them terrorists I thought that would be easy to figure out but maybe not for everybody. I’m quite certain however that Farnsworth called taxpayers wack jobs and cov idiots, that is actually what I claimed. I can always tell when you’re having a bad day.

Your post should be directed towards Mtn Biker because he’s the one who claimed they were terrorists not me.

[Fancy]

Is that right? Care to back it up? ...

??? Did you not read the OP? And the link?

[nucksRnum1]

Did they "terrorize" the staff and students?

Absolutely. These people being someplace like a school or hospital as a glorified bully to make a point is "terrorizing" staff and the kids. IT doesn't matter if you think it is or not. If these people are spitting at nurses and cursing them - are teachers supposed to assume differently? Especially with a demographic, that despises public workers and servants. And I'm positive the children would have been affected by the insecurity of the staff and administrators worrying about their safety. This is a day the children will all remember.

[gardengirl]

Did they "terrorize" the staff and students?

Absolutely. These people being someplace like a school or hospital as a glorified bully to make a point is "terrorizing" staff and the kids. IT doesn't matter if you think it is or not. If these people are spitting at nurses and cursing them - are teachers supposed to assume differently? Especially with a demographic, that despises public workers and servants. And I'm positive the children would have been affected by the insecurity of the staff and administrators worrying about their safety. This is a day the children will all remember.

Exactly. These were not "concerned parents" as they claim. Concerned parents would go through the correct channels, ask to speak to the teacher, the Principal, contact the PAC.
This group showed up en-masse to serve FAKE legal papers. They entered the school without permission. They had no legitimate reason to be there. There were not there to pick up their sick child. They were not there to deliver a forgotten jacket or lunch.

They were asked to leave and did not. The staff was so concerned that they contacted the RCMP. They caused the school to do into lockdown.

That is terrorism.

[Bsuds]

They were asked to leave and did not. The staff was so concerned that they contacted the RCMP. They caused the school to do into lockdown.

That is terrorism.

[rustled]

Absolutely. These people being someplace like a school or hospital as a glorified bully to make a point is "terrorizing" staff and the kids. IT doesn't matter if you think it is or not. If these people are spitting at nurses and cursing them - are teachers supposed to assume differently? Especially with a demographic, that despises public workers and servants. And I'm positive the children would have been affected by the insecurity of the staff and administrators worrying about their safety. This is a day the children will all remember.

Exactly. These were not "concerned parents" as they claim. Concerned parents would go through the correct channels, ask to speak to the teacher, the Principal, contact the PAC.
This group showed up en-masse to serve FAKE legal papers. They entered the school without permission. They had no legitimate reason to be there. There were not there to pick up their sick child. They were not there to deliver a forgotten jacket or lunch.

They were asked to leave and did not. The staff was so concerned that they contacted the RCMP. They caused the school to do into lockdown.

That is terrorism.

According to the OP and to you, perhaps. The news stories linked to didn't call it terrorism, and the news isn't generally known for their restraint when there's an opportunity to sensationalize. Unwelcome visitors in schools isn't generally referred to as terrorism, including when the school goes on lockdown, unless there's an actual threat made. Was anyone charged with terrorism?

The question responded to with such drama wasn't about terrorism, though - it was whether or not people in the school were "terrorized" by the protesters. We have several posters here claiming the staff and students were "terrorized" by the protesters. There's no mention of them feeling terror in either of the news stories - the word terror simply isn't used. So personally, I tend to doubt the staff and students were being terrorized, despite these accusations of spitting at nurses and cursing them. Which seems out of sync with the previously assurances that these clinics for a controversial vaccine were not being held in the buildings - they were, we were assured, being held in parking lots. Folk who are most angry about the protests don't really seem to have a good handle on what happened, IMO. Still their prerogative to be as outraged as they feel the urge to be, of course.

What I'm most interested in, though, is how most people very much prefer to discuss the protests, rather than acknowledge the problems of hosting clinics to administer a controversial vaccine in schools where it is easier to act against the wishes of parents of children as young as 12 years of age - and whether or not people believe children that age are capable of informed consent.

Also, whether or not people will continue to turn a blind eye once the age for Covid vaccines is lowered. As I said earlier, I do not think we currently live in a society that has collectively made the decision that it's "none of our business" when parents' concerns vis a vis politically controversial medical interventions for their children are to be overridden by our government, without public consultation or public discussion and without protest. Although it seems we are well into the beginning stages of this becoming the acceptable norm.

With that in mind, I'm curious as to whether or not posters here on the Castanet forum are comfortable with immunizing kindergarten children against the wishes of their parents with a relatively new and quite controversial vaccine.