FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Canada father loses visitation rights
Canada father loses visitation rights
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A Canadian father who has not been vaccinated against Covid has temporarily lost the right to see his 12-year-old child. A judge ruled his visits would not be in the child's "best interest". It followed a request by the father to extend his visiting time during the holidays. Link below https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59979408 Now, there's nothing I'm this story to indicate the child is at high risk from the virus (making this decision at least logically understandable) and as such it seems this decision has been made based on moral issues only, which is diabolical" That's very sad. Preventing a child from having a relationship with his parents can't be a valid or proper use of the law. What have we become...? Shameful. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's just so wrong. If he's a rabid anti vaxxer with other dodgy beliefs then there may be a safeguarding issue that they haven't reported on. But if it's literally just that he hasn't had the vaccine then what the actual fuck is the world coming to.
Other dodgy beliefs? Like allowing children to take puberty blockers or giving young women mastectomies because they think they are male?
I agree, what is the world coming to? Where is the safeguarding?
"I suggest you do some research on transitioning before spouting absolute rubbish like that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. " Get jabbed or you can't see your kids? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Get jabbed or you can't see your kids? " Its what a judge has decided, a judge who knows far more about this specific case and circumstances than you or I. I read it more as get jabbed and stop putting your kids at risk. In the judges view the health of the kids outweighed the fathers right to see them. Or do you think fathers should see their children no matter the risk? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Get jabbed or you can't see your kids? " Apparently so! 
The mother could be meeting her unvaccinated friends every day of the week, the kids will be mixing with unvaccinated kids. Yet he is being penalised.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Get jabbed or you can't see your kids? " Or follow rules set by sovereign states, as one tennis player might be about to find out.. Or not go on holiday to certain countries etc.. There's always been laws and regulations about travel to certain countries, be they set by that country or by the country if origin of traveling persons.. Went to both Belize and Kenya in the 80s whilst serving the crown and had several vaccinations.. Choices and consequences etc, years ever thus.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Get jabbed or you can't see your kids? Apparently so!
The mother could be meeting her unvaccinated friends every day of the week, the kids will be mixing with unvaccinated kids. Yet he is being penalised. "Or if a child is vulnerable the parent could be taking sensible precautions to protect said child..? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. " Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's just so wrong. If he's a rabid anti vaxxer with other dodgy beliefs then there may be a safeguarding issue that they haven't reported on. But if it's literally just that he hasn't had the vaccine then what the actual fuck is the world coming to. "total control of human rights you not worked it out yet | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's just so wrong. If he's a rabid anti vaxxer with other dodgy beliefs then there may be a safeguarding issue that they haven't reported on. But if it's literally just that he hasn't had the vaccine then what the actual fuck is the world coming to. total control of human rights you not worked it out yet"It's not a human right to convince a person in hospital to leave against the doctors advice, especially when said person is rehospitalised and dies later from the same issue the conspiracy crack pot said was false.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's just so wrong. If he's a rabid anti vaxxer with other dodgy beliefs then there may be a safeguarding issue that they haven't reported on. But if it's literally just that he hasn't had the vaccine then what the actual fuck is the world coming to. total control of human rights you not worked it out yet"more like total protection of the child (and siblings) best interest. Judge didnt believe tbe father would comply with health restrictions whilst having custody therefore exposing the child (and siblings) to unecessary risk. In the midst of a pandemic its a no brainer. The father has only himself to blame for refusing vax and spouting conspiracy crap on FB. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's just so wrong. If he's a rabid anti vaxxer with other dodgy beliefs then there may be a safeguarding issue that they haven't reported on. But if it's literally just that he hasn't had the vaccine then what the actual fuck is the world coming to.
Other dodgy beliefs? Like allowing children to take puberty blockers or giving young women mastectomies because they think they are male?
I agree, what is the world coming to? Where is the safeguarding?
I suggest you do some research on transitioning before spouting absolute rubbish like that."It is you that needs to do some 'research'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm sorry. There's no justification for that (taking the report at fac value). Actions have Consequences arguments are just bollocks here... Well they are generally as they are always trotted out to excuse ever increasing state involvement in an individuals lives. Just wrong. " Yes, heaven forbid the state should act to protect the safety of children. Of course, having read about the case for a couple of minutes, you must be far better placed than the judge and social services to know what’s in the child’s best interests here.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m pro-vaccination but also pro-choice! I don’t agree with this decision at all! " Why should you? You know next to nothing about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm sorry. There's no justification for that (taking the report at fac value). Actions have Consequences arguments are just bollocks here... Well they are generally as they are always trotted out to excuse ever increasing state involvement in an individuals lives. Just wrong. Yes, heaven forbid the state should act to protect the safety of children. Of course, having read about the case for a couple of minutes, you must be far better placed than the judge and social services to know what’s in the child’s best interests here. "Nope not at all. As I wrote, taking it at face value...but do crack on | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's just so wrong. If he's a rabid anti vaxxer with other dodgy beliefs then there may be a safeguarding issue that they haven't reported on. But if it's literally just that he hasn't had the vaccine then what the actual fuck is the world coming to. total control of human rights you not worked it out yet
more like total protection of the child (and siblings) best interest. Judge didnt believe tbe father would comply with health restrictions whilst having custody therefore exposing the child (and siblings) to unecessary risk. In the midst of a pandemic its a no brainer. The father has only himself to blame for refusing vax and spouting conspiracy crap on FB. "Wow. The award for the most fascist post I've ever seen. Talk crap on Facebook and you only have yourself to blame for losing access to your kids. This coming from people who shag around. Wait until this behaviour is no longer deemed safe... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's just so wrong. If he's a rabid anti vaxxer with other dodgy beliefs then there may be a safeguarding issue that they haven't reported on. But if it's literally just that he hasn't had the vaccine then what the actual fuck is the world coming to. total control of human rights you not worked it out yet
more like total protection of the child (and siblings) best interest. Judge didnt believe tbe father would comply with health restrictions whilst having custody therefore exposing the child (and siblings) to unecessary risk. In the midst of a pandemic its a no brainer. The father has only himself to blame for refusing vax and spouting conspiracy crap on FB.
Wow. The award for the most fascist post I've ever seen.
Talk crap on Facebook and you only have yourself to blame for losing access to your kids.
This coming from people who shag around. Wait until this behaviour is no longer deemed safe..."thanks for the award, it will go nicely with the collection 
Judges decision not mine ... and if he hadnt posted his ravings on FB he wouldnt be in the position he is. So yup only himself to blame. Obviously his conspiracies mean more to him than seeing his child, easily resolved by having a vaccination. Depends on your priorities i suppose | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's just so wrong. If he's a rabid anti vaxxer with other dodgy beliefs then there may be a safeguarding issue that they haven't reported on. But if it's literally just that he hasn't had the vaccine then what the actual fuck is the world coming to. total control of human rights you not worked it out yet
more like total protection of the child (and siblings) best interest. Judge didnt believe tbe father would comply with health restrictions whilst having custody therefore exposing the child (and siblings) to unecessary risk. In the midst of a pandemic its a no brainer. The father has only himself to blame for refusing vax and spouting conspiracy crap on FB.
Wow. The award for the most fascist post I've ever seen.
Talk crap on Facebook and you only have yourself to blame for losing access to your kids.
This coming from people who shag around. Wait until this behaviour is no longer deemed safe...
thanks for the award, it will go nicely with the collection
Judges decision not mine ... and if he hadnt posted his ravings on FB he wouldnt be in the position he is. So yup only himself to blame. Obviously his conspiracies mean more to him than seeing his child, easily resolved by having a vaccination. Depends on your priorities i suppose "I don't think you can have only yourself to blame when a judge made a totally unprecedented ruling. Interesting that you seem so joyful about it. Says a lot about who you are. Maybe one day a judge will rule that your relationship is abusive and decide you are not fit parents. Unprecedented decisions are the new normal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's just so wrong. If he's a rabid anti vaxxer with other dodgy beliefs then there may be a safeguarding issue that they haven't reported on. But if it's literally just that he hasn't had the vaccine then what the actual fuck is the world coming to. total control of human rights you not worked it out yet
more like total protection of the child (and siblings) best interest. Judge didnt believe tbe father would comply with health restrictions whilst having custody therefore exposing the child (and siblings) to unecessary risk. In the midst of a pandemic its a no brainer. The father has only himself to blame for refusing vax and spouting conspiracy crap on FB.
Wow. The award for the most fascist post I've ever seen.
Talk crap on Facebook and you only have yourself to blame for losing access to your kids.
This coming from people who shag around. Wait until this behaviour is no longer deemed safe...
thanks for the award, it will go nicely with the collection
Judges decision not mine ... and if he hadnt posted his ravings on FB he wouldnt be in the position he is. So yup only himself to blame. Obviously his conspiracies mean more to him than seeing his child, easily resolved by having a vaccination. Depends on your priorities i suppose
I don't think you can have only yourself to blame when a judge made a totally unprecedented ruling.
Interesting that you seem so joyful about it. Says a lot about who you are.
Maybe one day a judge will rule that your relationship is abusive and decide you are not fit parents. Unprecedented decisions are the new normal"Surely you are aware the since the dawning of Social Media individuals and organisations have been held to account, dismissed from employment and imprisoned for what they post. So hardly unprecedented. Only an idiot posts things in public that could be held against them .. but then he is a conspiracy theorist. As for your last sentence ..... a tad childish dont you think. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's just so wrong. If he's a rabid anti vaxxer with other dodgy beliefs then there may be a safeguarding issue that they haven't reported on. But if it's literally just that he hasn't had the vaccine then what the actual fuck is the world coming to. total control of human rights you not worked it out yet
more like total protection of the child (and siblings) best interest. Judge didnt believe tbe father would comply with health restrictions whilst having custody therefore exposing the child (and siblings) to unecessary risk. In the midst of a pandemic its a no brainer. The father has only himself to blame for refusing vax and spouting conspiracy crap on FB.
Wow. The award for the most fascist post I've ever seen.
Talk crap on Facebook and you only have yourself to blame for losing access to your kids.
This coming from people who shag around. Wait until this behaviour is no longer deemed safe...
thanks for the award, it will go nicely with the collection
Judges decision not mine ... and if he hadnt posted his ravings on FB he wouldnt be in the position he is. So yup only himself to blame. Obviously his conspiracies mean more to him than seeing his child, easily resolved by having a vaccination. Depends on your priorities i suppose
I don't think you can have only yourself to blame when a judge made a totally unprecedented ruling.
Interesting that you seem so joyful about it. Says a lot about who you are.
Maybe one day a judge will rule that your relationship is abusive and decide you are not fit parents. Unprecedented decisions are the new normal
Surely you are aware the since the dawning of Social Media individuals and organisations have been held to account, dismissed from employment and imprisoned for what they post. So hardly unprecedented. Only an idiot posts things in public that could be held against them .. but then he is a conspiracy theorist.
As for your last sentence ..... a tad childish dont you think."Totally wrong. It is unprecedented for a person to lose visitation rights for being unvaccinated. Where have you gotten your information from? You are the only person I've heard calling him a conspiracy theorist. That's not what the judge rules. You are so desperate to be smug over the decision that you have filled in the blanks yourself. Good luck. I think you have problems | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm sorry. There's no justification for that (taking the report at fac value). Actions have Consequences arguments are just bollocks here... Well they are generally as they are always trotted out to excuse ever increasing state involvement in an individuals lives. Just wrong. " You seem happy to take the initial post at face value though. Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's just so wrong. If he's a rabid anti vaxxer with other dodgy beliefs then there may be a safeguarding issue that they haven't reported on. But if it's literally just that he hasn't had the vaccine then what the actual fuck is the world coming to. total control of human rights you not worked it out yet
more like total protection of the child (and siblings) best interest. Judge didnt believe tbe father would comply with health restrictions whilst having custody therefore exposing the child (and siblings) to unecessary risk. In the midst of a pandemic its a no brainer. The father has only himself to blame for refusing vax and spouting conspiracy crap on FB. "Except relatively speaking there's absolutely no risk to children from Covid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's just so wrong. If he's a rabid anti vaxxer with other dodgy beliefs then there may be a safeguarding issue that they haven't reported on. But if it's literally just that he hasn't had the vaccine then what the actual fuck is the world coming to. total control of human rights you not worked it out yet
more like total protection of the child (and siblings) best interest. Judge didnt believe tbe father would comply with health restrictions whilst having custody therefore exposing the child (and siblings) to unecessary risk. In the midst of a pandemic its a no brainer. The father has only himself to blame for refusing vax and spouting conspiracy crap on FB.
Wow. The award for the most fascist post I've ever seen.
Talk crap on Facebook and you only have yourself to blame for losing access to your kids.
This coming from people who shag around. Wait until this behaviour is no longer deemed safe...
thanks for the award, it will go nicely with the collection
Judges decision not mine ... and if he hadnt posted his ravings on FB he wouldnt be in the position he is. So yup only himself to blame. Obviously his conspiracies mean more to him than seeing his child, easily resolved by having a vaccination. Depends on your priorities i suppose
I don't think you can have only yourself to blame when a judge made a totally unprecedented ruling.
Interesting that you seem so joyful about it. Says a lot about who you are.
Maybe one day a judge will rule that your relationship is abusive and decide you are not fit parents. Unprecedented decisions are the new normal
Surely you are aware the since the dawning of Social Media individuals and organisations have been held to account, dismissed from employment and imprisoned for what they post. So hardly unprecedented. Only an idiot posts things in public that could be held against them .. but then he is a conspiracy theorist.
As for your last sentence ..... a tad childish dont you think.
Totally wrong. It is unprecedented for a person to lose visitation rights for being unvaccinated.
Where have you gotten your information from? You are the only person I've heard calling him a conspiracy theorist. That's not what the judge rules.
You are so desperate to be smug over the decision that you have filled in the blanks yourself.
Good luck. I think you have problems"Read up a bit, there's a transcript of the judges comments and decidion making process.
Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm sorry. There's no justification for that (taking the report at fac value). Actions have Consequences arguments are just bollocks here... Well they are generally as they are always trotted out to excuse ever increasing state involvement in an individuals lives. Just wrong. Yes, heaven forbid the state should act to protect the safety of children. Of course, having read about the case for a couple of minutes, you must be far better placed than the judge and social services to know what’s in the child’s best interests here. "hahaha u wana look into how the canadian state has treated kids in the not to distant past they didnt seem to have there wellfare in mind then | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's just so wrong. If he's a rabid anti vaxxer with other dodgy beliefs then there may be a safeguarding issue that they haven't reported on. But if it's literally just that he hasn't had the vaccine then what the actual fuck is the world coming to. total control of human rights you not worked it out yet
more like total protection of the child (and siblings) best interest. Judge didnt believe tbe father would comply with health restrictions whilst having custody therefore exposing the child (and siblings) to unecessary risk. In the midst of a pandemic its a no brainer. The father has only himself to blame for refusing vax and spouting conspiracy crap on FB.
Except relatively speaking there's absolutely no risk to children from Covid."Which is nonsense, of course. Unless by ‘relatively speaking’ you mean ‘apart from the risks that have been observed and recorded, which include loss of sight, loss of mobility and death, there is absolutely no risk to children from Covid’. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What happens if the Mother is also unvaccinated is the child then taken in to care? " It would depend on similar factors. If the judge thought the mother also represented a risk to the welfare of the child, then they’d be taken into care. is what happens in every country with functional social services in place to protect children. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m pro-vaccination but also pro-choice! I don’t agree with this decision at all! Why should you? You know next to nothing about it." Is it necessary to always be so confrontational? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m pro-vaccination but also pro-choice! I don’t agree with this decision at all! Why should you? You know next to nothing about it. Is it necessary to always be so confrontational? " You’re being confrontational now. Is it necessary? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m pro-vaccination but also pro-choice! I don’t agree with this decision at all! Why should you? You know next to nothing about it. Is it necessary to always be so confrontational? You’re being confrontational now. Is it necessary?" If you consider what I said as confrontational, then yes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m pro-vaccination but also pro-choice! I don’t agree with this decision at all! Why should you? You know next to nothing about it. Is it necessary to always be so confrontational? You’re being confrontational now. Is it necessary? If you consider what I said as confrontational, then yes." Then you’ve managed to answer your own question. Well done!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m pro-vaccination but also pro-choice! I don’t agree with this decision at all! Why should you? You know next to nothing about it. Is it necessary to always be so confrontational? You’re being confrontational now. Is it necessary? If you consider what I said as confrontational, then yes. Then you’ve managed to answer your own question. Well done! "As I expected... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's just so wrong. If he's a rabid anti vaxxer with other dodgy beliefs then there may be a safeguarding issue that they haven't reported on. But if it's literally just that he hasn't had the vaccine then what the actual fuck is the world coming to. "Yes it is wrong. I see that they are pushing the agenda hard there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's just so wrong. If he's a rabid anti vaxxer with other dodgy beliefs then there may be a safeguarding issue that they haven't reported on. But if it's literally just that he hasn't had the vaccine then what the actual fuck is the world coming to. Yes it is wrong. I see that they are pushing the agenda hard there. "Yes - the agenda they are pushing hard here is called ‘child welfare’. You may have heard of it, it’s considered quite important in most countries. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A Canadian father who has not been vaccinated against Covid has temporarily lost the right to see his 12-year-old child. A judge ruled his visits would not be in the child's "best interest". It followed a request by the father to extend his visiting time during the holidays. Link below https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59979408 Now, there's nothing I'm this story to indicate the child is at high risk from the virus (making this decision at least logically understandable) and as such it seems this decision has been made based on moral issues only, which is diabolical" This is just a stab in the dark but. Maybe the judge knows more about the case than you do ? Just saying  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What happens if the Mother is also unvaccinated is the child then taken in to care? " Does she live with the child and the main carer ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A Canadian father who has not been vaccinated against Covid has temporarily lost the right to see his 12-year-old child. A judge ruled his visits would not be in the child's "best interest". It followed a request by the father to extend his visiting time during the holidays. Link below https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59979408 Now, there's nothing I'm this story to indicate the child is at high risk from the virus (making this decision at least logically understandable) and as such it seems this decision has been made based on moral issues only, which is diabolical This is just a stab in the dark but. Maybe the judge knows more about the case than you do ? Just saying "I knew. Who'd have thought there were so many experts on Canadian law here on Fab! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's just so wrong. If he's a rabid anti vaxxer with other dodgy beliefs then there may be a safeguarding issue that they haven't reported on. But if it's literally just that he hasn't had the vaccine then what the actual fuck is the world coming to. total control of human rights you not worked it out yet
more like total protection of the child (and siblings) best interest. Judge didnt believe tbe father would comply with health restrictions whilst having custody therefore exposing the child (and siblings) to unecessary risk. In the midst of a pandemic its a no brainer. The father has only himself to blame for refusing vax and spouting conspiracy crap on FB. "Pure totalitarianism | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thank goodness more and more people are waking up to this authoritarian nonsense. The more that do, the sooner it will stop"  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's just so wrong. If he's a rabid anti vaxxer with other dodgy beliefs then there may be a safeguarding issue that they haven't reported on. But if it's literally just that he hasn't had the vaccine then what the actual fuck is the world coming to.
Other dodgy beliefs? Like allowing children to take puberty blockers or giving young women mastectomies because they think they are male?
I agree, what is the world coming to? Where is the safeguarding?
I suggest you do some research on transitioning before spouting absolute rubbish like that."It's not rubbish to have views like that gent. Kids change their minds all of the time. I was into all kinds of boys stuff when I was a kid. I hated dolls and anything pink. All kinds of other girly stuff too. Still do to be fair! If my parents put ideas/thoughts in my head, listened to kiddie talk or even put me on puberty blockers, now as an adult, I would of pressed chargers again them and taken them to court. Kids feel, behave and say all sorts. My own son's used to play dress up in my dresses, bras and heel shoes! But then as fully grown adults, my son's and I are still the gender we were born as..and happily so! We wouldn't charge who we are. Kids should be left to grow and then from 16 or 18 years of age, do whatever they want! Sex change the lot. Whatever. There have been real cases of adults who as a kid, their parents put them through changes but now once as an adult, they regretted it all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A Canadian father who has not been vaccinated against Covid has temporarily lost the right to see his 12-year-old child. A judge ruled his visits would not be in the child's "best interest". It followed a request by the father to extend his visiting time during the holidays. Link below https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59979408 Now, there's nothing I'm this story to indicate the child is at high risk from the virus (making this decision at least logically understandable) and as such it seems this decision has been made based on moral issues only, which is diabolical" Does this mean that any parents still together who arent vaxed will have kids taken into care. Tgis is abdolutely disgusting | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thank goodness more and more people are waking up to this authoritarian nonsense. The more that do, the sooner it will stop" Wake up and do what excactly? Whinge on a swingers forum? makes the Tooting Popular Front look organised | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A Canadian father who has not been vaccinated against Covid has temporarily lost the right to see his 12-year-old child. A judge ruled his visits would not be in the child's "best interest". It followed a request by the father to extend his visiting time during the holidays. Link below https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59979408 Now, there's nothing I'm this story to indicate the child is at high risk from the virus (making this decision at least logically understandable) and as such it seems this decision has been made based on moral issues only, which is diabolical Does this mean that any parents still together who arent vaxed will have kids taken into care. Tgis is abdolutely disgusting" Where do you get that from ? The kids are with the mother the father does not live with them and is not vaccinated and is an open anti vaxxor and so is temporarily barred from visiting. There nothing about children being taken into care. More misinformation | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thank goodness more and more people are waking up to this authoritarian nonsense. The more that do, the sooner it will stop Wake up and do what excactly? Whinge on a swingers forum? makes the Tooting Popular Front look organised" I think some people have been watching the matrix too many times
Will you take the red or the blue pill ?
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What ever happened to looking at a story and weighing up the pro's and con's and then making an informed decision? " With this 'thread' that is just what the Judge did but some people have an issue with that despite not having the 'full story' that the Judge had in which to make his informed decision | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's just so wrong. If he's a rabid anti vaxxer with other dodgy beliefs then there may be a safeguarding issue that they haven't reported on. But if it's literally just that he hasn't had the vaccine then what the actual fuck is the world coming to.
Other dodgy beliefs? Like allowing children to take puberty blockers or giving young women mastectomies because they think they are male?
I agree, what is the world coming to? Where is the safeguarding?
"Much experience of being the parent of a transgender child have you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t think the op actually read the whole article before posting it " Agreed. However, there is a certain anonymity on here when posting dubious sources seems to be acceptable? I'm pretty sure that face to face during a discussion that a lot of people would be bereft of any meaningful arguments. As long as their phone was taken off them and they had to actually think for themselves! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mainly because a lot of people dont read beyond the headline. And as we know headlines are designed to grab attention. In this case 'Canada father loses visitation rights' ... But it could have been. 'Un-vaxinated conspiracy theorist who ignores state laws on Pandemic control loses visitation rights temporarily' Same story except one headline is designed to inflame tensions." Ah the joy of clarity and intelligent thinking. Such a revelation in these times!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's just so wrong. If he's a rabid anti vaxxer with other dodgy beliefs then there may be a safeguarding issue that they haven't reported on. But if it's literally just that he hasn't had the vaccine then what the actual fuck is the world coming to. Yes it is wrong. I see that they are pushing the agenda hard there.
Yes - the agenda they are pushing hard here is called ‘child welfare’.
You may have heard of it, it’s considered quite important in most countries."Nothing to do with child welfare, it’s a judge using the powers of the covid reaction and the vague accusation of the father being a “conspiracy theorist” to overstep and remove a fathers rights from him, temporarily or not makes no difference. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So let me get this straight, because he posted “conspiracy theory” things that no one knows the content of, that is proof he may not be following the other guidelines besides vaccination and thus makes him a threat to his child’s and child’s sibling safety. Fuck right off. And there are people supporting it. Of course there are. We are watching the same process that turned postmen and warehouse workers into gas chamber workers in real time. " Melodramatic. Overemotional, without reason or foundation. And in no way relateable. Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm sorry. There's no justification for that (taking the report at fac value). Actions have Consequences arguments are just bollocks here... Well they are generally as they are always trotted out to excuse ever increasing state involvement in an individuals lives. Just wrong. Yes, heaven forbid the state should act to protect the safety of children. Of course, having read about the case for a couple of minutes, you must be far better placed than the judge and social services to know what’s in the child’s best interests here. "Social Services!, you want to talk about them, how many f’ing times have they failed in protecting children in the UK?! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So let me get this straight, because he posted “conspiracy theory” things that no one knows the content of, that is proof he may not be following the other guidelines besides vaccination and thus makes him a threat to his child’s and child’s sibling safety. Fuck right off. And there are people supporting it. Of course there are. We are watching the same process that turned postmen and warehouse workers into gas chamber workers in real time. " but you havent got it straight, the ex wife knew the content who then raised it in court, the judge knew the content and decided it warranted a temporary suspension of his visitation rights and didnt belive in any case that the father would comply with the current health regulations. I dont know the content, neither do you, but the judge deemed it enough to warrant the sanction he imposed. The father (rightly) had his opportunity in court and lost, the victims of the gas chambers had no such opportunity. linking this child custody case to the millions who were murdered is an insult to their memories. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm sorry. There's no justification for that (taking the report at fac value). Actions have Consequences arguments are just bollocks here... Well they are generally as they are always trotted out to excuse ever increasing state involvement in an individuals lives. Just wrong. Yes, heaven forbid the state should act to protect the safety of children. Of course, having read about the case for a couple of minutes, you must be far better placed than the judge and social services to know what’s in the child’s best interests here.
Social Services!, you want to talk about them, how many f’ing times have they failed in protecting children in the UK?!"How many times have they succeeded in protecting children? Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So let me get this straight, because he posted “conspiracy theory” things that no one knows the content of, that is proof he may not be following the other guidelines besides vaccination and thus makes him a threat to his child’s and child’s sibling safety. Fuck right off. And there are people supporting it. Of course there are. We are watching the same process that turned postmen and warehouse workers into gas chamber workers in real time. " Please elaborate the connection between this topic and the rise of the Nazi movement (and its well known consequences) Quite a serious link there. i know its that time of night but you may need to ease off and dilute whatever you are drinking! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So let me get this straight, because he posted “conspiracy theory” things that no one knows the content of, that is proof he may not be following the other guidelines besides vaccination and thus makes him a threat to his child’s and child’s sibling safety. Fuck right off. And there are people supporting it. Of course there are. We are watching the same process that turned postmen and warehouse workers into gas chamber workers in real time. but you havent got it straight, the ex wife knew the content who then raised it in court, the judge knew the content and decided it warranted a temporary suspension of his visitation rights and didnt belive in any case that the father would comply with the current health regulations. I dont know the content, neither do you, but the judge deemed it enough to warrant the sanction he imposed. The father (rightly) had his opportunity in court and lost, the victims of the gas chambers had no such opportunity. linking this child custody case to the millions who were murdered is an insult to their memories. " Your last sentence...... spot on. I've read some over-reactions here, the holocaust comparisons are by far the most repugnant. Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So let me get this straight, because he posted “conspiracy theory” things that no one knows the content of, that is proof he may not be following the other guidelines besides vaccination and thus makes him a threat to his child’s and child’s sibling safety. Fuck right off. And there are people supporting it. Of course there are. We are watching the same process that turned postmen and warehouse workers into gas chamber workers in real time. Melodramatic. Overemotional, without reason or foundation. And in no way relateable. Winston " Of course it is people actually gleeful that a “conspiracy nut” has been acted against by the state and there’s no comparisons? Really? This virus and the division it has caused and how one side loves the power the state in many countries now have to use against those “nuts” is most definitely an equivalence.
Never mind that, how about the fact that in a court of law his social media posts were taken as evidence that he would break laws? Not actual evidence of him breaking laws? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So let me get this straight, because he posted “conspiracy theory” things that no one knows the content of, that is proof he may not be following the other guidelines besides vaccination and thus makes him a threat to his child’s and child’s sibling safety. Fuck right off. And there are people supporting it. Of course there are. We are watching the same process that turned postmen and warehouse workers into gas chamber workers in real time. but you havent got it straight, the ex wife knew the content who then raised it in court, the judge knew the content and decided it warranted a temporary suspension of his visitation rights and didnt belive in any case that the father would comply with the current health regulations. I dont know the content, neither do you, but the judge deemed it enough to warrant the sanction he imposed. The father (rightly) had his opportunity in court and lost, the victims of the gas chambers had no such opportunity. linking this child custody case to the millions who were murdered is an insult to their memories. " That wasn’t the comparison, the comparison I made was the same people gleeful on this thread about the power of the state being used against that man are the same type of people who were able to be molded from postman to firing squad. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So let me get this straight, because he posted “conspiracy theory” things that no one knows the content of, that is proof he may not be following the other guidelines besides vaccination and thus makes him a threat to his child’s and child’s sibling safety. Fuck right off. And there are people supporting it. Of course there are. We are watching the same process that turned postmen and warehouse workers into gas chamber workers in real time. Melodramatic. Overemotional, without reason or foundation. And in no way relateable. Winston Of course it is people actually gleeful that a “conspiracy nut” has been acted against by the state and there’s no comparisons? Really? This virus and the division it has caused and how one side loves the power the state in many countries now have to use against those “nuts” is most definitely an equivalence.
Never mind that, how about the fact that in a court of law his social media posts were taken as evidence that he would break laws? Not actual evidence of him breaking laws?"What do you know of Canadian law? More to the point, what do you know about this case that the judge who actually ruled on it doesn't, other than a ridiculously sensationalised headline, designed to do nothing more than sell copy? 2 questions there, feel free to answer..... Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So let me get this straight, because he posted “conspiracy theory” things that no one knows the content of, that is proof he may not be following the other guidelines besides vaccination and thus makes him a threat to his child’s and child’s sibling safety. Fuck right off. And there are people supporting it. Of course there are. We are watching the same process that turned postmen and warehouse workers into gas chamber workers in real time. Please elaborate the connection between this topic and the rise of the Nazi movement (and its well known consequences) Quite a serious link there. i know its that time of night but you may need to ease off and dilute whatever you are drinking!" The very same type of people that were molded from everyday citizen to nazi are in todays times clapping the overreach of the state. As soon as the buzzwords conspiracy, antivaxxer, anti masker, unvaccinated etc are mentioned it makes no difference to those people what the fuck the state does… because those people deserve it for no being vaccinated or being a conspiracy nut. It’s called “othering”. They are the other, the dirty, the unvaccinated, they are the threat, do what you want to them, they deserve it for not being one of us, the clean, the vaccinated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thank goodness more and more people are waking up to this authoritarian nonsense. The more that do, the sooner it will stop Wake up and do what excactly? Whinge on a swingers forum? makes the Tooting Popular Front look organised I think some people have been watching the matrix too many times
Will you take the red or the blue pill ?
"Blue pill for me please it keeps me hard as a rock long enough for an awesome night of fun and fuckery  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So let me get this straight, because he posted “conspiracy theory” things that no one knows the content of, that is proof he may not be following the other guidelines besides vaccination and thus makes him a threat to his child’s and child’s sibling safety. Fuck right off. And there are people supporting it. Of course there are. We are watching the same process that turned postmen and warehouse workers into gas chamber workers in real time. Melodramatic. Overemotional, without reason or foundation. And in no way relateable. Winston Of course it is people actually gleeful that a “conspiracy nut” has been acted against by the state and there’s no comparisons? Really? This virus and the division it has caused and how one side loves the power the state in many countries now have to use against those “nuts” is most definitely an equivalence.
Never mind that, how about the fact that in a court of law his social media posts were taken as evidence that he would break laws? Not actual evidence of him breaking laws?
What do you know of Canadian law?
More to the point, what do you know about this case that the judge who actually ruled on it doesn't, other than a ridiculously sensationalised headline, designed to do nothing more than sell copy?
2 questions there, feel free to answer.....
Winston"Fuck Canadian law. There should be no circumstances where a persons social media posts are used to accuse them of being a law breaker and then stop access to their child. Whether temporary or not. People should not be clapping that sort of over reach. And someone posted more from the article lower down? So that’s more than the headline. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So let me get this straight, because he posted “conspiracy theory” things that no one knows the content of, that is proof he may not be following the other guidelines besides vaccination and thus makes him a threat to his child’s and child’s sibling safety. Fuck right off. And there are people supporting it. Of course there are. We are watching the same process that turned postmen and warehouse workers into gas chamber workers in real time. but you havent got it straight, the ex wife knew the content who then raised it in court, the judge knew the content and decided it warranted a temporary suspension of his visitation rights and didnt belive in any case that the father would comply with the current health regulations. I dont know the content, neither do you, but the judge deemed it enough to warrant the sanction he imposed. The father (rightly) had his opportunity in court and lost, the victims of the gas chambers had no such opportunity. linking this child custody case to the millions who were murdered is an insult to their memories. " Ohh, so the ex used the overreach of covid laws AND the imbalance of the family court against fathers to stop him from seeing his children for a while? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So let me get this straight, because he posted “conspiracy theory” things that no one knows the content of, that is proof he may not be following the other guidelines besides vaccination and thus makes him a threat to his child’s and child’s sibling safety. Fuck right off. And there are people supporting it. Of course there are. We are watching the same process that turned postmen and warehouse workers into gas chamber workers in real time. but you havent got it straight, the ex wife knew the content who then raised it in court, the judge knew the content and decided it warranted a temporary suspension of his visitation rights and didnt belive in any case that the father would comply with the current health regulations. I dont know the content, neither do you, but the judge deemed it enough to warrant the sanction he imposed. The father (rightly) had his opportunity in court and lost, the victims of the gas chambers had no such opportunity. linking this child custody case to the millions who were murdered is an insult to their memories. Ohh, so the ex used the overreach of covid laws AND the imbalance of the family court against fathers to stop him from seeing his children for a while? " dunno ... its a posibility. All the more reason not to post things online which can be used against you. Particularly if you have an acrimonious ex. Social Media posts are widely accepted in Canadian Family courts to support a case and have been for nearly a decade. Not sure about the UK but wouldnt suprise me. Remember family courts arent at the same level of proof as a criminal case. Clearly in this case the judge was satisfied to find against him. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lasts orders please. Drinking up time now! "I'll take a pint of Guinness and two packs of salty peanuts please | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lasts orders please. Drinking up time now!
I'll take a pint of Guinness and two packs of salty peanuts please
"Good call. DD's or Planters? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So let me get this straight, because he posted “conspiracy theory” things that no one knows the content of, that is proof he may not be following the other guidelines besides vaccination and thus makes him a threat to his child’s and child’s sibling safety. Fuck right off. And there are people supporting it. Of course there are. We are watching the same process that turned postmen and warehouse workers into gas chamber workers in real time. but you havent got it straight, the ex wife knew the content who then raised it in court, the judge knew the content and decided it warranted a temporary suspension of his visitation rights and didnt belive in any case that the father would comply with the current health regulations. I dont know the content, neither do you, but the judge deemed it enough to warrant the sanction he imposed. The father (rightly) had his opportunity in court and lost, the victims of the gas chambers had no such opportunity. linking this child custody case to the millions who were murdered is an insult to their memories. Ohh, so the ex used the overreach of covid laws AND the imbalance of the family court against fathers to stop him from seeing his children for a while? dunno ... its a posibility. All the more reason not to post things online which can be used against you. Particularly if you have an acrimonious ex. Social Media posts are widely accepted in Canadian Family courts to support a case and have been for nearly a decade. Not sure about the UK but wouldnt suprise me. Remember family courts arent at the same level of proof as a criminal case. Clearly in this case the judge was satisfied to find against him." Just rubs me up the wrong way, the family court issue is a joke worldwide and for me the levels need to be much higher to rule against a father seeing their child, no matter if it’s temporary or not, then add in people who a gleeful about it happening because he may be anti vax and it’s enraging. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So let me get this straight, because he posted “conspiracy theory” things that no one knows the content of, that is proof he may not be following the other guidelines besides vaccination and thus makes him a threat to his child’s and child’s sibling safety. Fuck right off. And there are people supporting it. Of course there are. We are watching the same process that turned postmen and warehouse workers into gas chamber workers in real time. Melodramatic. Overemotional, without reason or foundation. And in no way relateable. Winston Of course it is people actually gleeful that a “conspiracy nut” has been acted against by the state and there’s no comparisons? Really? This virus and the division it has caused and how one side loves the power the state in many countries now have to use against those “nuts” is most definitely an equivalence.
Never mind that, how about the fact that in a court of law his social media posts were taken as evidence that he would break laws? Not actual evidence of him breaking laws?
What do you know of Canadian law?
More to the point, what do you know about this case that the judge who actually ruled on it doesn't, other than a ridiculously sensationalised headline, designed to do nothing more than sell copy?
2 questions there, feel free to answer.....
Winston
Fuck Canadian law. There should be no circumstances where a persons social media posts are used to accuse them of being a law breaker and then stop access to their child. Whether temporary or not. People should not be clapping that sort of over reach.
And someone posted more from the article lower down? So that’s more than the headline.
"By saying fuck Canadian law I'm guessing your answer to the first question is "nothing" Someone also posted the transcript of the judges ruling. Did you read that too? Sorry for a the questions. Winston. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So let me get this straight, because he posted “conspiracy theory” things that no one knows the content of, that is proof he may not be following the other guidelines besides vaccination and thus makes him a threat to his child’s and child’s sibling safety. Fuck right off. And there are people supporting it. Of course there are. We are watching the same process that turned postmen and warehouse workers into gas chamber workers in real time. Melodramatic. Overemotional, without reason or foundation. And in no way relateable. Winston Of course it is people actually gleeful that a “conspiracy nut” has been acted against by the state and there’s no comparisons? Really? This virus and the division it has caused and how one side loves the power the state in many countries now have to use against those “nuts” is most definitely an equivalence.
Never mind that, how about the fact that in a court of law his social media posts were taken as evidence that he would break laws? Not actual evidence of him breaking laws?
What do you know of Canadian law?
More to the point, what do you know about this case that the judge who actually ruled on it doesn't, other than a ridiculously sensationalised headline, designed to do nothing more than sell copy?
2 questions there, feel free to answer.....
Winston
Fuck Canadian law. There should be no circumstances where a persons social media posts are used to accuse them of being a law breaker and then stop access to their child. Whether temporary or not. People should not be clapping that sort of over reach.
And someone posted more from the article lower down? So that’s more than the headline.
By saying fuck Canadian law I'm guessing your answer to the first question is "nothing"
Someone also posted the transcript of the judges ruling. Did you read that too?
Sorry for a the questions.
Winston."Yes, that’s a nothing lol. It doesn’t sit right with me that without evidence of rule breaking it’s been proposed he would break rules though, and that should be out of the question no matter the country and law, you should have evidence of rule breaking having happened to make that judgement especially in the case of removing a parents contact with their child. And I believe the transcript is what I was referring to, I don’t think I’ve missed something else. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So let me get this straight, because he posted “conspiracy theory” things that no one knows the content of, that is proof he may not be following the other guidelines besides vaccination and thus makes him a threat to his child’s and child’s sibling safety. Fuck right off. And there are people supporting it. Of course there are. We are watching the same process that turned postmen and warehouse workers into gas chamber workers in real time. Melodramatic. Overemotional, without reason or foundation. And in no way relateable. Winston Of course it is people actually gleeful that a “conspiracy nut” has been acted against by the state and there’s no comparisons? Really? This virus and the division it has caused and how one side loves the power the state in many countries now have to use against those “nuts” is most definitely an equivalence.
Never mind that, how about the fact that in a court of law his social media posts were taken as evidence that he would break laws? Not actual evidence of him breaking laws?
What do you know of Canadian law?
More to the point, what do you know about this case that the judge who actually ruled on it doesn't, other than a ridiculously sensationalised headline, designed to do nothing more than sell copy?
2 questions there, feel free to answer.....
Winston
Fuck Canadian law. There should be no circumstances where a persons social media posts are used to accuse them of being a law breaker and then stop access to their child. Whether temporary or not. People should not be clapping that sort of over reach.
And someone posted more from the article lower down? So that’s more than the headline.
By saying fuck Canadian law I'm guessing your answer to the first question is "nothing"
Someone also posted the transcript of the judges ruling. Did you read that too?
Sorry for a the questions.
Winston.
Yes, that’s a nothing lol. It doesn’t sit right with me that without evidence of rule breaking it’s been proposed he would break rules though, and that should be out of the question no matter the country and law, you should have evidence of rule breaking having happened to make that judgement especially in the case of removing a parents contact with their child.
And I believe the transcript is what I was referring to, I don’t think I’ve missed something else."I'm guessing the judge felt there was enough evidence for prevention being better than the cure. I read the transcript, thought it explained the judges reasoning pretty well. Very clear and easy to understand. Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So let me get this straight, because he posted “conspiracy theory” things that no one knows the content of, that is proof he may not be following the other guidelines besides vaccination and thus makes him a threat to his child’s and child’s sibling safety. Fuck right off. And there are people supporting it. Of course there are. We are watching the same process that turned postmen and warehouse workers into gas chamber workers in real time. Melodramatic. Overemotional, without reason or foundation. And in no way relateable. Winston Of course it is people actually gleeful that a “conspiracy nut” has been acted against by the state and there’s no comparisons? Really? This virus and the division it has caused and how one side loves the power the state in many countries now have to use against those “nuts” is most definitely an equivalence.
Never mind that, how about the fact that in a court of law his social media posts were taken as evidence that he would break laws? Not actual evidence of him breaking laws?
What do you know of Canadian law?
More to the point, what do you know about this case that the judge who actually ruled on it doesn't, other than a ridiculously sensationalised headline, designed to do nothing more than sell copy?
2 questions there, feel free to answer.....
Winston
Fuck Canadian law. There should be no circumstances where a persons social media posts are used to accuse them of being a law breaker and then stop access to their child. Whether temporary or not. People should not be clapping that sort of over reach.
And someone posted more from the article lower down? So that’s more than the headline.
By saying fuck Canadian law I'm guessing your answer to the first question is "nothing"
Someone also posted the transcript of the judges ruling. Did you read that too?
Sorry for a the questions.
Winston.
Yes, that’s a nothing lol. It doesn’t sit right with me that without evidence of rule breaking it’s been proposed he would break rules though, and that should be out of the question no matter the country and law, you should have evidence of rule breaking having happened to make that judgement especially in the case of removing a parents contact with their child.
And I believe the transcript is what I was referring to, I don’t think I’ve missed something else.
I'm guessing the judge felt there was enough evidence for prevention being better than the cure.
I read the transcript, thought it explained the judges reasoning pretty well. Very clear and easy to understand.
Winston"Fair enough, I however do not feel that any of it warranted the action to stop him seeing his child. I am extremely well versed with family courts and all too often the fathers rights are removed far too casually. I believe this is another example of that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So let me get this straight, because he posted “conspiracy theory” things that no one knows the content of, that is proof he may not be following the other guidelines besides vaccination and thus makes him a threat to his child’s and child’s sibling safety. Fuck right off. And there are people supporting it. Of course there are. We are watching the same process that turned postmen and warehouse workers into gas chamber workers in real time. Melodramatic. Overemotional, without reason or foundation. And in no way relateable. Winston Of course it is people actually gleeful that a “conspiracy nut” has been acted against by the state and there’s no comparisons? Really? This virus and the division it has caused and how one side loves the power the state in many countries now have to use against those “nuts” is most definitely an equivalence.
Never mind that, how about the fact that in a court of law his social media posts were taken as evidence that he would break laws? Not actual evidence of him breaking laws?
What do you know of Canadian law?
More to the point, what do you know about this case that the judge who actually ruled on it doesn't, other than a ridiculously sensationalised headline, designed to do nothing more than sell copy?
2 questions there, feel free to answer.....
Winston
Fuck Canadian law. There should be no circumstances where a persons social media posts are used to accuse them of being a law breaker and then stop access to their child. Whether temporary or not. People should not be clapping that sort of over reach.
And someone posted more from the article lower down? So that’s more than the headline.
By saying fuck Canadian law I'm guessing your answer to the first question is "nothing"
Someone also posted the transcript of the judges ruling. Did you read that too?
Sorry for a the questions.
Winston.
Yes, that’s a nothing lol. It doesn’t sit right with me that without evidence of rule breaking it’s been proposed he would break rules though, and that should be out of the question no matter the country and law, you should have evidence of rule breaking having happened to make that judgement especially in the case of removing a parents contact with their child.
And I believe the transcript is what I was referring to, I don’t think I’ve missed something else.
I'm guessing the judge felt there was enough evidence for prevention being better than the cure.
I read the transcript, thought it explained the judges reasoning pretty well. Very clear and easy to understand.
Winston
Fair enough, I however do not feel that any of it warranted the action to stop him seeing his child. I am extremely well versed with family courts and all too often the fathers rights are removed far too casually. I believe this is another example of that."Far too casually at times. On that I can agree.
Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot!" Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So let me get this straight, because he posted “conspiracy theory” things that no one knows the content of, that is proof he may not be following the other guidelines besides vaccination and thus makes him a threat to his child’s and child’s sibling safety. Fuck right off. And there are people supporting it. Of course there are. We are watching the same process that turned postmen and warehouse workers into gas chamber workers in real time. Melodramatic. Overemotional, without reason or foundation. And in no way relateable. Winston Of course it is people actually gleeful that a “conspiracy nut” has been acted against by the state and there’s no comparisons? Really? This virus and the division it has caused and how one side loves the power the state in many countries now have to use against those “nuts” is most definitely an equivalence.
Never mind that, how about the fact that in a court of law his social media posts were taken as evidence that he would break laws? Not actual evidence of him breaking laws?
What do you know of Canadian law?
More to the point, what do you know about this case that the judge who actually ruled on it doesn't, other than a ridiculously sensationalised headline, designed to do nothing more than sell copy?
2 questions there, feel free to answer.....
Winston
Fuck Canadian law. There should be no circumstances where a persons social media posts are used to accuse them of being a law breaker and then stop access to their child. Whether temporary or not. People should not be clapping that sort of over reach.
And someone posted more from the article lower down? So that’s more than the headline.
By saying fuck Canadian law I'm guessing your answer to the first question is "nothing"
Someone also posted the transcript of the judges ruling. Did you read that too?
Sorry for a the questions.
Winston.
Yes, that’s a nothing lol. It doesn’t sit right with me that without evidence of rule breaking it’s been proposed he would break rules though, and that should be out of the question no matter the country and law, you should have evidence of rule breaking having happened to make that judgement especially in the case of removing a parents contact with their child.
And I believe the transcript is what I was referring to, I don’t think I’ve missed something else."I do think with Family Law and custody cases its a very tricky call to make for the judge. Do you take an individuals word in court they will adhere to the rules (and hope they do) and the child isnt put at risk, whatever that risk may be or take into account written documents/text/posts that appeared to the judge in this case that the father would break the rules and put the child/siblings at risk. Its a balance of probability call but ultimately the childs health is the overiding priority so its no suprise the father doesnt get the benefit of the doubt. We dont know what the father was posting, clearly it was enough to worry the judge. Do fathers get the raw deal in family courts? not going to disagree with you there but dont hold your breath on that changing anytime soon. If the guy in this case had been smart and not gone off on one on FB then probably not be in the position he is now. Im suspecting (but dont know) that his posts must have been at the extreme level of 'anti-vax' 'anti-compliance' this was in a state that is introducing a 10% surcharge tax for unvaxinated so its hardly a suprise the judiciary took a dim light on his behaviour. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A Canadian father who has not been vaccinated against Covid has temporarily lost the right to see his 12-year-old child. A judge ruled his visits would not be in the child's "best interest". It followed a request by the father to extend his visiting time during the holidays. Link below https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59979408 Now, there's nothing I'm this story to indicate the child is at high risk from the virus (making this decision at least logically understandable) and as such it seems this decision has been made based on moral issues only, which is diabolical" Is the story told in the words of the Father, the Mother or the Judge ? I have a suspicious mind | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's just so wrong. If he's a rabid anti vaxxer with other dodgy beliefs then there may be a safeguarding issue that they haven't reported on. But if it's literally just that he hasn't had the vaccine then what the actual fuck is the world coming to. Yes it is wrong. I see that they are pushing the agenda hard there.
Yes - the agenda they are pushing hard here is called ‘child welfare’.
You may have heard of it, it’s considered quite important in most countries.
Nothing to do with child welfare, it’s a judge using the powers of the covid reaction and the vague accusation of the father being a “conspiracy theorist” to overstep and remove a fathers rights from him, temporarily or not makes no difference."That’s just what a conspiracy theorist would say. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is" I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So let me get this straight, because he posted “conspiracy theory” things that no one knows the content of, that is proof he may not be following the other guidelines besides vaccination and thus makes him a threat to his child’s and child’s sibling safety. Fuck right off. And there are people supporting it. Of course there are. We are watching the same process that turned postmen and warehouse workers into gas chamber workers in real time. Melodramatic. Overemotional, without reason or foundation. And in no way relateable. Winston Of course it is people actually gleeful that a “conspiracy nut” has been acted against by the state and there’s no comparisons? Really? This virus and the division it has caused and how one side loves the power the state in many countries now have to use against those “nuts” is most definitely an equivalence.
Never mind that, how about the fact that in a court of law his social media posts were taken as evidence that he would break laws? Not actual evidence of him breaking laws?" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally! "Ah! the great Oricle that is Youtube | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"says it all here for full context. A Quebec father who has temporarily lost visitation rights with his child because he is unvaccinated could be a first case of its kind in the province, according to one family lawyer. Superior Court Justice Sébastien Vaillancourt ruled that the order was given to protect the 12-year-old child, who is double vaccinated, given his father’s vaccination status and because “the pandemic situation has evolved unfavourably since then due to the Omicron variant.” “It would normally be in the child's best interest to have contact with his father, but it is not in his best interest to have contact with him if he is not vaccinated and is opposed to health measures in the current epidemiological context,” the judge wrote in his Dec. 23, 2021 ruling. The father admitted in court that he was not vaccinated against COVID-19. The judge also described him as a “conspiracy theorist” based on evidence from his Facebook page, “so that the Court has strong reasons to doubt that he respects health measures as he claims to do in his written statement,” the ruling stated. Sylvie Schirm, a Montreal-area family lawyer who was not involved in the proceeding, said the case could set a precedent as she is not aware of another case like this in Quebec. I think what probably didn't help the father was that the judge probably thought he wouldn't respect the regulations in any way, shape or form. So [regardless] of being vaccinated or not, he was going to expose his son to the virus, indirectly or directly, and that's what he was aiming to protect — the best interests of the child,” Schirm said. The court issued a temporary safeguard order effective until Feb. 8. The judge said the suspension of visitation rights needs to be as short as possible and will be reassessed next month. Justice Vaillancourt also wanted to take into account the best interests of the 12-year-old’s younger sisters, aged seven months and four years old, since both of them are not eligible for the vaccine in Canada and could potentially be more exposed to the virus if the father had access to his teen son. “It won't necessarily apply to everybody across the board. It doesn't mean that all parents who aren't vaccinated will stop seeing their kids, but it sets a certain precedent that's out there,” Schirm said. It's not the first time a Quebec judge has intervened in a familial disagreement over the COVID-19 vaccine. In October, Superior Court Justice Chantal Lamarche ruled a 12-year boy in the Montreal suburb of Longueuil had the right to get his two doses of the vaccine, despite opposition from his father, who failed to present any evidence in court that the shots would be dangerous. The case comes at a time when views over the roll-out of the mass vaccination campaign is polarized, especially in Quebec, where Premier François Legault vowed on Tuesday to impose a health tax on adults who refuse to get vaccinated for non-medical reasons. This family law case highlights the debate over individual versus collective rights since the father had a difficult choice to make: maintain his own beliefs or maintain his relationship with his son, Schirm said. “I think we're living in difficult times, but there's some values that are clashing and this judgment is kind of an example of two values that are clashing,” she said. “And a judge had to make a decision because the parents didn't come to an agreement. So the judge had to intervene and make a decision and that's the decision he made " Written by whom ? Someone's interpretation ? Still think there's more to it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"says it all here for full context. A Quebec father who has temporarily lost visitation rights with his child because he is unvaccinated could be a first case of its kind in the province, according to one family lawyer. Superior Court Justice Sébastien Vaillancourt ruled that the order was given to protect the 12-year-old child, who is double vaccinated, given his father’s vaccination status and because “the pandemic situation has evolved unfavourably since then due to the Omicron variant.” “It would normally be in the child's best interest to have contact with his father, but it is not in his best interest to have contact with him if he is not vaccinated and is opposed to health measures in the current epidemiological context,” the judge wrote in his Dec. 23, 2021 ruling. The father admitted in court that he was not vaccinated against COVID-19. The judge also described him as a “conspiracy theorist” based on evidence from his Facebook page, “so that the Court has strong reasons to doubt that he respects health measures as he claims to do in his written statement,” the ruling stated. Sylvie Schirm, a Montreal-area family lawyer who was not involved in the proceeding, said the case could set a precedent as she is not aware of another case like this in Quebec. I think what probably didn't help the father was that the judge probably thought he wouldn't respect the regulations in any way, shape or form. So [regardless] of being vaccinated or not, he was going to expose his son to the virus, indirectly or directly, and that's what he was aiming to protect — the best interests of the child,” Schirm said. The court issued a temporary safeguard order effective until Feb. 8. The judge said the suspension of visitation rights needs to be as short as possible and will be reassessed next month. Justice Vaillancourt also wanted to take into account the best interests of the 12-year-old’s younger sisters, aged seven months and four years old, since both of them are not eligible for the vaccine in Canada and could potentially be more exposed to the virus if the father had access to his teen son. “It won't necessarily apply to everybody across the board. It doesn't mean that all parents who aren't vaccinated will stop seeing their kids, but it sets a certain precedent that's out there,” Schirm said. It's not the first time a Quebec judge has intervened in a familial disagreement over the COVID-19 vaccine. In October, Superior Court Justice Chantal Lamarche ruled a 12-year boy in the Montreal suburb of Longueuil had the right to get his two doses of the vaccine, despite opposition from his father, who failed to present any evidence in court that the shots would be dangerous. The case comes at a time when views over the roll-out of the mass vaccination campaign is polarized, especially in Quebec, where Premier François Legault vowed on Tuesday to impose a health tax on adults who refuse to get vaccinated for non-medical reasons. This family law case highlights the debate over individual versus collective rights since the father had a difficult choice to make: maintain his own beliefs or maintain his relationship with his son, Schirm said. “I think we're living in difficult times, but there's some values that are clashing and this judgment is kind of an example of two values that are clashing,” she said. “And a judge had to make a decision because the parents didn't come to an agreement. So the judge had to intervene and make a decision and that's the decision he made Written by whom ? Someone's interpretation ? Still think there's more to it." written by the judge interpreted by a family law lawyer not involved in the case reported on various canadian news outlets more to it? maybe its been used as a way to 'encourage' vaccine uptake which i think was in the low 40% | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A Canadian father who has not been vaccinated against Covid has temporarily lost the right to see his 12-year-old child. A judge ruled his visits would not be in the child's "best interest". It followed a request by the father to extend his visiting time during the holidays. Link below https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59979408 Now, there's nothing I'm this story to indicate the child is at high risk from the virus (making this decision at least logically understandable) and as such it seems this decision has been made based on moral issues only, which is diabolical Does this mean that any parents still together who arent vaxed will have kids taken into care. Tgis is abdolutely disgusting Where do you get that from ? The kids are with the mother the father does not live with them and is not vaccinated and is an open anti vaxxor and so is temporarily barred from visiting. There nothing about children being taken into care. More misinformation "He is not giving out any misinformation he just stated another scenario and an apt one to that case which is if both parents live with the child and none are vaccinated will the child be taken it to care which is a valid point. The misinformation is in your reply just think about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A Canadian father who has not been vaccinated against Covid has temporarily lost the right to see his 12-year-old child. A judge ruled his visits would not be in the child's "best interest". It followed a request by the father to extend his visiting time during the holidays. Link below https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59979408 Now, there's nothing I'm this story to indicate the child is at high risk from the virus (making this decision at least logically understandable) and as such it seems this decision has been made based on moral issues only, which is diabolical Does this mean that any parents still together who arent vaxed will have kids taken into care. Tgis is abdolutely disgusting Where do you get that from ? The kids are with the mother the father does not live with them and is not vaccinated and is an open anti vaxxor and so is temporarily barred from visiting. There nothing about children being taken into care. More misinformation He is not giving out any misinformation he just stated another scenario and an apt one to that case which is if both parents live with the child and none are vaccinated will the child be taken it to care which is a valid point. The misinformation is in your reply just think about it."If you read it he has just tried to deflect from the original narrative of the father was the one not living there and demanding visiting rights even though he is an unvaccinated antivaxor. They don’t live together and even if they did that fact that they might have been non vaccinated would not mean children being taken away because they would be one entire household
But hey ho | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do know that the Canadian premier has called the unvaccinated racist and misogynist. I don't know how he works that one out. He also said "What are we going to do about them" What answer is he looking for? maybe throw them in jail or shoot them? I am fully vaccinated but respect others choice not to put something in their body that despite what anyone says we do NOT know the long term effects of as it is not possible right now to know especially now that the 2 jabs that were going to be the answer now seem to be infinite. Another thing if the jab is so wonderfull why do we need to fear the unvacinatted so much. People have a right to choose." And others have a right to not have to mix with them or be served/ cared for by them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally! "So you are ignoring the advice/thoughts from a Doctor in the NHS? I thought we was following the science? Oh wait thats only the science you agree with isnt it You are just as bad as the people you think youre against | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally!
So you are ignoring the advice/thoughts from a Doctor in the NHS?
I thought we was following the science?
Oh wait thats only the science you agree with isnt it
You are just as bad as the people you think youre against"If it on YouTube must be right | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally!
So you are ignoring the advice/thoughts from a Doctor in the NHS?
I thought we was following the science?
Oh wait thats only the science you agree with isnt it
You are just as bad as the people you think youre against
If it on YouTube must be right "Fact is you are just as bad as the other side https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iABaxRWGxk I will leave it here The guy is a Cardioligist in the NHS You seem to think that im somehow posting something that is against vaccines, im not. ill add a quote from the video "Vaccines are one of the greatest triumphs in medical history, infact human history" But he talks about people like you and others are so quick to call everyone you disagree with an anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally!
So you are ignoring the advice/thoughts from a Doctor in the NHS?
I thought we was following the science?
Oh wait thats only the science you agree with isnt it
You are just as bad as the people you think youre against"The NHS employs well over a million people. It stands to reason a proportion of them will be idiots. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally!
So you are ignoring the advice/thoughts from a Doctor in the NHS?
I thought we was following the science?
Oh wait thats only the science you agree with isnt it
You are just as bad as the people you think youre against
The NHS employs well over a million people. It stands to reason a proportion of them will be idiots."Seems to be a much higher proportion in this thread | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's just so wrong. If he's a rabid anti vaxxer with other dodgy beliefs then there may be a safeguarding issue that they haven't reported on. But if it's literally just that he hasn't had the vaccine then what the actual fuck is the world coming to.
Other dodgy beliefs? Like allowing children to take puberty blockers or giving young women mastectomies because they think they are male?
I agree, what is the world coming to? Where is the safeguarding?
I suggest you do some research on transitioning before spouting absolute rubbish like that." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally!
So you are ignoring the advice/thoughts from a Doctor in the NHS?
I thought we was following the science?
Oh wait thats only the science you agree with isnt it
You are just as bad as the people you think youre against
The NHS employs well over a million people. It stands to reason a proportion of them will be idiots.
Seems to be a much higher proportion in this thread
"That’s simply the nature of any thread that attracts anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally!
So you are ignoring the advice/thoughts from a Doctor in the NHS?
I thought we was following the science?
Oh wait thats only the science you agree with isnt it
You are just as bad as the people you think youre against
The NHS employs well over a million people. It stands to reason a proportion of them will be idiots.
Seems to be a much higher proportion in this thread
That’s simply the nature of any thread that attracts anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists."Do you actually read what people write or do you just jump to conclusions? I understand why you wont want to watch now though Because hes talking about people exactly like you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally!
So you are ignoring the advice/thoughts from a Doctor in the NHS?
I thought we was following the science?
Oh wait thats only the science you agree with isnt it
You are just as bad as the people you think youre against
If it on YouTube must be right
Fact is you are just as bad as the other side
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iABaxRWGxk
I will leave it here
The guy is a Cardioligist in the NHS
You seem to think that im somehow posting something that is against vaccines, im not.
ill add a quote from the video
"Vaccines are one of the greatest triumphs in medical history, infact human history"
But he talks about people like you and others are so quick to call everyone you disagree with an anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist"If you say so | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally!
So you are ignoring the advice/thoughts from a Doctor in the NHS?
I thought we was following the science?
Oh wait thats only the science you agree with isnt it
You are just as bad as the people you think youre against
If it on YouTube must be right
Fact is you are just as bad as the other side
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iABaxRWGxk
I will leave it here
The guy is a Cardioligist in the NHS
You seem to think that im somehow posting something that is against vaccines, im not.
ill add a quote from the video
"Vaccines are one of the greatest triumphs in medical history, infact human history"
But he talks about people like you and others are so quick to call everyone you disagree with an anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist
If you say so "viscous as sus domesticus egesta | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally!
So you are ignoring the advice/thoughts from a Doctor in the NHS?
I thought we was following the science?
Oh wait thats only the science you agree with isnt it
You are just as bad as the people you think youre against
If it on YouTube must be right
Fact is you are just as bad as the other side
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iABaxRWGxk
I will leave it here
The guy is a Cardioligist in the NHS
You seem to think that im somehow posting something that is against vaccines, im not.
ill add a quote from the video
"Vaccines are one of the greatest triumphs in medical history, infact human history"
But he talks about people like you and others are so quick to call everyone you disagree with an anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist
If you say so
viscous as sus domesticus egesta". Stop waving your fancy outdated words at me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally!
So you are ignoring the advice/thoughts from a Doctor in the NHS?
I thought we was following the science?
Oh wait thats only the science you agree with isnt it
You are just as bad as the people you think youre against
The NHS employs well over a million people. It stands to reason a proportion of them will be idiots.
Seems to be a much higher proportion in this thread
That’s simply the nature of any thread that attracts anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists.
Do you actually read what people write or do you just jump to conclusions?
I understand why you wont want to watch now though
Because hes talking about people exactly like you.
"The conclusions tend to follow on from what people write. Never been wrong yet! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally!
So you are ignoring the advice/thoughts from a Doctor in the NHS?
I thought we was following the science?
Oh wait thats only the science you agree with isnt it
You are just as bad as the people you think youre against
If it on YouTube must be right
Fact is you are just as bad as the other side
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iABaxRWGxk
I will leave it here
The guy is a Cardioligist in the NHS
You seem to think that im somehow posting something that is against vaccines, im not.
ill add a quote from the video
"Vaccines are one of the greatest triumphs in medical history, infact human history"
But he talks about people like you and others are so quick to call everyone you disagree with an anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist
If you say so
viscous as sus domesticus egesta"If you want to call someone "thick as pig shit" why not just come out and say it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally!
So you are ignoring the advice/thoughts from a Doctor in the NHS?
I thought we was following the science?
Oh wait thats only the science you agree with isnt it
You are just as bad as the people you think youre against
If it on YouTube must be right
Fact is you are just as bad as the other side
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iABaxRWGxk
I will leave it here
The guy is a Cardioligist in the NHS
You seem to think that im somehow posting something that is against vaccines, im not.
ill add a quote from the video
"Vaccines are one of the greatest triumphs in medical history, infact human history"
But he talks about people like you and others are so quick to call everyone you disagree with an anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist"I asked this earlier but seems to have been ignored ... How would you describe someome who freely admits they are un-vaccinated, hold reservations around vaccination, is a conspiracy theorist and would not adhere to health regulations and expose their child to the virus as the pandemic rages through the state.? Not my opinion, Facts volunteered by the individual and conclusions reached by a Judge. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally!
So you are ignoring the advice/thoughts from a Doctor in the NHS?
I thought we was following the science?
Oh wait thats only the science you agree with isnt it
You are just as bad as the people you think youre against
If it on YouTube must be right
Fact is you are just as bad as the other side
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iABaxRWGxk
I will leave it here
The guy is a Cardioligist in the NHS
You seem to think that im somehow posting something that is against vaccines, im not.
ill add a quote from the video
"Vaccines are one of the greatest triumphs in medical history, infact human history"
But he talks about people like you and others are so quick to call everyone you disagree with an anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist
I asked this earlier but seems to have been ignored ...
How would you describe someome who freely admits they are un-vaccinated, hold reservations around vaccination, is a conspiracy theorist and would not adhere to health regulations and expose their child to the virus as the pandemic rages through the state.?
Not my opinion, Facts volunteered by the individual and conclusions reached by a Judge."What Is a conspiracy theorist? Afaik no one knows what the guy has actually written on social media. do you? I would call them vaccine hesitant and not attack them like people In this thread and forum do Being "against" or having reservations about a singular vaccine is not being an anti vaxxer. A vaccine/s that we have seen doesnt live up the lofty expectations given to it in the first place Seems like alot of have decided that nuance doesnt exist and if they have a different opinion to you, you see it as dissent or a threat which needs to be crushed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally!
So you are ignoring the advice/thoughts from a Doctor in the NHS?
I thought we was following the science?
Oh wait thats only the science you agree with isnt it
You are just as bad as the people you think youre against
If it on YouTube must be right
Fact is you are just as bad as the other side
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iABaxRWGxk
I will leave it here
The guy is a Cardioligist in the NHS
You seem to think that im somehow posting something that is against vaccines, im not.
ill add a quote from the video
"Vaccines are one of the greatest triumphs in medical history, infact human history"
But he talks about people like you and others are so quick to call everyone you disagree with an anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist
I asked this earlier but seems to have been ignored ...
How would you describe someome who freely admits they are un-vaccinated, hold reservations around vaccination, is a conspiracy theorist and would not adhere to health regulations and expose their child to the virus as the pandemic rages through the state.?
Not my opinion, Facts volunteered by the individual and conclusions reached by a Judge.
What Is a conspiracy theorist? Afaik no one knows what the guy has actually written on social media. do you?
I would call them vaccine hesitant and not attack them like people In this thread and forum do
Being "against" or having reservations about a singular vaccine is not being an anti vaxxer. A vaccine/s that we have seen doesnt live up the lofty expectations given to it in the first place
Seems like alot of have decided that nuance doesnt exist and if they have a different opinion to you, you see it as dissent or a threat which needs to be crushed "People who are literally dismissing the conclusions of the judge in this case, who is conversant with the entire facts of the case, in favour of their own made up reasons for the judge’s ‘agenda’ in concluding the father’s access should be removed to preserve the child’s safety, are promoting the idea of a conspiracy. So they are conspiracy theorists, by definition. As for the definition of an ‘anti-vaxxer’, they are people who are against the use of the Covid vaccine, and who seek to make the effects of a public health emergency worse by promoting misinformation and misunderstanding about the vaccines. They are fortunately a minority on Fab, but still present. You may think it’s worth giving the time of day to conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers, that what they have to say is worth listening to, but sensible and rational people don’t. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally!
So you are ignoring the advice/thoughts from a Doctor in the NHS?
I thought we was following the science?
Oh wait thats only the science you agree with isnt it
You are just as bad as the people you think youre against
If it on YouTube must be right
Fact is you are just as bad as the other side
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iABaxRWGxk
I will leave it here
The guy is a Cardioligist in the NHS
You seem to think that im somehow posting something that is against vaccines, im not.
ill add a quote from the video
"Vaccines are one of the greatest triumphs in medical history, infact human history"
But he talks about people like you and others are so quick to call everyone you disagree with an anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist
I asked this earlier but seems to have been ignored ...
How would you describe someome who freely admits they are un-vaccinated, hold reservations around vaccination, is a conspiracy theorist and would not adhere to health regulations and expose their child to the virus as the pandemic rages through the state.?
Not my opinion, Facts volunteered by the individual and conclusions reached by a Judge.
What Is a conspiracy theorist? Afaik no one knows what the guy has actually written on social media. do you?
I would call them vaccine hesitant and not attack them like people In this thread and forum do
Being "against" or having reservations about a singular vaccine is not being an anti vaxxer. A vaccine/s that we have seen doesnt live up the lofty expectations given to it in the first place
Seems like alot of have decided that nuance doesnt exist and if they have a different opinion to you, you see it as dissent or a threat which needs to be crushed "The judge knows what the father wrote on social media. It's been documented in the court transcript on this very thread at least twice, maybe more. You or I may not know what the father wrote on social media. The judge does, he read it. Hence his ruling. Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally!
So you are ignoring the advice/thoughts from a Doctor in the NHS?
I thought we was following the science?
Oh wait thats only the science you agree with isnt it
You are just as bad as the people you think youre against
If it on YouTube must be right
Fact is you are just as bad as the other side
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iABaxRWGxk
I will leave it here
The guy is a Cardioligist in the NHS
You seem to think that im somehow posting something that is against vaccines, im not.
ill add a quote from the video
"Vaccines are one of the greatest triumphs in medical history, infact human history"
But he talks about people like you and others are so quick to call everyone you disagree with an anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist
I asked this earlier but seems to have been ignored ...
How would you describe someome who freely admits they are un-vaccinated, hold reservations around vaccination, is a conspiracy theorist and would not adhere to health regulations and expose their child to the virus as the pandemic rages through the state.?
Not my opinion, Facts volunteered by the individual and conclusions reached by a Judge.
What Is a conspiracy theorist? Afaik no one knows what the guy has actually written on social media. do you?
I would call them vaccine hesitant and not attack them like people In this thread and forum do
Being "against" or having reservations about a singular vaccine is not being an anti vaxxer. A vaccine/s that we have seen doesnt live up the lofty expectations given to it in the first place
Seems like alot of have decided that nuance doesnt exist and if they have a different opinion to you, you see it as dissent or a threat which needs to be crushed "Well said. Fab is a very illiberal and intolerant place while fanatics are behaving this way | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally!
So you are ignoring the advice/thoughts from a Doctor in the NHS?
I thought we was following the science?
Oh wait thats only the science you agree with isnt it
You are just as bad as the people you think youre against
If it on YouTube must be right
Fact is you are just as bad as the other side
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iABaxRWGxk
I will leave it here
The guy is a Cardioligist in the NHS
You seem to think that im somehow posting something that is against vaccines, im not.
ill add a quote from the video
"Vaccines are one of the greatest triumphs in medical history, infact human history"
But he talks about people like you and others are so quick to call everyone you disagree with an anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist
I asked this earlier but seems to have been ignored ...
How would you describe someome who freely admits they are un-vaccinated, hold reservations around vaccination, is a conspiracy theorist and would not adhere to health regulations and expose their child to the virus as the pandemic rages through the state.?
Not my opinion, Facts volunteered by the individual and conclusions reached by a Judge.
What Is a conspiracy theorist? Afaik no one knows what the guy has actually written on social media. do you?
I would call them vaccine hesitant and not attack them like people In this thread and forum do
Being "against" or having reservations about a singular vaccine is not being an anti vaxxer. A vaccine/s that we have seen doesnt live up the lofty expectations given to it in the first place
Seems like alot of have decided that nuance doesnt exist and if they have a different opinion to you, you see it as dissent or a threat which needs to be crushed
People who are literally dismissing the conclusions of the judge in this case, who is conversant with the entire facts of the case, in favour of their own made up reasons for the judge’s ‘agenda’ in concluding the father’s access should be removed to preserve the child’s safety, are promoting the idea of a conspiracy. So they are conspiracy theorists, by definition.
As for the definition of an ‘anti-vaxxer’, they are people who are against the use of the Covid vaccine, and who seek to make the effects of a public health emergency worse by promoting misinformation and misunderstanding about the vaccines. They are fortunately a minority on Fab, but still present.
You may think it’s worth giving the time of day to conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers, that what they have to say is worth listening to, but sensible and rational people don’t."That's not actually what an anti vaxxer is An anti vaxxer is somone against ALL vaccines. I have just been labelled an anti vaxxer for posting a video of a heart surgeon urging people to get vaccinated for ffs. People who act like that are just as bad as the actual people against vaccines and immune to listening to reason unless it confirms your own bias | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally!
So you are ignoring the advice/thoughts from a Doctor in the NHS?
I thought we was following the science?
Oh wait thats only the science you agree with isnt it
You are just as bad as the people you think youre against
If it on YouTube must be right
Fact is you are just as bad as the other side
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iABaxRWGxk
I will leave it here
The guy is a Cardioligist in the NHS
You seem to think that im somehow posting something that is against vaccines, im not.
ill add a quote from the video
"Vaccines are one of the greatest triumphs in medical history, infact human history"
But he talks about people like you and others are so quick to call everyone you disagree with an anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist
I asked this earlier but seems to have been ignored ...
How would you describe someome who freely admits they are un-vaccinated, hold reservations around vaccination, is a conspiracy theorist and would not adhere to health regulations and expose their child to the virus as the pandemic rages through the state.?
Not my opinion, Facts volunteered by the individual and conclusions reached by a Judge.
What Is a conspiracy theorist? Afaik no one knows what the guy has actually written on social media. do you?
I would call them vaccine hesitant and not attack them like people In this thread and forum do
Being "against" or having reservations about a singular vaccine is not being an anti vaxxer. A vaccine/s that we have seen doesnt live up the lofty expectations given to it in the first place
Seems like alot of have decided that nuance doesnt exist and if they have a different opinion to you, you see it as dissent or a threat which needs to be crushed
People who are literally dismissing the conclusions of the judge in this case, who is conversant with the entire facts of the case, in favour of their own made up reasons for the judge’s ‘agenda’ in concluding the father’s access should be removed to preserve the child’s safety, are promoting the idea of a conspiracy. So they are conspiracy theorists, by definition.
As for the definition of an ‘anti-vaxxer’, they are people who are against the use of the Covid vaccine, and who seek to make the effects of a public health emergency worse by promoting misinformation and misunderstanding about the vaccines. They are fortunately a minority on Fab, but still present.
You may think it’s worth giving the time of day to conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers, that what they have to say is worth listening to, but sensible and rational people don’t.
That's not actually what an anti vaxxer is
An anti vaxxer is somone against ALL vaccines.
I have just been labelled an anti vaxxer for posting a video of a heart surgeon urging people to get vaccinated for ffs.
People who act like that are just as bad as the actual people against vaccines and immune to listening to reason unless it confirms your own bias "No, that’s just an ancillary and immaterial definition that you personally may feel more comfortable with. Unfortunately in the time of Covid, when discussing and defining people who are against the Covid vaccine, people against the Covid vaccine are anti-vaxxers. Because no-one cares about their opinions on the Polio vaccine, or Measles vaccine, or any others you might think to introduce for no reason. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally!
So you are ignoring the advice/thoughts from a Doctor in the NHS?
I thought we was following the science?
Oh wait thats only the science you agree with isnt it
You are just as bad as the people you think youre against
If it on YouTube must be right
Fact is you are just as bad as the other side
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iABaxRWGxk
I will leave it here
The guy is a Cardioligist in the NHS
You seem to think that im somehow posting something that is against vaccines, im not.
ill add a quote from the video
"Vaccines are one of the greatest triumphs in medical history, infact human history"
But he talks about people like you and others are so quick to call everyone you disagree with an anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist
If you say so
viscous as sus domesticus egesta
If you want to call someone "thick as pig shit" why not just come out and say it?"I prefer to be the bigger person and not resort to ignorant insults | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally!
So you are ignoring the advice/thoughts from a Doctor in the NHS?
I thought we was following the science?
Oh wait thats only the science you agree with isnt it
You are just as bad as the people you think youre against
If it on YouTube must be right
Fact is you are just as bad as the other side
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iABaxRWGxk
I will leave it here
The guy is a Cardioligist in the NHS
You seem to think that im somehow posting something that is against vaccines, im not.
ill add a quote from the video
"Vaccines are one of the greatest triumphs in medical history, infact human history"
But he talks about people like you and others are so quick to call everyone you disagree with an anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist
I asked this earlier but seems to have been ignored ...
How would you describe someome who freely admits they are un-vaccinated, hold reservations around vaccination, is a conspiracy theorist and would not adhere to health regulations and expose their child to the virus as the pandemic rages through the state.?
Not my opinion, Facts volunteered by the individual and conclusions reached by a Judge.
What Is a conspiracy theorist? Afaik no one knows what the guy has actually written on social media. do you?
I would call them vaccine hesitant and not attack them like people In this thread and forum do
Being "against" or having reservations about a singular vaccine is not being an anti vaxxer. A vaccine/s that we have seen doesnt live up the lofty expectations given to it in the first place
Seems like alot of have decided that nuance doesnt exist and if they have a different opinion to you, you see it as dissent or a threat which needs to be crushed
People who are literally dismissing the conclusions of the judge in this case, who is conversant with the entire facts of the case, in favour of their own made up reasons for the judge’s ‘agenda’ in concluding the father’s access should be removed to preserve the child’s safety, are promoting the idea of a conspiracy. So they are conspiracy theorists, by definition.
As for the definition of an ‘anti-vaxxer’, they are people who are against the use of the Covid vaccine, and who seek to make the effects of a public health emergency worse by promoting misinformation and misunderstanding about the vaccines. They are fortunately a minority on Fab, but still present.
You may think it’s worth giving the time of day to conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers, that what they have to say is worth listening to, but sensible and rational people don’t.
That's not actually what an anti vaxxer is
An anti vaxxer is somone against ALL vaccines.
I have just been labelled an anti vaxxer for posting a video of a heart surgeon urging people to get vaccinated for ffs.
People who act like that are just as bad as the actual people against vaccines and immune to listening to reason unless it confirms your own bias
No, that’s just an ancillary and immaterial definition that you personally may feel more comfortable with.
Unfortunately in the time of Covid, when discussing and defining people who are against the Covid vaccine, people against the Covid vaccine are anti-vaxxers. Because no-one cares about their opinions on the Polio vaccine, or Measles vaccine, or any others you might think to introduce for no reason.
"No you are the one changing definitions to fit An anti vaxxer is against ALL vaccines and mainly is to do with vaccines causing autism | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally!
So you are ignoring the advice/thoughts from a Doctor in the NHS?
I thought we was following the science?
Oh wait thats only the science you agree with isnt it
You are just as bad as the people you think youre against
If it on YouTube must be right
Fact is you are just as bad as the other side
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iABaxRWGxk
I will leave it here
The guy is a Cardioligist in the NHS
You seem to think that im somehow posting something that is against vaccines, im not.
ill add a quote from the video
"Vaccines are one of the greatest triumphs in medical history, infact human history"
But he talks about people like you and others are so quick to call everyone you disagree with an anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist
If you say so
viscous as sus domesticus egesta
If you want to call someone "thick as pig shit" why not just come out and say it?
I prefer to be the bigger person and not resort to ignorant insults "The irony is palpable Calling somone ignorant while refusing to listen to a heart surgeon talk on a subject that he knows more than you about Just amazing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally!
So you are ignoring the advice/thoughts from a Doctor in the NHS?
I thought we was following the science?
Oh wait thats only the science you agree with isnt it
You are just as bad as the people you think youre against
If it on YouTube must be right
Fact is you are just as bad as the other side
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iABaxRWGxk
I will leave it here
The guy is a Cardioligist in the NHS
You seem to think that im somehow posting something that is against vaccines, im not.
ill add a quote from the video
"Vaccines are one of the greatest triumphs in medical history, infact human history"
But he talks about people like you and others are so quick to call everyone you disagree with an anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist
I asked this earlier but seems to have been ignored ...
How would you describe someome who freely admits they are un-vaccinated, hold reservations around vaccination, is a conspiracy theorist and would not adhere to health regulations and expose their child to the virus as the pandemic rages through the state.?
Not my opinion, Facts volunteered by the individual and conclusions reached by a Judge.
What Is a conspiracy theorist? Afaik no one knows what the guy has actually written on social media. do you?
I would call them vaccine hesitant and not attack them like people In this thread and forum do
Being "against" or having reservations about a singular vaccine is not being an anti vaxxer. A vaccine/s that we have seen doesnt live up the lofty expectations given to it in the first place
Seems like alot of have decided that nuance doesnt exist and if they have a different opinion to you, you see it as dissent or a threat which needs to be crushed
People who are literally dismissing the conclusions of the judge in this case, who is conversant with the entire facts of the case, in favour of their own made up reasons for the judge’s ‘agenda’ in concluding the father’s access should be removed to preserve the child’s safety, are promoting the idea of a conspiracy. So they are conspiracy theorists, by definition.
As for the definition of an ‘anti-vaxxer’, they are people who are against the use of the Covid vaccine, and who seek to make the effects of a public health emergency worse by promoting misinformation and misunderstanding about the vaccines. They are fortunately a minority on Fab, but still present.
You may think it’s worth giving the time of day to conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers, that what they have to say is worth listening to, but sensible and rational people don’t.
That's not actually what an anti vaxxer is
An anti vaxxer is somone against ALL vaccines.
I have just been labelled an anti vaxxer for posting a video of a heart surgeon urging people to get vaccinated for ffs.
People who act like that are just as bad as the actual people against vaccines and immune to listening to reason unless it confirms your own bias
No, that’s just an ancillary and immaterial definition that you personally may feel more comfortable with.
Unfortunately in the time of Covid, when discussing and defining people who are against the Covid vaccine, people against the Covid vaccine are anti-vaxxers. Because no-one cares about their opinions on the Polio vaccine, or Measles vaccine, or any others you might think to introduce for no reason.
No
you are the one changing definitions to fit
An anti vaxxer is against ALL vaccines and mainly is to do with vaccines causing autism
"People who are Covid era anti-vaxxers naturally want to feel like they have some super duper reason behind their delusion that means they shouldn’t be lumped in with ever other vaccine delusional…but they’re exactly the same. Sorry, but that’s how it is. Anti-vaxxers, one and all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally!
So you are ignoring the advice/thoughts from a Doctor in the NHS?
I thought we was following the science?
Oh wait thats only the science you agree with isnt it
You are just as bad as the people you think youre against
If it on YouTube must be right
Fact is you are just as bad as the other side
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iABaxRWGxk
I will leave it here
The guy is a Cardioligist in the NHS
You seem to think that im somehow posting something that is against vaccines, im not.
ill add a quote from the video
"Vaccines are one of the greatest triumphs in medical history, infact human history"
But he talks about people like you and others are so quick to call everyone you disagree with an anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist
I asked this earlier but seems to have been ignored ...
How would you describe someome who freely admits they are un-vaccinated, hold reservations around vaccination, is a conspiracy theorist and would not adhere to health regulations and expose their child to the virus as the pandemic rages through the state.?
Not my opinion, Facts volunteered by the individual and conclusions reached by a Judge.
What Is a conspiracy theorist? Afaik no one knows what the guy has actually written on social media. do you?
I would call them vaccine hesitant and not attack them like people In this thread and forum do
Being "against" or having reservations about a singular vaccine is not being an anti vaxxer. A vaccine/s that we have seen doesnt live up the lofty expectations given to it in the first place
Seems like alot of have decided that nuance doesnt exist and if they have a different opinion to you, you see it as dissent or a threat which needs to be crushed
People who are literally dismissing the conclusions of the judge in this case, who is conversant with the entire facts of the case, in favour of their own made up reasons for the judge’s ‘agenda’ in concluding the father’s access should be removed to preserve the child’s safety, are promoting the idea of a conspiracy. So they are conspiracy theorists, by definition.
As for the definition of an ‘anti-vaxxer’, they are people who are against the use of the Covid vaccine, and who seek to make the effects of a public health emergency worse by promoting misinformation and misunderstanding about the vaccines. They are fortunately a minority on Fab, but still present.
You may think it’s worth giving the time of day to conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers, that what they have to say is worth listening to, but sensible and rational people don’t.
That's not actually what an anti vaxxer is
An anti vaxxer is somone against ALL vaccines.
I have just been labelled an anti vaxxer for posting a video of a heart surgeon urging people to get vaccinated for ffs.
People who act like that are just as bad as the actual people against vaccines and immune to listening to reason unless it confirms your own bias
No, that’s just an ancillary and immaterial definition that you personally may feel more comfortable with.
Unfortunately in the time of Covid, when discussing and defining people who are against the Covid vaccine, people against the Covid vaccine are anti-vaxxers. Because no-one cares about their opinions on the Polio vaccine, or Measles vaccine, or any others you might think to introduce for no reason.
No
you are the one changing definitions to fit
An anti vaxxer is against ALL vaccines and mainly is to do with vaccines causing autism
"Which vaccines cause autism? Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally!
So you are ignoring the advice/thoughts from a Doctor in the NHS?
I thought we was following the science?
Oh wait thats only the science you agree with isnt it
You are just as bad as the people you think youre against
If it on YouTube must be right
Fact is you are just as bad as the other side
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iABaxRWGxk
I will leave it here
The guy is a Cardioligist in the NHS
You seem to think that im somehow posting something that is against vaccines, im not.
ill add a quote from the video
"Vaccines are one of the greatest triumphs in medical history, infact human history"
But he talks about people like you and others are so quick to call everyone you disagree with an anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist
I asked this earlier but seems to have been ignored ...
How would you describe someome who freely admits they are un-vaccinated, hold reservations around vaccination, is a conspiracy theorist and would not adhere to health regulations and expose their child to the virus as the pandemic rages through the state.?
Not my opinion, Facts volunteered by the individual and conclusions reached by a Judge.
What Is a conspiracy theorist? Afaik no one knows what the guy has actually written on social media. do you?
I would call them vaccine hesitant and not attack them like people In this thread and forum do
Being "against" or having reservations about a singular vaccine is not being an anti vaxxer. A vaccine/s that we have seen doesnt live up the lofty expectations given to it in the first place
Seems like alot of have decided that nuance doesnt exist and if they have a different opinion to you, you see it as dissent or a threat which needs to be crushed
People who are literally dismissing the conclusions of the judge in this case, who is conversant with the entire facts of the case, in favour of their own made up reasons for the judge’s ‘agenda’ in concluding the father’s access should be removed to preserve the child’s safety, are promoting the idea of a conspiracy. So they are conspiracy theorists, by definition.
As for the definition of an ‘anti-vaxxer’, they are people who are against the use of the Covid vaccine, and who seek to make the effects of a public health emergency worse by promoting misinformation and misunderstanding about the vaccines. They are fortunately a minority on Fab, but still present.
You may think it’s worth giving the time of day to conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers, that what they have to say is worth listening to, but sensible and rational people don’t.
That's not actually what an anti vaxxer is
An anti vaxxer is somone against ALL vaccines.
I have just been labelled an anti vaxxer for posting a video of a heart surgeon urging people to get vaccinated for ffs.
People who act like that are just as bad as the actual people against vaccines and immune to listening to reason unless it confirms your own bias
No, that’s just an ancillary and immaterial definition that you personally may feel more comfortable with.
Unfortunately in the time of Covid, when discussing and defining people who are against the Covid vaccine, people against the Covid vaccine are anti-vaxxers. Because no-one cares about their opinions on the Polio vaccine, or Measles vaccine, or any others you might think to introduce for no reason.
No
you are the one changing definitions to fit
An anti vaxxer is against ALL vaccines and mainly is to do with vaccines causing autism
People who are Covid era anti-vaxxers naturally want to feel like they have some super duper reason behind their delusion that means they shouldn’t be lumped in with ever other vaccine delusional…but they’re exactly the same. Sorry, but that’s how it is. Anti-vaxxers, one and all."The logic escapes me. I'm anti the covid vaccine. But I'm not an anti vaxxer....... Er, yes you are. You're anti a vaccine, ergo........ Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally!
So you are ignoring the advice/thoughts from a Doctor in the NHS?
I thought we was following the science?
Oh wait thats only the science you agree with isnt it
You are just as bad as the people you think youre against
If it on YouTube must be right
Fact is you are just as bad as the other side
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iABaxRWGxk
I will leave it here
The guy is a Cardioligist in the NHS
You seem to think that im somehow posting something that is against vaccines, im not.
ill add a quote from the video
"Vaccines are one of the greatest triumphs in medical history, infact human history"
But he talks about people like you and others are so quick to call everyone you disagree with an anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist
I asked this earlier but seems to have been ignored ...
How would you describe someome who freely admits they are un-vaccinated, hold reservations around vaccination, is a conspiracy theorist and would not adhere to health regulations and expose their child to the virus as the pandemic rages through the state.?
Not my opinion, Facts volunteered by the individual and conclusions reached by a Judge.
What Is a conspiracy theorist? Afaik no one knows what the guy has actually written on social media. do you?
I would call them vaccine hesitant and not attack them like people In this thread and forum do
Being "against" or having reservations about a singular vaccine is not being an anti vaxxer. A vaccine/s that we have seen doesnt live up the lofty expectations given to it in the first place
Seems like alot of have decided that nuance doesnt exist and if they have a different opinion to you, you see it as dissent or a threat which needs to be crushed
People who are literally dismissing the conclusions of the judge in this case, who is conversant with the entire facts of the case, in favour of their own made up reasons for the judge’s ‘agenda’ in concluding the father’s access should be removed to preserve the child’s safety, are promoting the idea of a conspiracy. So they are conspiracy theorists, by definition.
As for the definition of an ‘anti-vaxxer’, they are people who are against the use of the Covid vaccine, and who seek to make the effects of a public health emergency worse by promoting misinformation and misunderstanding about the vaccines. They are fortunately a minority on Fab, but still present.
You may think it’s worth giving the time of day to conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers, that what they have to say is worth listening to, but sensible and rational people don’t.
That's not actually what an anti vaxxer is
An anti vaxxer is somone against ALL vaccines.
I have just been labelled an anti vaxxer for posting a video of a heart surgeon urging people to get vaccinated for ffs.
People who act like that are just as bad as the actual people against vaccines and immune to listening to reason unless it confirms your own bias
No, that’s just an ancillary and immaterial definition that you personally may feel more comfortable with.
Unfortunately in the time of Covid, when discussing and defining people who are against the Covid vaccine, people against the Covid vaccine are anti-vaxxers. Because no-one cares about their opinions on the Polio vaccine, or Measles vaccine, or any others you might think to introduce for no reason.
No
you are the one changing definitions to fit
An anti vaxxer is against ALL vaccines and mainly is to do with vaccines causing autism
People who are Covid era anti-vaxxers naturally want to feel like they have some super duper reason behind their delusion that means they shouldn’t be lumped in with ever other vaccine delusional…but they’re exactly the same. Sorry, but that’s how it is. Anti-vaxxers, one and all.
The logic escapes me.
I'm anti the covid vaccine.
But I'm not an anti vaxxer.......
Er, yes you are. You're anti a vaccine, ergo........
Winston"Ok with that logic liking the NHS means you're a communist Nuance is a thing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally!
So you are ignoring the advice/thoughts from a Doctor in the NHS?
I thought we was following the science?
Oh wait thats only the science you agree with isnt it
You are just as bad as the people you think youre against
If it on YouTube must be right
Fact is you are just as bad as the other side
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iABaxRWGxk
I will leave it here
The guy is a Cardioligist in the NHS
You seem to think that im somehow posting something that is against vaccines, im not.
ill add a quote from the video
"Vaccines are one of the greatest triumphs in medical history, infact human history"
But he talks about people like you and others are so quick to call everyone you disagree with an anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist
I asked this earlier but seems to have been ignored ...
How would you describe someome who freely admits they are un-vaccinated, hold reservations around vaccination, is a conspiracy theorist and would not adhere to health regulations and expose their child to the virus as the pandemic rages through the state.?
Not my opinion, Facts volunteered by the individual and conclusions reached by a Judge.
What Is a conspiracy theorist? Afaik no one knows what the guy has actually written on social media. do you?
I would call them vaccine hesitant and not attack them like people In this thread and forum do
Being "against" or having reservations about a singular vaccine is not being an anti vaxxer. A vaccine/s that we have seen doesnt live up the lofty expectations given to it in the first place
Seems like alot of have decided that nuance doesnt exist and if they have a different opinion to you, you see it as dissent or a threat which needs to be crushed
People who are literally dismissing the conclusions of the judge in this case, who is conversant with the entire facts of the case, in favour of their own made up reasons for the judge’s ‘agenda’ in concluding the father’s access should be removed to preserve the child’s safety, are promoting the idea of a conspiracy. So they are conspiracy theorists, by definition.
As for the definition of an ‘anti-vaxxer’, they are people who are against the use of the Covid vaccine, and who seek to make the effects of a public health emergency worse by promoting misinformation and misunderstanding about the vaccines. They are fortunately a minority on Fab, but still present.
You may think it’s worth giving the time of day to conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers, that what they have to say is worth listening to, but sensible and rational people don’t.
That's not actually what an anti vaxxer is
An anti vaxxer is somone against ALL vaccines.
I have just been labelled an anti vaxxer for posting a video of a heart surgeon urging people to get vaccinated for ffs.
People who act like that are just as bad as the actual people against vaccines and immune to listening to reason unless it confirms your own bias
No, that’s just an ancillary and immaterial definition that you personally may feel more comfortable with.
Unfortunately in the time of Covid, when discussing and defining people who are against the Covid vaccine, people against the Covid vaccine are anti-vaxxers. Because no-one cares about their opinions on the Polio vaccine, or Measles vaccine, or any others you might think to introduce for no reason.
No
you are the one changing definitions to fit
An anti vaxxer is against ALL vaccines and mainly is to do with vaccines causing autism
People who are Covid era anti-vaxxers naturally want to feel like they have some super duper reason behind their delusion that means they shouldn’t be lumped in with ever other vaccine delusional…but they’re exactly the same. Sorry, but that’s how it is. Anti-vaxxers, one and all.
The logic escapes me.
I'm anti the covid vaccine.
But I'm not an anti vaxxer.......
Er, yes you are. You're anti a vaccine, ergo........
Winston
Ok with that logic liking the NHS means you're a communist
Nuance is a thing"There's nuance. And there's nonsense. Like the NHS/Communist analogy. Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally!
So you are ignoring the advice/thoughts from a Doctor in the NHS?
I thought we was following the science?
Oh wait thats only the science you agree with isnt it
You are just as bad as the people you think youre against
If it on YouTube must be right
Fact is you are just as bad as the other side
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iABaxRWGxk
I will leave it here
The guy is a Cardioligist in the NHS
You seem to think that im somehow posting something that is against vaccines, im not.
ill add a quote from the video
"Vaccines are one of the greatest triumphs in medical history, infact human history"
But he talks about people like you and others are so quick to call everyone you disagree with an anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist
I asked this earlier but seems to have been ignored ...
How would you describe someome who freely admits they are un-vaccinated, hold reservations around vaccination, is a conspiracy theorist and would not adhere to health regulations and expose their child to the virus as the pandemic rages through the state.?
Not my opinion, Facts volunteered by the individual and conclusions reached by a Judge.
What Is a conspiracy theorist? Afaik no one knows what the guy has actually written on social media. do you?
I would call them vaccine hesitant and not attack them like people In this thread and forum do
Being "against" or having reservations about a singular vaccine is not being an anti vaxxer. A vaccine/s that we have seen doesnt live up the lofty expectations given to it in the first place
Seems like alot of have decided that nuance doesnt exist and if they have a different opinion to you, you see it as dissent or a threat which needs to be crushed
People who are literally dismissing the conclusions of the judge in this case, who is conversant with the entire facts of the case, in favour of their own made up reasons for the judge’s ‘agenda’ in concluding the father’s access should be removed to preserve the child’s safety, are promoting the idea of a conspiracy. So they are conspiracy theorists, by definition.
As for the definition of an ‘anti-vaxxer’, they are people who are against the use of the Covid vaccine, and who seek to make the effects of a public health emergency worse by promoting misinformation and misunderstanding about the vaccines. They are fortunately a minority on Fab, but still present.
You may think it’s worth giving the time of day to conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers, that what they have to say is worth listening to, but sensible and rational people don’t.
That's not actually what an anti vaxxer is
An anti vaxxer is somone against ALL vaccines.
I have just been labelled an anti vaxxer for posting a video of a heart surgeon urging people to get vaccinated for ffs.
People who act like that are just as bad as the actual people against vaccines and immune to listening to reason unless it confirms your own bias
No, that’s just an ancillary and immaterial definition that you personally may feel more comfortable with.
Unfortunately in the time of Covid, when discussing and defining people who are against the Covid vaccine, people against the Covid vaccine are anti-vaxxers. Because no-one cares about their opinions on the Polio vaccine, or Measles vaccine, or any others you might think to introduce for no reason.
No
you are the one changing definitions to fit
An anti vaxxer is against ALL vaccines and mainly is to do with vaccines causing autism
People who are Covid era anti-vaxxers naturally want to feel like they have some super duper reason behind their delusion that means they shouldn’t be lumped in with ever other vaccine delusional…but they’re exactly the same. Sorry, but that’s how it is. Anti-vaxxers, one and all.
The logic escapes me.
I'm anti the covid vaccine.
But I'm not an anti vaxxer.......
Er, yes you are. You're anti a vaccine, ergo........
Winston
Ok with that logic liking the NHS means you're a communist
Nuance is a thing
There's nuance.
And there's nonsense.
Like the NHS/Communist analogy.
Winston"Just because you dont understand something doesnt make it nonsense | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally!
So you are ignoring the advice/thoughts from a Doctor in the NHS?
I thought we was following the science?
Oh wait thats only the science you agree with isnt it
You are just as bad as the people you think youre against
If it on YouTube must be right
Fact is you are just as bad as the other side
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iABaxRWGxk
I will leave it here
The guy is a Cardioligist in the NHS
You seem to think that im somehow posting something that is against vaccines, im not.
ill add a quote from the video
"Vaccines are one of the greatest triumphs in medical history, infact human history"
But he talks about people like you and others are so quick to call everyone you disagree with an anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist
I asked this earlier but seems to have been ignored ...
How would you describe someome who freely admits they are un-vaccinated, hold reservations around vaccination, is a conspiracy theorist and would not adhere to health regulations and expose their child to the virus as the pandemic rages through the state.?
Not my opinion, Facts volunteered by the individual and conclusions reached by a Judge.
What Is a conspiracy theorist? Afaik no one knows what the guy has actually written on social media. do you?
I would call them vaccine hesitant and not attack them like people In this thread and forum do
Being "against" or having reservations about a singular vaccine is not being an anti vaxxer. A vaccine/s that we have seen doesnt live up the lofty expectations given to it in the first place
Seems like alot of have decided that nuance doesnt exist and if they have a different opinion to you, you see it as dissent or a threat which needs to be crushed
People who are literally dismissing the conclusions of the judge in this case, who is conversant with the entire facts of the case, in favour of their own made up reasons for the judge’s ‘agenda’ in concluding the father’s access should be removed to preserve the child’s safety, are promoting the idea of a conspiracy. So they are conspiracy theorists, by definition.
As for the definition of an ‘anti-vaxxer’, they are people who are against the use of the Covid vaccine, and who seek to make the effects of a public health emergency worse by promoting misinformation and misunderstanding about the vaccines. They are fortunately a minority on Fab, but still present.
You may think it’s worth giving the time of day to conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers, that what they have to say is worth listening to, but sensible and rational people don’t.
That's not actually what an anti vaxxer is
An anti vaxxer is somone against ALL vaccines.
I have just been labelled an anti vaxxer for posting a video of a heart surgeon urging people to get vaccinated for ffs.
People who act like that are just as bad as the actual people against vaccines and immune to listening to reason unless it confirms your own bias
No, that’s just an ancillary and immaterial definition that you personally may feel more comfortable with.
Unfortunately in the time of Covid, when discussing and defining people who are against the Covid vaccine, people against the Covid vaccine are anti-vaxxers. Because no-one cares about their opinions on the Polio vaccine, or Measles vaccine, or any others you might think to introduce for no reason.
No
you are the one changing definitions to fit
An anti vaxxer is against ALL vaccines and mainly is to do with vaccines causing autism
People who are Covid era anti-vaxxers naturally want to feel like they have some super duper reason behind their delusion that means they shouldn’t be lumped in with ever other vaccine delusional…but they’re exactly the same. Sorry, but that’s how it is. Anti-vaxxers, one and all.
The logic escapes me.
I'm anti the covid vaccine.
But I'm not an anti vaxxer.......
Er, yes you are. You're anti a vaccine, ergo........
Winston
Ok with that logic liking the NHS means you're a communist
Nuance is a thing
There's nuance.
And there's nonsense.
Like the NHS/Communist analogy.
Winston
Just because you dont understand something doesnt make it nonsense
"Irony. Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally!
So you are ignoring the advice/thoughts from a Doctor in the NHS?
I thought we was following the science?
Oh wait thats only the science you agree with isnt it
You are just as bad as the people you think youre against
If it on YouTube must be right
Fact is you are just as bad as the other side
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iABaxRWGxk
I will leave it here
The guy is a Cardioligist in the NHS
You seem to think that im somehow posting something that is against vaccines, im not.
ill add a quote from the video
"Vaccines are one of the greatest triumphs in medical history, infact human history"
But he talks about people like you and others are so quick to call everyone you disagree with an anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist
I asked this earlier but seems to have been ignored ...
How would you describe someome who freely admits they are un-vaccinated, hold reservations around vaccination, is a conspiracy theorist and would not adhere to health regulations and expose their child to the virus as the pandemic rages through the state.?
Not my opinion, Facts volunteered by the individual and conclusions reached by a Judge.
What Is a conspiracy theorist? Afaik no one knows what the guy has actually written on social media. do you?
I would call them vaccine hesitant and not attack them like people In this thread and forum do
Being "against" or having reservations about a singular vaccine is not being an anti vaxxer. A vaccine/s that we have seen doesnt live up the lofty expectations given to it in the first place
Seems like alot of have decided that nuance doesnt exist and if they have a different opinion to you, you see it as dissent or a threat which needs to be crushed
People who are literally dismissing the conclusions of the judge in this case, who is conversant with the entire facts of the case, in favour of their own made up reasons for the judge’s ‘agenda’ in concluding the father’s access should be removed to preserve the child’s safety, are promoting the idea of a conspiracy. So they are conspiracy theorists, by definition.
As for the definition of an ‘anti-vaxxer’, they are people who are against the use of the Covid vaccine, and who seek to make the effects of a public health emergency worse by promoting misinformation and misunderstanding about the vaccines. They are fortunately a minority on Fab, but still present.
You may think it’s worth giving the time of day to conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers, that what they have to say is worth listening to, but sensible and rational people don’t.
That's not actually what an anti vaxxer is
An anti vaxxer is somone against ALL vaccines.
I have just been labelled an anti vaxxer for posting a video of a heart surgeon urging people to get vaccinated for ffs.
People who act like that are just as bad as the actual people against vaccines and immune to listening to reason unless it confirms your own bias
No, that’s just an ancillary and immaterial definition that you personally may feel more comfortable with.
Unfortunately in the time of Covid, when discussing and defining people who are against the Covid vaccine, people against the Covid vaccine are anti-vaxxers. Because no-one cares about their opinions on the Polio vaccine, or Measles vaccine, or any others you might think to introduce for no reason.
No
you are the one changing definitions to fit
An anti vaxxer is against ALL vaccines and mainly is to do with vaccines causing autism
Which vaccines cause autism?
Winston"Still waiting for an answer on this one. Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally!
So you are ignoring the advice/thoughts from a Doctor in the NHS?
I thought we was following the science?
Oh wait thats only the science you agree with isnt it
You are just as bad as the people you think youre against
If it on YouTube must be right
Fact is you are just as bad as the other side
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iABaxRWGxk
I will leave it here
The guy is a Cardioligist in the NHS
You seem to think that im somehow posting something that is against vaccines, im not.
ill add a quote from the video
"Vaccines are one of the greatest triumphs in medical history, infact human history"
But he talks about people like you and others are so quick to call everyone you disagree with an anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist
I asked this earlier but seems to have been ignored ...
How would you describe someome who freely admits they are un-vaccinated, hold reservations around vaccination, is a conspiracy theorist and would not adhere to health regulations and expose their child to the virus as the pandemic rages through the state.?
Not my opinion, Facts volunteered by the individual and conclusions reached by a Judge.
What Is a conspiracy theorist? Afaik no one knows what the guy has actually written on social media. do you?
I would call them vaccine hesitant and not attack them like people In this thread and forum do
Being "against" or having reservations about a singular vaccine is not being an anti vaxxer. A vaccine/s that we have seen doesnt live up the lofty expectations given to it in the first place
Seems like alot of have decided that nuance doesnt exist and if they have a different opinion to you, you see it as dissent or a threat which needs to be crushed
People who are literally dismissing the conclusions of the judge in this case, who is conversant with the entire facts of the case, in favour of their own made up reasons for the judge’s ‘agenda’ in concluding the father’s access should be removed to preserve the child’s safety, are promoting the idea of a conspiracy. So they are conspiracy theorists, by definition.
As for the definition of an ‘anti-vaxxer’, they are people who are against the use of the Covid vaccine, and who seek to make the effects of a public health emergency worse by promoting misinformation and misunderstanding about the vaccines. They are fortunately a minority on Fab, but still present.
You may think it’s worth giving the time of day to conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers, that what they have to say is worth listening to, but sensible and rational people don’t.
That's not actually what an anti vaxxer is
An anti vaxxer is somone against ALL vaccines.
I have just been labelled an anti vaxxer for posting a video of a heart surgeon urging people to get vaccinated for ffs.
People who act like that are just as bad as the actual people against vaccines and immune to listening to reason unless it confirms your own bias
No, that’s just an ancillary and immaterial definition that you personally may feel more comfortable with.
Unfortunately in the time of Covid, when discussing and defining people who are against the Covid vaccine, people against the Covid vaccine are anti-vaxxers. Because no-one cares about their opinions on the Polio vaccine, or Measles vaccine, or any others you might think to introduce for no reason.
No
you are the one changing definitions to fit
An anti vaxxer is against ALL vaccines and mainly is to do with vaccines causing autism
Which vaccines cause autism?
Winston
Still waiting for an answer on this one.
Winston"I think Winston needs to read the thread again before trying to look superior by demanding an answer about 'which vaccines cause autism'. The person who said that was simply pointing out that anti-vaxxers are against vaccines per se because it is claimed they cause autism. That person hadn't made that claim...they had merely pointed out that some people had made that claim. Read before you post! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally!
So you are ignoring the advice/thoughts from a Doctor in the NHS?
I thought we was following the science?
Oh wait thats only the science you agree with isnt it
You are just as bad as the people you think youre against
If it on YouTube must be right
Fact is you are just as bad as the other side
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iABaxRWGxk
I will leave it here
The guy is a Cardioligist in the NHS
You seem to think that im somehow posting something that is against vaccines, im not.
ill add a quote from the video
"Vaccines are one of the greatest triumphs in medical history, infact human history"
But he talks about people like you and others are so quick to call everyone you disagree with an anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist
I asked this earlier but seems to have been ignored ...
How would you describe someome who freely admits they are un-vaccinated, hold reservations around vaccination, is a conspiracy theorist and would not adhere to health regulations and expose their child to the virus as the pandemic rages through the state.?
Not my opinion, Facts volunteered by the individual and conclusions reached by a Judge.
What Is a conspiracy theorist? Afaik no one knows what the guy has actually written on social media. do you?
I would call them vaccine hesitant and not attack them like people In this thread and forum do
Being "against" or having reservations about a singular vaccine is not being an anti vaxxer. A vaccine/s that we have seen doesnt live up the lofty expectations given to it in the first place
Seems like alot of have decided that nuance doesnt exist and if they have a different opinion to you, you see it as dissent or a threat which needs to be crushed
People who are literally dismissing the conclusions of the judge in this case, who is conversant with the entire facts of the case, in favour of their own made up reasons for the judge’s ‘agenda’ in concluding the father’s access should be removed to preserve the child’s safety, are promoting the idea of a conspiracy. So they are conspiracy theorists, by definition.
As for the definition of an ‘anti-vaxxer’, they are people who are against the use of the Covid vaccine, and who seek to make the effects of a public health emergency worse by promoting misinformation and misunderstanding about the vaccines. They are fortunately a minority on Fab, but still present.
You may think it’s worth giving the time of day to conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers, that what they have to say is worth listening to, but sensible and rational people don’t.
That's not actually what an anti vaxxer is
An anti vaxxer is somone against ALL vaccines.
I have just been labelled an anti vaxxer for posting a video of a heart surgeon urging people to get vaccinated for ffs.
People who act like that are just as bad as the actual people against vaccines and immune to listening to reason unless it confirms your own bias
No, that’s just an ancillary and immaterial definition that you personally may feel more comfortable with.
Unfortunately in the time of Covid, when discussing and defining people who are against the Covid vaccine, people against the Covid vaccine are anti-vaxxers. Because no-one cares about their opinions on the Polio vaccine, or Measles vaccine, or any others you might think to introduce for no reason.
No
you are the one changing definitions to fit
An anti vaxxer is against ALL vaccines and mainly is to do with vaccines causing autism
Which vaccines cause autism?
Winston
Still waiting for an answer on this one.
Winston
I think Winston needs to read the thread again before trying to look superior by demanding an answer about 'which vaccines cause autism'.
The person who said that was simply pointing out that anti-vaxxers are against vaccines per se because it is claimed they cause autism.
That person hadn't made that claim...they had merely pointed out that some people had made that claim.
Read before you post!"I've "demanded" nothing of the sort. I asked which vaccines cause autism. I've seen nothing to support this belief. The MMR/autism link has been debunked ad infinitum. If there's new evidence of vaccines causing autism I'd like to see it. Don't ascribe intent. Great advice. Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally!
So you are ignoring the advice/thoughts from a Doctor in the NHS?
I thought we was following the science?
Oh wait thats only the science you agree with isnt it
You are just as bad as the people you think youre against
If it on YouTube must be right
Fact is you are just as bad as the other side
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iABaxRWGxk
I will leave it here
The guy is a Cardioligist in the NHS
You seem to think that im somehow posting something that is against vaccines, im not.
ill add a quote from the video
"Vaccines are one of the greatest triumphs in medical history, infact human history"
But he talks about people like you and others are so quick to call everyone you disagree with an anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist
I asked this earlier but seems to have been ignored ...
How would you describe someome who freely admits they are un-vaccinated, hold reservations around vaccination, is a conspiracy theorist and would not adhere to health regulations and expose their child to the virus as the pandemic rages through the state.?
Not my opinion, Facts volunteered by the individual and conclusions reached by a Judge.
What Is a conspiracy theorist? Afaik no one knows what the guy has actually written on social media. do you?
I would call them vaccine hesitant and not attack them like people In this thread and forum do
Being "against" or having reservations about a singular vaccine is not being an anti vaxxer. A vaccine/s that we have seen doesnt live up the lofty expectations given to it in the first place
Seems like alot of have decided that nuance doesnt exist and if they have a different opinion to you, you see it as dissent or a threat which needs to be crushed
People who are literally dismissing the conclusions of the judge in this case, who is conversant with the entire facts of the case, in favour of their own made up reasons for the judge’s ‘agenda’ in concluding the father’s access should be removed to preserve the child’s safety, are promoting the idea of a conspiracy. So they are conspiracy theorists, by definition.
As for the definition of an ‘anti-vaxxer’, they are people who are against the use of the Covid vaccine, and who seek to make the effects of a public health emergency worse by promoting misinformation and misunderstanding about the vaccines. They are fortunately a minority on Fab, but still present.
You may think it’s worth giving the time of day to conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers, that what they have to say is worth listening to, but sensible and rational people don’t.
That's not actually what an anti vaxxer is
An anti vaxxer is somone against ALL vaccines.
I have just been labelled an anti vaxxer for posting a video of a heart surgeon urging people to get vaccinated for ffs.
People who act like that are just as bad as the actual people against vaccines and immune to listening to reason unless it confirms your own bias
No, that’s just an ancillary and immaterial definition that you personally may feel more comfortable with.
Unfortunately in the time of Covid, when discussing and defining people who are against the Covid vaccine, people against the Covid vaccine are anti-vaxxers. Because no-one cares about their opinions on the Polio vaccine, or Measles vaccine, or any others you might think to introduce for no reason.
No
you are the one changing definitions to fit
An anti vaxxer is against ALL vaccines and mainly is to do with vaccines causing autism
Which vaccines cause autism?
Winston
Still waiting for an answer on this one.
Winston
I think Winston needs to read the thread again before trying to look superior by demanding an answer about 'which vaccines cause autism'.
The person who said that was simply pointing out that anti-vaxxers are against vaccines per se because it is claimed they cause autism.
That person hadn't made that claim...they had merely pointed out that some people had made that claim.
Read before you post!
I've "demanded" nothing of the sort.
I asked which vaccines cause autism. I've seen nothing to support this belief.
The MMR/autism link has been debunked ad infinitum.
If there's new evidence of vaccines causing autism I'd like to see it.
Don't ascribe intent. Great advice.
Winston"But the person in the thread was only pointing out the difference between someone who doesn't like the coronavirus jabs and someone who is more generally 'anti-vax'. And yet you were challenging that person to say which jabs caused autism... which was irrelevant in the context. I think you knew that but just wanted to ridicule the other person. Coronavirus has brought out a very unpleasant and intolerant side of some people... people need to guard against coming across in such a way. A discussion is meant to enlighten, not rudely showboat! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally!
So you are ignoring the advice/thoughts from a Doctor in the NHS?
I thought we was following the science?
Oh wait thats only the science you agree with isnt it
You are just as bad as the people you think youre against
If it on YouTube must be right
Fact is you are just as bad as the other side
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iABaxRWGxk
I will leave it here
The guy is a Cardioligist in the NHS
You seem to think that im somehow posting something that is against vaccines, im not.
ill add a quote from the video
"Vaccines are one of the greatest triumphs in medical history, infact human history"
But he talks about people like you and others are so quick to call everyone you disagree with an anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist
I asked this earlier but seems to have been ignored ...
How would you describe someome who freely admits they are un-vaccinated, hold reservations around vaccination, is a conspiracy theorist and would not adhere to health regulations and expose their child to the virus as the pandemic rages through the state.?
Not my opinion, Facts volunteered by the individual and conclusions reached by a Judge.
What Is a conspiracy theorist? Afaik no one knows what the guy has actually written on social media. do you?
I would call them vaccine hesitant and not attack them like people In this thread and forum do
Being "against" or having reservations about a singular vaccine is not being an anti vaxxer. A vaccine/s that we have seen doesnt live up the lofty expectations given to it in the first place
Seems like alot of have decided that nuance doesnt exist and if they have a different opinion to you, you see it as dissent or a threat which needs to be crushed
People who are literally dismissing the conclusions of the judge in this case, who is conversant with the entire facts of the case, in favour of their own made up reasons for the judge’s ‘agenda’ in concluding the father’s access should be removed to preserve the child’s safety, are promoting the idea of a conspiracy. So they are conspiracy theorists, by definition.
As for the definition of an ‘anti-vaxxer’, they are people who are against the use of the Covid vaccine, and who seek to make the effects of a public health emergency worse by promoting misinformation and misunderstanding about the vaccines. They are fortunately a minority on Fab, but still present.
You may think it’s worth giving the time of day to conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers, that what they have to say is worth listening to, but sensible and rational people don’t.
That's not actually what an anti vaxxer is
An anti vaxxer is somone against ALL vaccines.
I have just been labelled an anti vaxxer for posting a video of a heart surgeon urging people to get vaccinated for ffs.
People who act like that are just as bad as the actual people against vaccines and immune to listening to reason unless it confirms your own bias
No, that’s just an ancillary and immaterial definition that you personally may feel more comfortable with.
Unfortunately in the time of Covid, when discussing and defining people who are against the Covid vaccine, people against the Covid vaccine are anti-vaxxers. Because no-one cares about their opinions on the Polio vaccine, or Measles vaccine, or any others you might think to introduce for no reason.
No
you are the one changing definitions to fit
An anti vaxxer is against ALL vaccines and mainly is to do with vaccines causing autism
Which vaccines cause autism?
Winston
Still waiting for an answer on this one.
Winston""An anti vaxxer is against ALL vaccines and mainly is to do with vaccines causing autism" At which point in that sentence did I say they do actually cause autism or that it's my belief? This stuff has been around before Covid so much so it's a meme. It has its roots in the MMR vaccine and has been around since the early 2000s If you took the time to watch the video I linked from a heart surgeon that knows more about medicine than you do, you would know where it started and what a real anti vaxxer is | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As ever, there is more to a story than just the headline. In a decision published Dec. 23, Justice J. Sébastien Vaillancourt wrote that continued visitation was not in the interest of the 12-year-old child or the child's two younger half-siblings, given the state of the pandemic. The decision states the man told the court that despite his "reservations" surrounding vaccination, he followed the rules in place and rarely left home. However, Vaillancourt wrote that posts on the father's Facebook page suggested he was a conspiracy theorist, which led the court to doubt he was following health rules as he claimed. The judge noted that while it's normally in a child's best interest to see his or her father, the rapid rise of the Omicron variant and the fact that the child lives with half-siblings too young to be vaccinated meant that was no longer the case. Vaillancourt wrote that the suspension of visitation rights should be as short as possible and can be reversed once the epidemiological situation changes or the father decides to get vaccinated and conform to health measures. Temporary suspension of visitation because the court does not belive he is following the health restrictions and therefore in the courts view putting other siblings at risk. I wonder what he values most, seeing his child or refusing to comply with healt regulations. Yes, guessed this would be the case before you posted this info - less to do with his vaccination status, more to do with him being an anti-vax crackpot! Seeing as it doesnt say anything about what views he held. Calling somone an anti vaxx crackpot is moronic I reccommend you watch a video on youtube by medlifecrisis who is a cardiolgist in the NHS. Talking exactly about how quick people are to label others "anti vaxx" and how stupid it is I’ll be ignoring that recommendation, naturally!
So you are ignoring the advice/thoughts from a Doctor in the NHS?
I thought we was following the science?
Oh wait thats only the science you agree with isnt it
You are just as bad as the people you think youre against
If it on YouTube must be right
Fact is you are just as bad as the other side
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iABaxRWGxk
I will leave it here
The guy is a Cardioligist in the NHS
You seem to think that im somehow posting something that is against vaccines, im not.
ill add a quote from the video
"Vaccines are one of the greatest triumphs in medical history, infact human history"
But he talks about people like you and others are so quick to call everyone you disagree with an anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist
I asked this earlier but seems to have been ignored ...
How would you describe someome who freely admits they are un-vaccinated, hold reservations around vaccination, is a conspiracy theorist and would not adhere to health regulations and expose their child to the virus as the pandemic rages through the state.?
Not my opinion, Facts volunteered by the individual and conclusions reached by a Judge.
What Is a conspiracy theorist? Afaik no one knows what the guy has actually written on social media. do you?
I would call them vaccine hesitant and not attack them like people In this thread and forum do
Being "against" or having reservations about a singular vaccine is not being an anti vaxxer. A vaccine/s that we have seen doesnt live up the lofty expectations given to it in the first place
Seems like alot of have decided that nuance doesnt exist and if they have a different opinion to you, you see it as dissent or a threat which needs to be crushed
People who are literally dismissing the conclusions of the judge in this case, who is conversant with the entire facts of the case, in favour of their own made up reasons for the judge’s ‘agenda’ in concluding the father’s access should be removed to preserve the child’s safety, are promoting the idea of a conspiracy. So they are conspiracy theorists, by definition.
As for the definition of an ‘anti-vaxxer’, they are people who are against the use of the Covid vaccine, and who seek to make the effects of a public health emergency worse by promoting misinformation and misunderstanding about the vaccines. They are fortunately a minority on Fab, but still present.
You may think it’s worth giving the time of day to conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers, that what they have to say is worth listening to, but sensible and rational people don’t.
That's not actually what an anti vaxxer is
An anti vaxxer is somone against ALL vaccines.
I have just been labelled an anti vaxxer for posting a video of a heart surgeon urging people to get vaccinated for ffs.
People who act like that are just as bad as the actual people against vaccines and immune to listening to reason unless it confirms your own bias
No, that’s just an ancillary and immaterial definition that you personally may feel more comfortable with.
Unfortunately in the time of Covid, when discussing and defining people who are against the Covid vaccine, people against the Covid vaccine are anti-vaxxers. Because no-one cares about their opinions on the Polio vaccine, or Measles vaccine, or any others you might think to introduce for no reason.
No
you are the one changing definitions to fit
An anti vaxxer is against ALL vaccines and mainly is to do with vaccines causing autism
Which vaccines cause autism?
Winston
Still waiting for an answer on this one.
Winston
I think Winston needs to read the thread again before trying to look superior by demanding an answer about 'which vaccines cause autism'.
The person who said that was simply pointing out that anti-vaxxers are against vaccines per se because it is claimed they cause autism.
That person hadn't made that claim...they had merely pointed out that some people had made that claim.
Read before you post!
I've "demanded" nothing of the sort.
I asked which vaccines cause autism. I've seen nothing to support this belief.
The MMR/autism link has been debunked ad infinitum.
If there's new evidence of vaccines causing autism I'd like to see it.
Don't ascribe intent. Great advice.
Winston"Well done you are now arguing against yourself You seem to have created some sort of straw man. And doing your very best to wail at it. Nobody is saying vaccines cause autism in this thread. They are just pointing out that Anti vaxx is somone against ALL vaccines and started with the debunked idea that the MMR vaccines caused autism | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He’s not vaccinated and it’s temporary. So he’s not being denied a relationship with her, daughter won’t be vaccinated either yet which means he could potentially pass Covid on to her & the rest of her family if she’s got siblings younger than her. Maybe he should have thought about that before refusing the vaccine " Sure it's not mandated is it. Apart from.. If you don't have it... You can't see your kids and the kids can't see their dad. Remind me how many young kids have died from omicron variant? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He’s not vaccinated and it’s temporary. So he’s not being denied a relationship with her, daughter won’t be vaccinated either yet which means he could potentially pass Covid on to her & the rest of her family if she’s got siblings younger than her. Maybe he should have thought about that before refusing the vaccine Sure it's not mandated is it. Apart from.. If you don't have it... You can't see your kids and the kids can't see their dad. Remind me how many young kids have died from omicron variant? " Who mentioned Omicron variant? I didn’t and just because there’s a new variant doesn’t mean you can’t still get the other variants? Why would you want to take the risk? Besides, I suspect there’s more to this than the press is telling, I doubt very much it’s purely about Covid! But the press will tell only what they deem ‘exciting’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've been very struck over the last 2 years by the aggression displayed by lockdown/vaccine enthusiasts. A by unpleasant category of people has been revealed" Aggression? Like physically attacking people who were just exercising their right to have a vaccine or storming vaccination centres ? How many pro vaxxors have you heard of attacking antivaxors ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've been very struck over the last 2 years by the aggression displayed by lockdown/vaccine enthusiasts. A by unpleasant category of people has been revealed Aggression? Like physically attacking people who were just exercising their right to have a vaccine or storming vaccination centres ? How many pro vaxxors have you heard of attacking antivaxors ? " And lets not forget the number of times those supporting vaccination or even saying mandates might be a good thing who are then accused of being Nazis, Facists and supporters of the Final Solution etc Had plenty of those accusations made at me both on the forum and in direct messages from those too cowardly to debate in public | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He’s not vaccinated and it’s temporary. So he’s not being denied a relationship with her, daughter won’t be vaccinated either yet which means he could potentially pass Covid on to her & the rest of her family if she’s got siblings younger than her. Maybe he should have thought about that before refusing the vaccine Sure it's not mandated is it. Apart from.. If you don't have it... You can't see your kids and the kids can't see their dad. Remind me how many young kids have died from omicron variant? " According to UNICEF 12,300 children have died due to Covid. What is an acceptabel number? And in the Lancet 862365 children have been orphaned or lost a custodial grandparent due to COVID-19-associated death. That also has a direct effect on children. So this crap about Covid does not effect children is wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's just so wrong. If he's a rabid anti vaxxer with other dodgy beliefs then there may be a safeguarding issue that they haven't reported on. But if it's literally just that he hasn't had the vaccine then what the actual fuck is the world coming to.
Other dodgy beliefs? Like allowing children to take puberty blockers or giving young women mastectomies because they think they are male?
I agree, what is the world coming to? Where is the safeguarding?
"WOW!!  wtaf?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm sorry. There's no justification for that (taking the report at fac value). Actions have Consequences arguments are just bollocks here... Well they are generally as they are always trotted out to excuse ever increasing state involvement in an individuals lives. Just wrong. " x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's just so wrong. If he's a rabid anti vaxxer with other dodgy beliefs then there may be a safeguarding issue that they haven't reported on. But if it's literally just that he hasn't had the vaccine then what the actual fuck is the world coming to.
Other dodgy beliefs? Like allowing children to take puberty blockers or giving young women mastectomies because they think they are male?
I agree, what is the world coming to? Where is the safeguarding?
WOW!! wtaf??"Remember the mantra…don’t feed the troll | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's just so wrong. If he's a rabid anti vaxxer with other dodgy beliefs then there may be a safeguarding issue that they haven't reported on. But if it's literally just that he hasn't had the vaccine then what the actual fuck is the world coming to.
Other dodgy beliefs? Like allowing children to take puberty blockers or giving young women mastectomies because they think they are male?
I agree, what is the world coming to? Where is the safeguarding?
WOW!! wtaf??
Remember the mantra…don’t feed the troll
"Ok yes soz ty for the reminder x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He’s not vaccinated and it’s temporary. So he’s not being denied a relationship with her, daughter won’t be vaccinated either yet which means he could potentially pass Covid on to her & the rest of her family if she’s got siblings younger than her. Maybe he should have thought about that before refusing the vaccine Sure it's not mandated is it. Apart from.. If you don't have it... You can't see your kids and the kids can't see their dad. Remind me how many young kids have died from omicron variant? According to UNICEF 12,300 children have died due to Covid. What is an acceptabel number? And in the Lancet 862365 children have been orphaned or lost a custodial grandparent due to COVID-19-associated death. That also has a direct effect on children. So this crap about Covid does not effect children is wrong." How many in Canada... Not worldwide? It's so harmful to children that here in the UK we've been forcing kids into schools for months and not giving a fig if they catch it or not. Come on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He’s not vaccinated and it’s temporary. So he’s not being denied a relationship with her, daughter won’t be vaccinated either yet which means he could potentially pass Covid on to her & the rest of her family if she’s got siblings younger than her. Maybe he should have thought about that before refusing the vaccine Sure it's not mandated is it. Apart from.. If you don't have it... You can't see your kids and the kids can't see their dad. Remind me how many young kids have died from omicron variant? According to UNICEF 12,300 children have died due to Covid. What is an acceptabel number? And in the Lancet 862365 children have been orphaned or lost a custodial grandparent due to COVID-19-associated death. That also has a direct effect on children. So this crap about Covid does not effect children is wrong. How many in Canada... Not worldwide? It's so harmful to children that here in the UK we've been forcing kids into schools for months and not giving a fig if they catch it or not. Come on. " So we should be basing foreign decisions on what is a clear a dereliction of duty by the UK government? Makes sense! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He’s not vaccinated and it’s temporary. So he’s not being denied a relationship with her, daughter won’t be vaccinated either yet which means he could potentially pass Covid on to her & the rest of her family if she’s got siblings younger than her. Maybe he should have thought about that before refusing the vaccine Sure it's not mandated is it. Apart from.. If you don't have it... You can't see your kids and the kids can't see their dad. Remind me how many young kids have died from omicron variant? According to UNICEF 12,300 children have died due to Covid. What is an acceptabel number? And in the Lancet 862365 children have been orphaned or lost a custodial grandparent due to COVID-19-associated death. That also has a direct effect on children. So this crap about Covid does not effect children is wrong. How many in Canada... Not worldwide? It's so harmful to children that here in the UK we've been forcing kids into schools for months and not giving a fig if they catch it or not. Come on. So we should be basing foreign decisions on what is a clear a dereliction of duty by the UK government? Makes sense! "Yes of course because that's exactly what I wrote. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He’s not vaccinated and it’s temporary. So he’s not being denied a relationship with her, daughter won’t be vaccinated either yet which means he could potentially pass Covid on to her & the rest of her family if she’s got siblings younger than her. Maybe he should have thought about that before refusing the vaccine Sure it's not mandated is it. Apart from.. If you don't have it... You can't see your kids and the kids can't see their dad. Remind me how many young kids have died from omicron variant? According to UNICEF 12,300 children have died due to Covid. What is an acceptabel number? And in the Lancet 862365 children have been orphaned or lost a custodial grandparent due to COVID-19-associated death. That also has a direct effect on children. So this crap about Covid does not effect children is wrong. How many in Canada... Not worldwide? It's so harmful to children that here in the UK we've been forcing kids into schools for months and not giving a fig if they catch it or not. Come on. " Well given that the government forced covid infected adults into care homes for the elderly and vulnerable and didnt give a fig, what makes you think they werent prepared to accept a few children as acceptable losses? As for Canada .. no idea what the number of child cdeaths are from Covid its probably out there, look it up. Again, what is a the acceptable number for you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wonder if the same would apply if the mother wasn’t vaccinated. " Exactly... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A Canadian father who has not been vaccinated against Covid has temporarily lost the right to see his 12-year-old child. A judge ruled his visits would not be in the child's "best interest". It followed a request by the father to extend his visiting time during the holidays. Link below https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59979408 Now, there's nothing I'm this story to indicate the child is at high risk from the virus (making this decision at least logically understandable) and as such it seems this decision has been made based on moral issues only, which is diabolical Does this mean that any parents still together who arent vaxed will have kids taken into care. Tgis is abdolutely disgusting Where do you get that from ? The kids are with the mother the father does not live with them and is not vaccinated and is an open anti vaxxor and so is temporarily barred from visiting. There nothing about children being taken into care. More misinformation "It was a question, not a statement from the poster. Asking if both parents with kids are anti vax, would they have kids taken off them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wonder if the same would apply if the mother wasn’t vaccinated. " As the judge’s decision was primarily based on the potential for harm to the child, not the father’s vaccination status, one imagines the same decisions would be applied. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A Canadian father who has not been vaccinated against Covid has temporarily lost the right to see his 12-year-old child. A judge ruled his visits would not be in the child's "best interest". It followed a request by the father to extend his visiting time during the holidays. Link below https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59979408 Now, there's nothing I'm this story to indicate the child is at high risk from the virus (making this decision at least logically understandable) and as such it seems this decision has been made based on moral issues only, which is diabolical" It seems that the judge made his decision, in Canadian law, in part because the father claimed that he would behave in a certain manner but his social media posts indicated otherwise. Regardless of anything else, that makes the father's promises unreliable. Probably a good enough reason for the judge to make a temporary order under any circumstances, Covid or not. What do you think? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A Canadian father who has not been vaccinated against Covid has temporarily lost the right to see his 12-year-old child. A judge ruled his visits would not be in the child's "best interest". It followed a request by the father to extend his visiting time during the holidays. Link below https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59979408 Now, there's nothing I'm this story to indicate the child is at high risk from the virus (making this decision at least logically understandable) and as such it seems this decision has been made based on moral issues only, which is diabolical It seems that the judge made his decision, in Canadian law, in part because the father claimed that he would behave in a certain manner but his social media posts indicated otherwise. Regardless of anything else, that makes the father's promises unreliable. Probably a good enough reason for the judge to make a temporary order under any circumstances, Covid or not. What do you think?" The judge did not make his decision "in Canadian law". The decision was made in the Quebec Superior Court. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A Canadian father who has not been vaccinated against Covid has temporarily lost the right to see his 12-year-old child. A judge ruled his visits would not be in the child's "best interest". It followed a request by the father to extend his visiting time during the holidays. Link below https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59979408 Now, there's nothing I'm this story to indicate the child is at high risk from the virus (making this decision at least logically understandable) and as such it seems this decision has been made based on moral issues only, which is diabolical It seems that the judge made his decision, in Canadian law, in part because the father claimed that he would behave in a certain manner but his social media posts indicated otherwise. Regardless of anything else, that makes the father's promises unreliable. Probably a good enough reason for the judge to make a temporary order under any circumstances, Covid or not. What do you think? The judge did not make his decision "in Canadian law". The decision was made in the Quebec Superior Court. " I would have thought that as Quebec is in Canada, Canadian Law would have been adhered to. Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A Canadian father who has not been vaccinated against Covid has temporarily lost the right to see his 12-year-old child. A judge ruled his visits would not be in the child's "best interest". It followed a request by the father to extend his visiting time during the holidays. Link below https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59979408 Now, there's nothing I'm this story to indicate the child is at high risk from the virus (making this decision at least logically understandable) and as such it seems this decision has been made based on moral issues only, which is diabolical It seems that the judge made his decision, in Canadian law, in part because the father claimed that he would behave in a certain manner but his social media posts indicated otherwise. Regardless of anything else, that makes the father's promises unreliable. Probably a good enough reason for the judge to make a temporary order under any circumstances, Covid or not. What do you think? The judge did not make his decision "in Canadian law". The decision was made in the Quebec Superior Court. " Was that a helpful contribution, do you think?
You may have missed the fact that Quebec has had referenda in the past on independence, but remained part of Canada.
In colloquial use of the language although it may have different laws in effect it is still "Canadian" law in the same way that the law in Scotland is still "British" law. If you are a Canadian or international litigator the difference may be important. It isn't to me. Is it important to you with respect to the OP? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A Canadian father who has not been vaccinated against Covid has temporarily lost the right to see his 12-year-old child. A judge ruled his visits would not be in the child's "best interest". It followed a request by the father to extend his visiting time during the holidays. Link below https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59979408 Now, there's nothing I'm this story to indicate the child is at high risk from the virus (making this decision at least logically understandable) and as such it seems this decision has been made based on moral issues only, which is diabolical It seems that the judge made his decision, in Canadian law, in part because the father claimed that he would behave in a certain manner but his social media posts indicated otherwise. Regardless of anything else, that makes the father's promises unreliable. Probably a good enough reason for the judge to make a temporary order under any circumstances, Covid or not. What do you think? The judge did not make his decision "in Canadian law". The decision was made in the Quebec Superior Court. Was that a helpful contribution, do you think?
You may have missed the fact that Quebec has had referenda in the past on independence, but remained part of Canada.
In colloquial use of the language although it may have different laws in effect it is still "Canadian" law in the same way that the law in Scotland is still "British" law. If you are a Canadian or international litigator the difference may be important. It isn't to me. Is it important to you with respect to the OP?"You may have missed the part that Québec is a province in Canada. Canada recognises two orders of government with sovereignty, federal and provincial. In this case it was a provincial court, so only relevant to Québec. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A Canadian father who has not been vaccinated against Covid has temporarily lost the right to see his 12-year-old child. A judge ruled his visits would not be in the child's "best interest". It followed a request by the father to extend his visiting time during the holidays. Link below https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59979408 Now, there's nothing I'm this story to indicate the child is at high risk from the virus (making this decision at least logically understandable) and as such it seems this decision has been made based on moral issues only, which is diabolical It seems that the judge made his decision, in Canadian law, in part because the father claimed that he would behave in a certain manner but his social media posts indicated otherwise. Regardless of anything else, that makes the father's promises unreliable. Probably a good enough reason for the judge to make a temporary order under any circumstances, Covid or not. What do you think? The judge did not make his decision "in Canadian law". The decision was made in the Quebec Superior Court. Was that a helpful contribution, do you think?
You may have missed the fact that Quebec has had referenda in the past on independence, but remained part of Canada.
In colloquial use of the language although it may have different laws in effect it is still "Canadian" law in the same way that the law in Scotland is still "British" law. If you are a Canadian or international litigator the difference may be important. It isn't to me. Is it important to you with respect to the OP?
You may have missed the part that Québec is a province in Canada.
Canada recognises two orders of government with sovereignty, federal and provincial.
In this case it was a provincial court, so only relevant to Québec."Is that important, at all, to the discussion about the ruling being appropriate or not beyond English or Scottish law being irrelevant? Do you happen to know if this case was heard under Quebec or federal law? Does it matter? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A Canadian father who has not been vaccinated against Covid has temporarily lost the right to see his 12-year-old child. A judge ruled his visits would not be in the child's "best interest". It followed a request by the father to extend his visiting time during the holidays. Link below https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59979408 Now, there's nothing I'm this story to indicate the child is at high risk from the virus (making this decision at least logically understandable) and as such it seems this decision has been made based on moral issues only, which is diabolical It seems that the judge made his decision, in Canadian law, in part because the father claimed that he would behave in a certain manner but his social media posts indicated otherwise. Regardless of anything else, that makes the father's promises unreliable. Probably a good enough reason for the judge to make a temporary order under any circumstances, Covid or not. What do you think? The judge did not make his decision "in Canadian law". The decision was made in the Quebec Superior Court. Was that a helpful contribution, do you think?
You may have missed the fact that Quebec has had referenda in the past on independence, but remained part of Canada.
In colloquial use of the language although it may have different laws in effect it is still "Canadian" law in the same way that the law in Scotland is still "British" law. If you are a Canadian or international litigator the difference may be important. It isn't to me. Is it important to you with respect to the OP?
You may have missed the part that Québec is a province in Canada.
Canada recognises two orders of government with sovereignty, federal and provincial.
In this case it was a provincial court, so only relevant to Québec.
Is that important, at all, to the discussion about the ruling being appropriate or not beyond English or Scottish law being irrelevant?
Do you happen to know if this case was heard under Quebec or federal law? Does it matter?"I've already explained that it was a decision in the Quebec Superior Court. It does matter because the decision would not apply to other provinces/territories in Canada. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A Canadian father who has not been vaccinated against Covid has temporarily lost the right to see his 12-year-old child. A judge ruled his visits would not be in the child's "best interest". It followed a request by the father to extend his visiting time during the holidays. Link below https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59979408 Now, there's nothing I'm this story to indicate the child is at high risk from the virus (making this decision at least logically understandable) and as such it seems this decision has been made based on moral issues only, which is diabolical It seems that the judge made his decision, in Canadian law, in part because the father claimed that he would behave in a certain manner but his social media posts indicated otherwise. Regardless of anything else, that makes the father's promises unreliable. Probably a good enough reason for the judge to make a temporary order under any circumstances, Covid or not. What do you think? The judge did not make his decision "in Canadian law". The decision was made in the Quebec Superior Court. Was that a helpful contribution, do you think?
You may have missed the fact that Quebec has had referenda in the past on independence, but remained part of Canada.
In colloquial use of the language although it may have different laws in effect it is still "Canadian" law in the same way that the law in Scotland is still "British" law. If you are a Canadian or international litigator the difference may be important. It isn't to me. Is it important to you with respect to the OP?
You may have missed the part that Québec is a province in Canada.
Canada recognises two orders of government with sovereignty, federal and provincial.
In this case it was a provincial court, so only relevant to Québec.
Is that important, at all, to the discussion about the ruling being appropriate or not beyond English or Scottish law being irrelevant?
Do you happen to know if this case was heard under Quebec or federal law? Does it matter?
I've already explained that it was a decision in the Quebec Superior Court.
It does matter because the decision would not apply to other provinces/territories in Canada."I congratulate you on your Google search and knowing with absolute certainty that this judgement is only pertinent in Quebec, as moving state is illegal in Canada... Again, how is this relevant to the thread in any way? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A Canadian father who has not been vaccinated against Covid has temporarily lost the right to see his 12-year-old child. A judge ruled his visits would not be in the child's "best interest". It followed a request by the father to extend his visiting time during the holidays. Link below https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59979408 Now, there's nothing I'm this story to indicate the child is at high risk from the virus (making this decision at least logically understandable) and as such it seems this decision has been made based on moral issues only, which is diabolical It seems that the judge made his decision, in Canadian law, in part because the father claimed that he would behave in a certain manner but his social media posts indicated otherwise. Regardless of anything else, that makes the father's promises unreliable. Probably a good enough reason for the judge to make a temporary order under any circumstances, Covid or not. What do you think? The judge did not make his decision "in Canadian law". The decision was made in the Quebec Superior Court. Was that a helpful contribution, do you think?
You may have missed the fact that Quebec has had referenda in the past on independence, but remained part of Canada.
In colloquial use of the language although it may have different laws in effect it is still "Canadian" law in the same way that the law in Scotland is still "British" law. If you are a Canadian or international litigator the difference may be important. It isn't to me. Is it important to you with respect to the OP?
You may have missed the part that Québec is a province in Canada.
Canada recognises two orders of government with sovereignty, federal and provincial.
In this case it was a provincial court, so only relevant to Québec.
Is that important, at all, to the discussion about the ruling being appropriate or not beyond English or Scottish law being irrelevant?
Do you happen to know if this case was heard under Quebec or federal law? Does it matter?
I've already explained that it was a decision in the Quebec Superior Court.
It does matter because the decision would not apply to other provinces/territories in Canada.
I congratulate you on your Google search and knowing with absolute certainty that this judgement is only pertinent in Quebec, as moving state is illegal in Canada...
Again, how is this relevant to the thread in any way?"'Moving state'? There are no 'states' in Canada. They have provinces and territories. You're getting mixed up with its southern neighbour. I lived in Canada 30 years ago so know the difference between federal and provincial. Reading the link to the French Canadian paper in the BBC article that you kindly posted also helped, as it was clear that this was a provincial decision, not a federal one. I've already told you why it is relevant to the thread so won't bother repeating it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think this and other matters show that people don't understand how the law works."
Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A Canadian father who has not been vaccinated against Covid has temporarily lost the right to see his 12-year-old child. A judge ruled his visits would not be in the child's "best interest". It followed a request by the father to extend his visiting time during the holidays. Link below https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59979408 Now, there's nothing I'm this story to indicate the child is at high risk from the virus (making this decision at least logically understandable) and as such it seems this decision has been made based on moral issues only, which is diabolical It seems that the judge made his decision, in Canadian law, in part because the father claimed that he would behave in a certain manner but his social media posts indicated otherwise. Regardless of anything else, that makes the father's promises unreliable. Probably a good enough reason for the judge to make a temporary order under any circumstances, Covid or not. What do you think? The judge did not make his decision "in Canadian law". The decision was made in the Quebec Superior Court. Was that a helpful contribution, do you think?
You may have missed the fact that Quebec has had referenda in the past on independence, but remained part of Canada.
In colloquial use of the language although it may have different laws in effect it is still "Canadian" law in the same way that the law in Scotland is still "British" law. If you are a Canadian or international litigator the difference may be important. It isn't to me. Is it important to you with respect to the OP?
You may have missed the part that Québec is a province in Canada.
Canada recognises two orders of government with sovereignty, federal and provincial.
In this case it was a provincial court, so only relevant to Québec.
Is that important, at all, to the discussion about the ruling being appropriate or not beyond English or Scottish law being irrelevant?
Do you happen to know if this case was heard under Quebec or federal law? Does it matter?
I've already explained that it was a decision in the Quebec Superior Court.
It does matter because the decision would not apply to other provinces/territories in Canada.
I congratulate you on your Google search and knowing with absolute certainty that this judgement is only pertinent in Quebec, as moving state is illegal in Canada...
Again, how is this relevant to the thread in any way?
'Moving state'? There are no 'states' in Canada. They have provinces and territories. You're getting mixed up with its southern neighbour.
I lived in Canada 30 years ago so know the difference between federal and provincial. Reading the link to the French Canadian paper in the BBC article that you kindly posted also helped, as it was clear that this was a provincial decision, not a federal one.
I've already told you why it is relevant to the thread so won't bother repeating it."If the difference between the word "state" and "territory" is of great significance to you then I apologise profusely though find the pedantry odd. Why does it matter which province or territory made the law to the outrage or otherwise that Covid vaccination status may or may not have influenced a decision for visitation rights? You seem to be actually saying that the judgement is not valid outside of Quebec and unenforceable if they leave the state. Curious situation. So do you disapprove of the actual judgement, which the thread is about, or just about my knowledge of the Canadian legal system of which I have a vanishingly small interest? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
