nitronuts Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 SIgh what a completely meaningless post, can't you at least elaborate on why you feel that is so? Now you made make a post equally as meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Situation Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 What do you want me to say? That we're on the same wave length? The wave length of good logic and rationale? I've gotta say that I absolutely love the hypno toad emoticon. :HYPNOTOAD: :HYPNOTOAD: :HYPNOTOAD: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Sikes Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 I'm pretty sure that most people who are uncomfortable with breast-feeding in public don't spend a huge portion of every day writing letters to the government protesting the law, berating breast-feeding mothers, or going on a crusade to prevent this action. And I don't know you but I'm pretty sure you don't dedicate your life to spending most of every individual day to protesting those serious things.. what would they be, world hunger, warfare, environmental problems, so really, don't you think it's a little hypocritical to make a statement like that, considering you probably don't concern yourself with the serious things at all times either? Maybe I'm off-base and you do spend every single waking moment writing to the government about taxes or what not, but hey, you and I are both on this forum and have poured countless hours reading Canucks-related posts, aren't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 No problem all that needs to be done is to set aside the prohibition against gender discrimination. Perhaps we should remove other protections as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 I don't deny that it's the law, but it's more on common sense. Eg. I can run around screaming offensive words and racial slurs and saying how it constitute "freedom of speech", but it still isn't a smart thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 How is it gender discrimination? That's a stretch. And how does this reconcile with people's rights to express their unconfortableness? The law the way you express it sure seems keen to stomp over anyone that utters anything that might hurt momma's feelings. And you still haven't answered what the age limit is for this, or if there's rule's in place for wetmothers (hey, that's a gender capability). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 A stretch? No it is the law. http://www.ag.gov.bc...&Harassment.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 Saying that asking a women breastfeeding in public to use some discretion is sexual harrassment is a stretch. Even if that was the law word for word then the law would be a stretch. You are aware that some laws are vague and up to interpretation, and to state one is "a stretch" is hardly radical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 It's just a slippery slope, asking mom's to cover up cause it *might* offend the delicate sensibilities of some person...well, where does that stop? What are we all children? We happily watch the news on tv with blood and gore and murder and stories of 1000's dead here, 100's mutilated there, fires burning this person, rapists torturing this kid, etc etc etc...but a boob? Now that's where we draw the line! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 You need to re-read the link. It involves gender discrimination not sexual harassment. And yes your take on this is a "stretch" since the law is very clear courtesy of the information provided by the Ministry of the Attorney General. There is no interpretation needed as it is not in any way vague. Nursing mothers have the right to breastfeed their children in a public area, and it is discriminatory to ask them to cover up or breastfeed somewhere else. Very simple and clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 It's just a slippery slope, asking mom's to cover up cause it *might* offend the delicate sensibilities of some person...well, where does that stop? What are we all children? We happily watch the news on tv with blood and gore and murder and stories of 1000's dead here, 100's mutilated there, fires burning this person, rapists torturing this kid, etc etc etc...but a boob? Now that's where we draw the line! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donky Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 The only public space where mothers are not allowed to breastfeed that I know of is at a swimming pool. There was actually a bit of a protest by breastfeeding mothers at a local pool a few years ago because one of them was asked to get out of the pool and into the changeroom....but they lost as it is unsanitary to breastfeed in a pool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 I did. It also looks like it's an amendment to the provincial laws on gender discimination. Not sure how that reconciles with federal laws on free speach. To interpret breastfeeding no hold barred anywhere anytime as just being part of being female is the the stretch. To do so without anyone saying anything about it as harrassement is a stretch and a stomp over other's rights to free speach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 "Free speach" (sic) is not absolute. We have laws against defamation, hate speech, etc. It remains a crime in Canada under the Criminal Code to causes a disturbance in or near a public place by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language as well as impeding or molesting other persons. This is not an amendment of provincial laws - it is part and parcel of what constitutes gender discrimination and has nothing to do with free "speach". As long as the woman is breastfeeding in a public place - then she has the unfettered right to do so and asking her to cover up or go elsewhere constitutes discrimination. If you attempt to make her feel uncomfortable for exercising her rights then you have committed a discriminatory act and you may also be guilty of sexual harassment or even a breach of the Criminal Code. Feel free to test the limits of free "speach" as is your right but do not be surprised if there are consequences. For these purposes public place means services and facilities customarily available to the public. Seems pretty clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 Crystal. If a heavy topless man gets on the bus, "It's nice that women have the right to be topless now" would be perfectly fine. If a normal women gets on the bus topless, "One would think that facial wrinkles would be warning to the world enough" would be fine. But if same women attaches a baby, "Does she need both of 'em to feed the kid? Is one in reserve?" would BZZZZ, WRONG! Human rights tribunal for me! I say Mr. Bus driver is they do bring him before the tribunal challenges the laws infringement on his free speach. If you want to ban the women from the bus for nursing a kid I can see a point, but not even being allowed to say anything, and being forced to avert thine gaze? That's over the top, no pun intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 Suing us for harrassement because we asked is also a slipperly slope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 It's a very natural/normal/beautiful thing for a mother to feed her baby. With that, it's also something that should soothe/comfort the baby and if it's a stressful/noisy situation every attempt should be made to provide that calming environment. Out of respect for my babies, I used to bring a very light blanket to just lightly drape over them in those situations - problem solved. Then there's no leering and it means less distraction and creates a more private, soothing atmosphere for the child. People who get offended need to understand one thing - a mother's first priority is to make her baby comfortable and if hunger is the problem, then a feeding is in order. So, in a move of common decency and privacy - don't look (morons). But it is a two way street and mothers also should consider the baby and handle the feeding as privately as possible in any given situation. It should be a serene, quiet moment that relaxes the child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 Way to ignore my point entirely and argue something totally different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starbug Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 The woman on the bus will NOT be taking the case to the Human Rights Tribunal. She and her family feel that BC Transit's response was appropriate. It seems they're happy with an apology and the promise that all transit drivers will be 'reminded' of the rules concerning breastfeeding. A woman who was told by a driver to cover up while breastfeeding on a bus has decided not to take the case to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal. Olena Russell sent a letter to Victoria Regional Transit general manager Phil Easton saying she and her family feel that the incident has now been resolved. Russell said in the letter she was satisfied with Easton’s detailed response to her family’s concerns, which “has left us confident that the matter has been addressed appropriately. “We are happy to see that everyone is welcome on B.C. Transit and that this expectation has been reaffirmed with your staff for the future.” Russell and her family — husband Michael, three-year-old son Kasian and baby daughter Kaia — were heading home from a downtown restaurant last month when the incident occurred. Russell was breastfeeding Kaia when she got on to the bus, ahead of her husband. The driver told Russell’s husband she needed to cover up, saying it was at his discretion whether Russell could breastfeed on the bus. Drivers have since been advised that breastfeeding is permitted in public places. B.C. Transit responded to the complaint by issuing the family a letter of apology and a pair of bus passes for August. The letter said the Russells will continue to use transit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 I am aware of your point are you aware of mine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.