I wrote about a lot of issues in this blog but never this one.
Like many other citizens, I don’t know much about this issue but this is a blog.
I blog the story and let the comments fly in the debate.
So here we go?
The famous New Brunswick's Kingsclear Youth Training Centre???
I was told that a person cannot get a transcript of the Miller inquiry which investigated the sexual abuse of our youths.
I also heard that many high profiles individuals wish this issue to be silent because they were secretly involved in this sad abuse?
So many questions?
I promise someone that I would blog the issue and which I did. Any comments out there or should we forget about this sad part in New Brunswick history and move on????
Thursday, July 13, 2006
SHOULD WE FORGET ABOUT THE NEW BRUNSWICK BRUNSWICK KINGSCLEAR YOUTH TRAINING CENTRE???
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Interesting, but dangerous to make assumptions without facts. There is always a lot of 'hearsay' on the street. People assume that because Hatfield was gay and that Miller was too that Hatfield must have been 'in on it'. I would think that if there is any kind of connection it would be pot related, not sex related, but who knows?
Keep at it untill the truth is out is out to everyone but a few,
Please be nice...Lets not start calling Hatfield names....be nice....stick to the issue.....
Who called Hatfield names? That he was gay was quite well-known.
Who called Hatfield names? That he was gay was quite well-known.
Whether he used the boys from Kingsclear will be assumption and needs proper facts.
A few called him a you know what.....be nice....stick to the facts and everything will be ok.
It's a touchy issue....
You are the one who posted it and mentioned Hatfields name Charles, so isn't that the issue? That people would use foul language isn't surprising in New Brunswick. Every other place in North America is bending over (so to speak) backwards to cater to the very wealthy gay tourism industry. New Brunswick is still in the stone ages of bigotry (yes, I said it). No doubt another reason why tourism is so bad. What's weird is that Fredericton has always been known as a gay city.
With Kingsclear, where there's smoke there is usually fire. If you follow the case at all it is hard not to reach the same conclusion that MP Peter Goldring has - a pedophile ring existed and a cover-up ensued. As for who was involved? Hopefully someone will get to the truth - Toft wasn't the only one! Let's hope the judge in Fredericton today sees fit to carry the investigation forward.
Why is it because someone doesn't agree with homosexuality they're instantly a bigot? Lots of people don't agree with the gay lifestyle but that doesn't make them a bigot or even mean they hate gay people.
I'll agree that there are some who speak out against it with hatred and that is bigotry but most don't. A person can tolerate things but doesn't have to agree with them. The word bigot much like the word homophobe is chucked around to make those who disagree with homosexuality (to quote Elsie Wayne) "go home and shut up about it." It's way too often misused. There are plenty of solid reasons to disagree with issues like same-sex marriage. The best example is France. It is probably one of the most liberal countries on the planet and they rejected same-sex marriage for the right reasons. It's potentially detrimental to children. Canada should have followed suit like the French and actually studied the issue first. They didn't and we'll see the reprecussions years from now.
Spinks! DOn't forget it's a public health hazard too....
I think the point has been made by the above. You can be gay, you just can't come out in public. Ever seen the gay pride parade in Toronto? Its huge. You see, some people actually ENJOY life and being what they are.
Yeah, I love the quote above about the 'beautiful women with children'. What does children have to do with it? I've seen lots of beautiful women who don't have children. And of course New Brunswick is the meanest province in the country, a huge percentage of women with children live in poverty.
But that's life in New Brunswick, mean as hell, don't bother trying to celebrate your lifestyle, if you're different, 'go home'. We don't even care about tourism, the province is reserved for Irving and McCain.
I think the point has been made by the above. You can be gay, you just can't come out in public. Ever seen the gay pride parade in Toronto? Its huge. You see, some people actually ENJOY life and being what they are.
Yeah, I love the quote above about the 'beautiful women with children'. What does children have to do with it? I've seen lots of beautiful women who don't have children. And of course New Brunswick is the meanest province in the country, a huge percentage of women with children live in poverty.
But that's life in New Brunswick, mean as hell, don't bother trying to celebrate your lifestyle, if you're different, 'go home'. We don't even care about tourism, the province is reserved for Irving and McCain.
Come on spinks potentially detrimental to children? That is just about the most inane reason I have heard yet. Lets see, what else might be "potentially detrimental to children" hmm? How about Crossing the street without looking or running with scissors or how about Peanut Butter? Lets ban those too, after all just think of the "repercussions" years from now. Or maybe, just maybe you might consider "real" detrimental things like abusive fathers, alcoholic mothers, school yard bullies, air pollution, and potentially lame ideas. But you are right about the over use of Bigot (except in Elsie Wayne's case of course). A more appropriate choice might be Uniformed, naive, or maybe just Conservative.
Sorry D. Stewart, but same-sex marriage is potentially detrimental. To try and deflect the issue as you have is a common tactic by those who want to shut anyone up who speaks out against it.
Even the French, as surprising as that sounds, recognized that it could be detrimental to kids. Same-sex marriage left simply as two loving people in matrimony regardless of anything else seems very romantic on the surface. However it is much bigger than that. Prior to last year, everyone had exactly the same rights. There were two rules. You could only marry one other person and that person had to be of the opposite sex. Everyone was treated equally but those were the two rules. Some didn't like the rules and wanted the rules changed to suit their wants and desires. They got their wish.
However one of the aspects of marriage (not the only one but a very important one) is to have a stable home with a loving Father and Mother who will care for their kids. A Dad shows a son what it means to be a man and a daughter how to be treated by a man. A Mon shows a daughter what it means to be a woman and how to be treated by a man. Despite society's growing incistence that this is irrelevant, (particularly fathers) children need these two people in their lives, not two moms and not two dads. If that's unfair than nature in its very essence is unfair because it does not allow same-sex couples to produce children by themselves. It's a complicated issue which unfortunately our previous government, probably this one and the media have not delved into.
When you change a social institution like marriage, which is essential to society, you need to show that the changes will either improve society or at least not be detrimental. No one proved that and the Liberal Government stopped their study on it as soon as the Ontario Court ruled on it. So much for our elected officials making the law.
...and 7:59, naked men walking down the streets and people in studs and leather walking where childen are as they did in Toronto isn't enjoying life. That's disrespectful. If the gay community truly wanted to not be treated different, as their spokespeople say they do, they would at least clothe themselves before marching on the streets. If straight people did the same thing, it would be called perverted and they'd be thrown in jail for parading naked in front of kids. Welcome to the double standard of gay activism.
Spinks - come on, please, you forgot my favourite one... about homosexuality being a public health hazard. Please, give us a diatribe on that one, too!
Oh, please spinks no need to say your sorry. you haven't written anything more than you did before. Not to say that you haven't said more. just more of the same social neo-conservative drivel that you did the first time. I am pleased that at least so far your not complaining about having it "shoved down your throat" and there was only one hint of a conspiracy. For the cooperative minded that pretty darn good! You do seem to be especially proud of the French and that's nice.
You paint a lovely picture of the perfect family. In fact I think I recognize that one. Wasn't that Leave it to Beaver or was it Father Knows Best? I just can't keep those perfect 50's fantasies straight. How about dealing with the real world for a change.
If you don't feel comfortable around Gay and Lesbians that O.K spinks. That's nothing to be ashamed of. Lots of things make people uncomfortable but they make do and still live a pretty normal life. Heck I am rather uncomfortable around Right Wing Christian Fundamentalist Conservatives but I manage. I suppose I could list lots of unsupported reasons why they should be banned just like you do here spinks. I bet the French might help on that, after all they are one of the most secular societies around. But the bottom line is (just like you and gay marriage) I just don't like them. Fortunately for both groups that feeling and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee.
So I will ask you again What is more "potentially detrimental" to kids, loving parents regardless of what sex or Broken families. Is an abusive parent better or worse or about equal to a gay couple on the potentially detrimental list? Is a single mother trying to raise her kids on her own potentially detrimental because of the missing father figure? How about a child that is simply ignored by his parents (for what ever reason)? How do you justify allowing children to be raised in these potentially detrimental conditions? Because they always have? Life is potentially detrimental spinks stop trying to use it as an excuse for things you don't agree with.
The fact is spinks even though you say " you need to show that the changes will either improve society or at least not be detrimental" you have already made up you mind and I doubt any study results would make much difference. That that you made that decision based on your own personal feelings and not on any actual facts or proofs is fine as long as you don't pretend otherwise.
Gee can I? I'm stating the obvious but for some reason there are those who don't want to admit it. Anal sex is riskier health wise due to...well...let's be honest, nature didn't design the human being to stick things in there. If that's unfair, talk to Mother Nature. There's simply a greater chance of disease. That's why AIDS still by and large (although not exclusively) affects gay men the most. I understand why that's not said because you can get a lot mor public support to fight a disease that affects everyone but it doesn't. I've never met anyone who's in a relationship with someone who neither one sleeps around and neither one shares drug needles that has AIDS. It just doesn't happen. If people would take some responsibility, we could actually beat this thing. They don't, and here we are with an epidemic. People don't like to hear that and I understand because it means changing a lifestyle and taking some personal responsibility instead of blaming government, society or a bully from 25 years ago that picked on you but personal responsibility would fix a great many societal woes. If two people want to have gay sex, that's their choice but take some responsibility and don't try to pass off to the kids that it has no risks. It does and those risks are higher.
Sorry D. Stewart, the time delay Charles has means your post wasn't there when I posted the last response.
You have a pretty common argument. Isn't it better for a child to be with two loving men or women than with an abusive family? Of course, but that's taking one extreme and comparing it to another extreme. There are lots of kids out there without a mom and dad perhaps through divorce, or death. That doesn't mean that we as a society set them up on purpose to not have one or another, but that's exactly what same-sex marriage potentially does. We say as a society that a mom or a dad is irrelavant for a child's development. That is simply not true.
A common argument but all that's really needed for the common misconception that your trying hard to perpetuate spinks. You spend all your time talking possibilities and potentials about something you really have no proof of yet shrug of the obvious and conclusive when it comes to what is really detrimental to children. We could only wish that child abuse was an extreme and uncommon action. While your child welfare concerns are touching it is in fact just another "common argument" used by those who oppose same sex marriage. There's nothing like the spectre of unsubstantiated things to come to spread ones ideas. If you not in favour of same sex marriage so be it. But don't pretend your concerned about children's welfare when in fact its just all about your personal beliefs. Yes Charles I think you are right this is getting a little off topic. The Kingclear training school wasn't " potentially detrimental" after all it was the real thing.
We always want to think a person in power would not harm kids at Kingsclear. It saddens me when they tell their stories for decades and nothing much has been done. It is known that Hatfield did pick up some kids in his Bricklin and they described it but they couldnot find it; it was stored in the museum. He died a little to quick; before he could of been disclosed. They said he died of pneumonia; the province should of done a total investigation and stop protecting the people who had prestige. Average people would be dragged through the courts; no matter how many years passed. Toft is scum for not being a least remorseful and never exposing the truth and all people involved. He should not have freedom; the victims certainly don't with so many issues holding them back.
This had many involved like police, guards, politicians. This abuse is worse then losing an arm or leg. You take their soul, their self esteem; there ablitity to trust.
THIS NOT SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE IGNORED; MANY HAVE DIED WHO SHOULD OF BEEN CHARGED.
NO ONE WHO WAS IN THERE DESERVED THIS ABUSE.
How can the people who knew what was going on and those who are still walking around with the facts sleep at night! They were children and no one should of touch them, torture, and worst of all this didn't just happen once. Night after night, month after month and for some year after year.
So it wasn't your child it should not lessen the hurt these young people had to endure. Knowing how these perverts think and behave; you would think that things would of improved. All children are all wanting for someone to care for them and some didn't have a family. Poor or rich, good looking or not; they all deserve the respect. It still not too late to help these people; Canada and NB owes them that.
Our society is a very sick one if we turn our backs again.
Time does not heal this hurt.
How can people be so ignorant? What happen to these children is tragic. Making light of it sickens me.
If two people want to have sex and they are not forced and they are the age of consent there is nothing wrong.
This is not what happened at Kingsclear.
It may be not something that invoved you and your family but if it did you may see the pain that is so servere. Thankful that not everyone thinks in a box.
Straight or gay it does not matter as long no one is forced and they are of the age of consent. If people want something different who are we to judge.
I do hope the real truth does come out but in the mean time the government run place deserves to compensate each and every child right now.
Tired of funding the Politicians and their Billionaire friends.
You're right DS, I'm not in favour of same-sex marriage it and I've given my reasons why.
Rarely do I ever hear anyone present arguments for same-sex marriages except that like you said, only "right-wing Christian fundamentalists" could possibly oppose it. As I've pointed out there are reasons beyond religion. to oppose it. It's a complicated issue and one our previous Liberal government should have at least looked at.
Anyway, like a lot of people, probably the majority who oppose it aren't "homophobes" (which means a person is scared of homosexuals, I doubt very many actually are). They "tolerate" it for lack of a better term but they like myself don't condone it. This really gets proponents like some of the posters here riled up. They want everyone to condone the activity and it drives them nuts when someone does and as you can see the first thing done is to name-call to try to shut the person up. Sadly that tactic has worked rather well.
2:49 - you're right, anal sex is not solely a gay activity. Do as you wish, but it is equally risky from a medical standpoint. Groups like AIDS NB and the like won't say that because then it would be different and might not be "condoned" as freely. We can't have that, can we? :)
spinks, now be fair I gave you plenty or reasons why your particular argument about child development was wrong and not one had anything to do with calling you or anyone else a right-wing Christian fundamentalist. All I actually said was I was that I probably feel the same about them as you do about Gays. Heck spinks I was actually trying to show how I empathize with how you seem to feel on this particular topic of gay marriage. You know, just to let you know I understand. I've never actually asked but do in fact all fundamentalists oppose same sex marriage? I couldn't say for sure myself and regardless would never use it in an argument to try and justify it. That would be silly. You just must have simply read it wrong or possible assumed too much. So, as I did say earlier if your not in favour of same sex marriage so be it. I guess I'll just have to disagree with you. On a positive note 10 or 15 years down the road you might have some actual data that proves or disproves your "potentially detrimental" theory of same sex marriage. I'll see you then!
Hopefully I'm not or it will obviously be too late. That's why I point out the risks of toying with something so important to family. You can't go back. Our former Liberal Masters unfortunately had no foresight and didn't want to look down the road. Kudos to you though DS, at least you're thinking about the future and recognizing the possibility my points might be valid.
That is the least that I can do spinks as I am pleased to see that your considering or at least hoping that I am indeed right. That of course doesn't mean if asked tomorrow my opinion on same sex marriage I'd not have the slightest hesitation in agreeing with it for in fact I don't think your even close on this one. I am just human enough to think there has to be statistically speaking at least a remote chance your concerns could in fact be justified. (I think on further reflection 10 to 15 years is actually way too soon to actually know if same sex marriage had any positive or negative effect on child rearing) You would need at least a generation to have any meaningful data. Not that I don't fully expect more than a few to try and in fact I suspect already have.
If you guys want to make it an isuue gay or straight fine but this not the subject it is about the abuse of children who could not defend themselves.
As long as it wasn't your son! Heartless people who are just bad when they do nothing when they know it is going on.
If you only knew you wouldn't make light of this. Horrid, disgusting and forever changing their lives. Maybe one day people will understand and rightfully compensate all victims. Stop denying what happen and expect them to relive it over and over.
Post a Comment