Fred wrote:

Ken Chaddock wrote:

Fred wrote:

Seriously, Bob, either I'm missing something,

You are clearly "missing something" Fred. I'll give you an example
from Canada. This is quite well documented. About 10 years ago a woman
named Chantell Leduc took a case all the way to the Supreme Court Of
Canada. She claimed that it was unfair that she would have to pay
income tax on child support money since, theoretically the money is
for the support of the child...even though she gets to spend it
however she likes without any requirement to prove that she spent it
for the support of the child. She won, the SCofC agreed and struck
down that portion of the Income Tax Act.

Ah yes, the Supreme Court of Canada, the body that ruled that it is
legal to force workers into retirement at age 65 even though it is
unconstitutional, thus institutionalizing age discrimination in Canada.
See McKinney v. University of Guelph.


Apparently *ANOTHER* case where you are shooting your mouth off without
knowing what you are talking about...do you even *know* what the SCofC
reference was about or even *read* the decision ? I ask because if you
had you either are blatantly misrepresenting the case or are just plain
stupid as a bag of hammers.
Just to explain it to you and those others who might be looking in a nd
laughing at you...the McKinney V University of Guelph wasn't about
forced retirement, though that was the cause of the SCofC reference, the
reference specifically asked the Court to resolve 5 constitutional
questions...mandatory retirement wasn't one of those since mandatory
retirement in the public sector in Canada *IS* illegal. The five
questions all boiled down to "Are universities, defacto, part of the
government or are they private sector institutions" if the court had
found that they were part of the government, their mandatory retirement
policies would have been illegal. The Court ruled on all five points
that universities ARE NOT part of the government and, in exactly the
same way as the US Constitution and Bill of Rights DOES NOT apply to the
US private sector, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not
apply to Universities in Canada...

So I will have to keep reminding myself that you are in Canada, and
subject to the arbitrary nature of Canadian law and a Charter of Rights
and Freedoms that isn't worth a bucket of warm spit.

This from a man who lives in a nation where everyday millions of men
and children have their rights under their own Constitution and Bill of
Rights violated in favour of women...humm

or y'all are not communicating something, or y'all really do not give
a damn about the welfare of the child.


Actually *we* care a hell of a lot MORE about the welfare of the
children that the courts who don't even care whether the custodial
parent even spends the CS money for the benefit of the child.
My brother-in-law (by his 2nd marriage) had the experience of
going to court with well documented evidence that his ex-wife was
using the CS money he was paying to support his 3 sons to take her
latest "boy toy" n a two week southern vacation each year. She so
poorly supported the boys that he had to buy their clothes and pay for
their school supplies out of his own pocket even though these expenses
were supposed to have been covered by the CS. When he presented his
irrefutable evidence, the judge curtly told him it was none of the
courts (or his !) business HOW his ex-wife spent the CS money because
it was HERS !

Now tell me how *those* inconvenient facts fit into your nice
"theory" of parental responsibility ?

They fit in a societal context, which, after all, is the context in
which we live, each in our own society. Because it is society, after
all, which sets the norms we are to follow, including those of
responsibility and accountability.

Ah, so what you're saying is that it's OK to discriminate against men
because that's the "context" in which we live...humm.
I agree that this is the context in which we live, the difference
between you and I is that *I* don't agree that it is right, just or even
constitutional and want to see it changed while you are content to live
with your chains...

In your society, in which your highest court enshrines unconstitutional
acts as being legal, it does not surprise me to learn that norms of
responsibility and accountability in the raising of children have been
corrupted by that same court.

You really should do some research on the topics you wish to spout off
about before you (figuratively) open your mouth and insert you
foot...again...there aren't many on these NGs who suffer fools gladly,
except perhaps for the comic relief...which, I must say, you supply a
plenty... :-)

....Ken