Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: Novabonker on October 25, 2015, 09:25:35 PM
-
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/teen-soccer-player-muzzled-1.3285181
"You can find another program to play in or choose to do a different sport," says Roberts.( Marine Harvest spokesman )
Nice! Tow our line or get lost. Sad to see free speech being muzzled by the farm crew. Disgusting, reprehensible and gutless.
-
So glad you brought this up, NB. I was eagerly waiting.
Free speech being muzzled? Hardly? When individuals decide to play in organized amateur sports there are rules of conduct. Marine Harvest is the sponsor of this soccer team so it does relate to soccer. You can't do what the Reeds are doing. Amateur hockey, basketball and football are not any different. Not earth-shattering. It's funny to see this on Alexandra Morton's blog. So many clueless people on there....
However, when Anissa Reed says her opinions and social media comments on fish farming have nothing to do with soccer then why even raise them in that arena. In my opinion parents like her should keep the comments on soccer and not on a political agenda that has nothing to do with the development of these young people into future athletes. Go protest somewhere else.
Originally, it was about wearing the brand on the uniform, promotional photos and fundraising efforts so the association bent over for Freyja and said that she didn't have to comply with that (so she doesn't have to promote Marine Harvest). Basically, she was essentially given special treatment to accommodate her beliefs. In return, the association reasonably asked that the Reeds refrain from criticism of Marine Harvest's sponsorship on social media. It has nothing to do with Freyja telling her friends why she isn't at a team event - it's about using social media to do what they are doing now. Freyja was given a choice - she wasn't denied the opportunity to be with her teammates. She decided that her beliefs were more important....ok...so now she should honour that choice because the association did it's part to accommodate her without her driving hours somewhere else to play.
The Reed's got their wish.....Their daughter didn't have to wear the branding that they objected due to their beliefs. However, they kept wanting to slam the sponsor. Well that goes beyond their original objections. I don't blame the association for putting their foot down. Basically the Reed's opposition has less to with the branding and more with forwarding an agenda of anti-fish farming in the arena of amateur sport. They also were given the option of having their money back or finding a different program. She could even do a different sport.
Personally, it is unfair to the other players on the team that may not hold the same views as the Reeds yet they are dragged into this. Sponsorship helps pay needed training, jerseys, travel, coaching, etc. Perhaps the other players and their parent appreciate the support from Marine Harvest; however, they do not dare speak against the Reeds or they will be targets on this Facebook page also like other opponents to their beliefs. But of course the Reeds do not consider that at all - it's more about them right now and their plight. That's pretty selfish. And they are on their soapbox screaming about no rights and being muzzled. Laughable...lol.
-
The constitution disagrees with you
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
They're muzzled if she wants to play soccer Brian. Play your word games as you wish, but it's a simple case of shut up if you want to play soccer. But allow me to look at your reasoning......
So glad you brought this up, NB. I was eagerly waiting.
Free speech being muzzled? Hardly? When individuals decide to play in organized amateur sports there are rules of conduct. Marine Harvest is the sponsor of this soccer team so it does relate to soccer. You can't do what the Reeds are doing. Amateur hockey, basketball and football are not any different. Not earth-shattering. It's funny to see this on Alexandra Morton's blog. So many clueless people on there....
So you're saying that the rules of soccer associations overrides the constitution? Sure .
However, when Anissa Reed says her opinions and social media comments on fish farming have nothing to do with soccer then why even raise them in that arena. In my opinion parents like her should keep the comments on soccer and not on a political agenda that has nothing to do with the development of these young people into future athletes. Go protest somewhere else.
Because it's her opinion Brian. Last time I checked, they were legal to have and express.
Originally, it was about wearing the brand on the uniform, promotional photos and fundraising efforts so the association bent over for Freyja and said that she didn't have to comply with that (so she doesn't have to promote Marine Harvest). Basically, she was essentially given special treatment to accommodate her beliefs. In return, the association reasonably asked that the Reeds refrain from criticism of Marine Harvest's sponsorship on social media.
Let's simplify- Shut up or get out.
It has nothing to do with Freyja telling her friends why she isn't at a team event - it's about using social media to do what they are doing now. Freyja was given a choice - she wasn't denied the opportunity to be with her teammates. She decided that her beliefs were more important....ok...so now she should honour that choice because the association did it's part to accommodate her without her driving hours somewhere else to play.
If they don't shut up we'll punish them. It may look like we're donating money to soccer, but we should get good PR and silence dissent.
The Reed's got their wish.....Their daughter didn't have to wear the branding that they objected due to their beliefs. However, they kept wanting to slam the sponsor. Well that goes beyond their original objections. I don't blame the association for putting their foot down. Basically the Reed's opposition has less to with the branding and more with forwarding an agenda of anti-fish farming in the arena of amateur sport. They also were given the option of having their money back or finding a different program. She could even do a different sport.
Yep - We all wish to be told to shut up if we don't agree with something- just like you're doing now.
"You can find another program to play in or choose to do a different sport," says Roberts.( Marine Harvest spokesman )
Shut up or go elsewhere. Nice way to treat kids - Classy!
Personally, it is unfair to the other players on the team that may not hold the same views as the Reeds yet they are dragged into this. Sponsorship helps pay needed training, jerseys, travel, coaching, etc. Perhaps the other players and their parent appreciate the support from Marine Harvest; however, they do not dare speak against the Reeds or they will be targets on this Facebook page also like other opponents to their beliefs. But of course the Reeds do not consider that at all - it's more about them right now and their plight. That's pretty selfish. And they are on their soapbox screaming about no rights and being muzzled. Laughable...lol.
Sure Brian, carry on..... :o (BTW- You can call me Bill if you like ;)
-
https://books.google.ca/books?id=LtmvAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA135&lpg=PA135&dq=social+engineering+through+amatuer+sports&source=bl&ots=5CouA1vEYm&sig=nTHUY4ymTDCCgSLIj8lJGhMybVQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAmoVChMIpMP5m67gyAIVzymICh0DpQan#v=onepage&q=social%20engineering%20through%20amatuer%20sports&f=false
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_%28political_science%29
-
Not a lot of responses Nova, perhaps they read Fisherbob's post yesterday ;)
http://www.alaskasalmonranching.com/corporate-branding-and-a-soccer-moms-awesome-fail/
-
The constitution disagrees with you
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
They're muzzled if she wants to play soccer Brian. Play your word games as you wish, but it's a simple case of shut up if you want to play soccer. But allow me to look at your reasoning......
Sorry, but you don’t understand what that part of the constitution was intended for. That part of the charter is not carte blanche for an individual to say and do as they wish. As the link says below – it is not absolute. Two of the most notable cases were Ernst Zundel and James Keegstra who were charged for promoting hatred against Jewish people. Although both tried to argue that their views were protected by the charter – the courts saw it differently and for good reason because it was found to infringe on the rights of those they were impacting. In addition, spreading obscenity and pornography would not be protected by that part of the charter nor would slander and libel. Although some of these are on the extreme end of the spectrum it goes to show that the Section 1 is not a licence to say what you want all the time.
However, let’s look at other more familiar examples where a Section 1 challenge would not be very advisable like internet fish forms or online newspaper blogs. Forums such as this have a code of conduct that members agree to abide by when they register. These rules are meant to discourage members from using these boards to promote personal business as well as protect members from bullying, personal attacks, intimidation and offensive language. Thus, if members attempt to do any these things they can have their posts deleted or edited without their consent, or in some cases have their membership terminated ;) . Members can express their views, but there are restrictions and they are reasonable to most people I would think.
In the case of amateur sports, there really is no difference – there are rules of conduct that participants abide when they sign up. When they sign up they are agreeing to those rules. Again, this is not something new – every amateur sport association has rules of conduct. In this particular case, the conduct of this soccer association states (as it said in the CBC news article) any parent who engages in negative comments in social networks, texts, emails, website blogs, correspondence, bullying, gossip, misinformation, intimidation or any other activity as related to soccer is subject to discipline. Marine Harvest is sponsor of this soccer team so it relates to soccer. Do you believe that any other sport association, at the amateur or professional level, would permit its players or the parents of those individuals to bully and intimidate their sponsors in social media? That’s not reasonable at all. The charter was not intended to protect people from engaging in that sort of behaviour and I would highly doubt that the Reeds would have leg to stand on if they pursued it in court. The Reeds can express their opinions on Marine Harvest, but not through the soccer association because it’s not the place to do (what the association is saying).
This is a decision from the soccer association – not Marine Harvest. I find it strange that critics are blaming Marine Harvest when they really have nothing to do with enforcing these rules. The question that should really be asked now is why is Freyja still playing on this particular soccer team, clearly benefiting from the financial resources Marine Harvest is putting into training and coaching, if she and her mother have these objections to Marine Harvest as a sponsor? Seems kind of hypocritical to me because if this sponsor goes against everything they believe in then one would think they would choose a different team, league or sport.
Personally, I don’t buy the argument from the Reeds that they have little choice to comply because there is a choice, but they chose not to exercise it. Freyja is not being denied to play soccer. The issue is that the Reeds want their cake and eat it too. The Reeds are not the only family that had to drive their kids distances to play sports. An hour or slightly more than that is not an extreme burden, but again the Reeds have to weigh that against their beliefs. In this case, they chose that the travel was too much, but that was their choice. Others on the team likely didn’t get the same treatment that Freyja is getting by being exempted from certain functions and wearing branding. It is also not reasonable for the soccer association to customize the optimal environment for every participant playing which takes into consideration their pet peeves, political views, likes and dislikes. Like I said before, there are other people on the team to consider which the Reeds are ignoring. That’s selfish. Just because the choices are limited in the eyes of the Reeds doesn’t necessarily equate to them being disadvantaged in reality.
http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=20181.0
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/just/06.html
-
I don't get how you guys are justifying a corporate sponsor for muzzling people, who 'have an agenda'. Does everyone who speaks up about problematic business/environmental practices have an agenda? I'm a little confused.
It sounds a lot like Harper talking about people concerned about the pipelines and tankers dotting our coast as all radicals with an 'agenda'.
How do we figure out those who have an 'agenda' versus those who don't? Please clarify.
Also the fish farming company should have known that putting themselves out into the community in such a way was going to get backlash, and actually probably make them look even worse with their attempt to muzzle. Why do companies make so many bad PR moves? Like those stupid Enbridge adds that ran for weeks showing fly fishermen and nature. Totally useless PR that actually makes people question why they would do this. This is the internet era people aren't dumb. They can look up all the problems with many different things with a click of a button.
-
My question is, how did the news media find out about this issue? Did "mommy" get in touch with the media to cause this issue? There are a number of untruths in the news article.
The young lady advised her team that she was not able to attend the boating excursion as she had a previous engagement. There was no plan to visit a Marine Harvest farm on that trip. It just happened that the operator of the boat advised the team that there was a farm close by and would they like to see it.
It became a photo op for Marine Harvest and the team. How does that become a story that the young lady refused to attend the trip to a fish farm owned by the new sponsor?
How is it that the media was given information as to when and where the team was playing their games? Seems to me "mommy" is using her daughter to advance her own agenda.
I have been against fish farms on the B.C. coast prior to any being constructed, but to use a 14 year old as this "mommy" is doing is criminal.
"Mommy" was advised that she and her daughter were breaking the rules of the soccer league and to stop or go away. So "mommy" decided what she was going to do.
What about the "TEAM"? There is no "I" in team.
-
I don't get how you guys are justifying a corporate sponsor for muzzling people, who 'have an agenda'. Does everyone who speaks up about problematic business/environmental practices have an agenda? I'm a little confused.
It sounds a lot like Harper talking about people concerned about the pipelines and tankers dotting our coast as all radicals with an 'agenda'.
How do we figure out those who have an 'agenda' versus those who don't? Please clarify.
Also the fish farming company should have known that putting themselves out into the community in such a way was going to get backlash, and actually probably make them look even worse with their attempt to muzzle. Why do companies make so many bad PR moves? Like those stupid Enbridge adds that ran for weeks showing fly fishermen and nature. Totally useless PR that actually makes people question why they would do this. This is the internet era people aren't dumb. They can look up all the problems with many different things with a click of a button.
First, Marine Harvest is not muzzling anyone. This policy is from the soccer association and they enforce their rules.
Second, you talk about an "agenda" by Marine Harvest, but Marine Harvest isn't the first company to sponsor a sports team - professional or amateur. Does that mean that Molson Canadian doesn't have an "agenda" at hockey games or sport franchises it supports? What about Bell, Telus, Wal-Mart or McDonalds? When companys sponsor teams they typically advertise at events the team plays such as a logo on a jersey or in team advertising. Not a new or unreasonable concept. It's because the sponsor is Marine Harvest that this one particular family is making a stink. If it where another company they would not be so opposed to branding.
Lastly, you make it seem like everyone is in the community and the team is against Marine Harvest as a sponsor. Is this more of your own perception or what you have gauged from Alexandra Morton's blog (which is a poll of the choir really)?
-
Not a lot of responses Nova, perhaps they read Fisherbob's post yesterday ;)
http://www.alaskasalmonranching.com/corporate-branding-and-a-soccer-moms-awesome-fail/
143 looks Dave. One person stopping long enough to think about it is a win. Does anyone but you and Brian read Bob's posts anymore?
Exactly swimmingwiththefishes. Don't say anything and here's a reward. Speak your conscience and get kicked to the curb. To loosely quote Vic Teows - you're either with us or you're with child molesters.
Steve you're really stretching things by comparing this to holocaust deniers. Pretty thin gruel. I think the soccer association would do well to look for a less controversial sponsor."individuals to bully and intimidate their sponsors in social media?" So who's the bully Steve? A child and her mother that hold views shared by a lot of people or the corporation(through the soccer association) that wants them to shut up or get out? Did you skip the part where the Mh official said to shup or go elsewhere or doesn't that suit you?
While you may not believe the Marine Harvest has anything to do with this( I've got a nice piece of Saskatchewan ocean front for you), then why give if there's strings attached? I donate lots of time and energy to amateur rugby, but if someone badmouths my business, I'm not going to tell them to go away or I'll shut my wallet
Yeah Steve - all soccer moms are holocaust deniers. ::) :o
-
143 looks Dave. One person stopping long enough to think about it is a win. Does anyone but you and Brian read Bob's posts anymore?
Exactly swimmingwiththefishes. Don't say anything and here's a reward. Speak your conscience and get kicked to the curb. To loosely quote Vic Teows - you're either with us or you're with child molesters.
Steve you're really stretching things by comparing this to holocaust deniers. Pretty thin gruel. I think the soccer association would do well to look for a less controversial sponsor."individuals to bully and intimidate their sponsors in social media?" So who's the bully Steve? A child and her mother that hold views shared by a lot of people or the corporation(through the soccer association) that wants them to shut up or get out? Did you skip the part where the Mh official said to shup or go elsewhere or doesn't that suit you?
While you may not believe the Marine Harvest has anything to do with this( I've got a nice piece of Saskatchewan ocean front for you), then why give if there's strings attached? I donate lots of time and energy to amateur rugby, but if someone badmouths my business, I'm not going to tell them to go away or I'll shut my wallet
Yeah Steve - all soccer moms are holocaust deniers. ::) :o
If you had read what I wrote I clearly stated that some were extreme examples, but nonetheless show that the Chapter 1 is not a licence to say whatever you want and whenever. It doesn't work that way. However, I also showed more everyday examples (such as this forum) which are totally reasonable and where arguing the charter would be kind of futile, in my opinion. If you disagree, go fight it in court and see where you get. That would be the test right there.
No one is getting "kick to the curb"...lol! That is a very big over exaggeration of the situation.
As for skipping parts you haven't touched the fact that there are other players on the team that may not share the views of the Reeds. What if they support Marine Harvest as a sponsor?
Why give it there are no strings attached? Do you understand commercial sponsorship, NB? As for rugby, what your particular association decides it wants to tolerate is up to them, but these codes of conduct are not unusual in amateur sport.
-
The kid is 14.
You know the world is in a sad state when a 14 year old who wants to play a sport is being told off because she disagrees with a sponsor. Obviously the league doesn't have their priorities in the right spot if thats the case.
-
The simple solution is for the anti farm people start their own sponsorship program. Should be no problem to come up with $10,000 or $20,000 and with any luck half of the team will be from families that work at farms and we can see how far their definition of free speech goes.
I can't imagine an organization that would allow criticism of one of their backbone sponsors. Try criticizing Rods sponsors and see how long you last.
Especially for someone that was parachuted into their catchment area.
It is a weird world where a company that sponsors minor sports to this extent is criticized and vilified for donating money. If this girl came to Comox to play soccer as claimed , one reason that the organization is so desirable is because it is well funded.
-
The simple solution is for the anti farm people start their own sponsorship program. Should be no problem to come up with $10,000 or $20,000 and with any luck half of the team will be from families that work at farms and we can see how far their definition of free speech goes.
I can't imagine an organization that would allow criticism of one of their backbone sponsors. Try criticizing Rods sponsors and see how long you last.
Especially for someone that was parachuted into their catchment area.
It is a weird world where a company that sponsors minor sports to this extent is criticized and vilified for donating money. If this girl came to Comox to play soccer as claimed , one reason that the organization is so desirable is because it is well funded.
You got your wish and good for Willie.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/teen-soccer-player-muzzled-1.3287555
-
Well Dave, it seems that there's a few more comments and more interest than you thought....... ;) Good on Willie!
Steve, if you're that naive to believe that Marine Harvest had nothing to do with this, reconsider the Saskatchewan ocean front property I was telling you about. Holocaust deniers verses a young girl's opinion on phish pharms. I'm still laughing at you for that weak and, well, pathetic defence. (See Marine Harvest's response about this issue)Too funny, you just can't make that stuff up.
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t82/Willy1956/f1cb3213249c849827956a72442401f6.jpg_zpsroo7jaoy.gif) (http://s158.photobucket.com/user/Willy1956/media/f1cb3213249c849827956a72442401f6.jpg_zpsroo7jaoy.gif.html)
Pros don't speak out? Read this...
http://news.nationalpost.com/sports/nhl/florida-panthers-captain-willie-mitchell-not-a-fan-of-glenn-healys-analysis
-
Just another tempest in a tea pot, stirred by two anti salmon farmers, Nova :D Too bad that's all they have to further their cause. My guess is this will forgotten quickly.
-
Wow. can't honestly believe that people think corporate sponsorship in youth sports trumps providing youth with a chance to partake in a league. I don't care if it is house or rep, the only person this hurts is the players.
I was 12 when my coach in baseball left me off the lineup by accident. The other team complained and I had to sit out. Yes this was competitive ball, but I wanted to play, not sit and watch. It is not like it was a championship game in provincials either. It was a round robin game in a spring league tournament.
That was 9 years ago. What I learned from that incident is that people easily lose sight of the major reason why sport leagues exist, and thats for the youth who get the chance to play the sport because of it. What reading the recent string of responses is, thats been cemented. People are getting their knickers in a twist because a youth disagrees with the sponsor of the league, so what. Work around it and try to get the best option sorted. The main factor here is politics are getting involved in youth sports, but you guys are argueing about fish farms again.
Politics have no place in youth sports, as the only losers are the players.
-
I agree with clark. Nickers all in a knot at the expense of the players and I would only blame the mother for grandstanding her daughter to further her interests, although it would seem that the daughter is willing to participate in this process. Most people would make a choice, not make a stink and leave or stay and suck it up for the team, both choices show integrity imho.
-
Wow. can't honestly believe that people think corporate sponsorship in youth sports trumps providing youth with a chance to partake in a league. I don't care if it is house or rep, the only person this hurts is the players.
I was 12 when my coach in baseball left me off the lineup by accident. The other team complained and I had to sit out. Yes this was competitive ball, but I wanted to play, not sit and watch. It is not like it was a championship game in provincials either. It was a round robin game in a spring league tournament.
That was 9 years ago. What I learned from that incident is that people easily lose sight of the major reason why sport leagues exist, and thats for the youth who get the chance to play the sport because of it. What reading the recent string of responses is, thats been cemented. People are getting their knickers in a twist because a youth disagrees with the sponsor of the league, so what. Work around it and try to get the best option sorted. The main factor here is politics are getting involved in youth sports, but you guys are argueing about fish farms again.
Politics have no place in youth sports, as the only losers are the players.
Funny that you say that politics has no place in sports as you chastise an organization that agrees with you.
-
Funny that you say that politics has no place in sports as you chastise an organization that agrees with you.
Umm excuse me? Explain how the organization agrees with me.
-
Wow. can't honestly believe that people think corporate sponsorship in youth sports trumps providing youth with a chance to partake in a league. I don't care if it is house or rep, the only person this hurts is the players.
I was 12 when my coach in baseball left me off the lineup by accident. The other team complained and I had to sit out. Yes this was competitive ball, but I wanted to play, not sit and watch. It is not like it was a championship game in provincials either. It was a round robin game in a spring league tournament.
That was 9 years ago. What I learned from that incident is that people easily lose sight of the major reason why sport leagues exist, and thats for the youth who get the chance to play the sport because of it. What reading the recent string of responses is, thats been cemented. People are getting their knickers in a twist because a youth disagrees with the sponsor of the league, so what. Work around it and try to get the best option sorted. The main factor here is politics are getting involved in youth sports, but you guys are argueing about fish farms again.
Politics have no place in youth sports, as the only losers are the players.
I agree with you also – politics have no place in youth sports. That’s why the Reeds should stop this vendetta and concentrate on soccer. As for arguing about fish farms again I know I haven’t because it’s not relevant here. The sponsor could be a candy store or a firearm manufacturer. If anyone is bringing in the fish farm thing here it’s Alexandra Morton supporters on her Facebook page and the Reeds themselves. With this situation, you are wrong about corporate sponsorship in youth sports trumping youth from participating. Get your facts straight. Freyja is not being trumped by anyone. She is able to play soccer – no one is preventing her from playing. She can play for her present team, another team, in another league or another sport. She and her mother are the authors of their own misfortune. Again, like most amateur sport associations there are codes of conduct that all participants and their parents are supposed to follow. Here is some responsible reporting on the issue:
http://globalnews.ca/news/2297729/fish-farm-at-centre-of-dispute-between-comox-teen-and-her-soccer-team/
Here is an important piece in that news article:
The chair of Riptide’s steering committee says the social media posts violated their code of conduct.
The code states “off field activities such as negative comments in social networks, texts, emails, websites blogs, correspondence, bullying, gossip, misinformation, intimidation or any other such activity as related to soccer and the Riptide/Storm program is subject to discipline whether directed at an individual participant, team or impacting the good of the game. Concerns should be brought forward to the coaching staff first and to the steering committee, secondly, if a concern has not been addressed. Violations of parent conduct will be dealt with using the UISA three strike policy. More serious offences meriting discipline in accordance with BCSA policies and procedures may result in extended suspension from all BCSA-organized soccer.”
As for players getting hurt, well it’s happening now. The team is now suspended. Special thanks goes out to Annisa Reed and her daughter for not considering the other players on the team and instead merely thinking of their own self interests – which is about politics and not soccer. It seems like the Reed’s beliefs trump the rights of the other youth on the team. Pure selfishness.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-island-soccer-club-suspended-1.3289999
-
Well Dave, it seems that there's a few more comments and more interest than you thought....... ;) Good on Willie!
Steve, if you're that naive to believe that Marine Harvest had nothing to do with this, reconsider the Saskatchewan ocean front property I was telling you about. Holocaust deniers verses a young girl's opinion on phish pharms. I'm still laughing at you for that weak and, well, pathetic defence. (See Marine Harvest's response about this issue)Too funny, you just can't make that stuff up.
Actually it was you that made the comparison between the Reeds and Nazi sympathizers. I know it’s because you are a little upset that I found flaws in your Freedom of Expression argument. Sorry, I was just trying to help. I am glad you are able to laugh as you seem to have a great deal of aggression on these forums. Was the “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest” image supposed to show a different side of you?
-
Sorry, but you don’t understand what that part of the constitution was intended for. That part of the charter is not carte blanche for an individual to say and do as they wish. As the link says below – it is not absolute. Two of the most notable cases were Ernst Zundel and James Keegstra who were charged for promoting hatred against Jewish people.
http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=20181.0
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/just/06.html
Um, Steve - read that part of your quote where you bring up Keegstra and Zundel in reference. At the very least , you should own your "statements" or comparisons and not try to paint me with your natty brush.
"Actually it was you that made the comparison between the Reeds and Nazi sympathizers. I know it’s because you are a little upset that I found flaws in your Freedom of Expression argument.(self explanatory) Sorry, I was just trying to help. I am glad you are able to laugh as you seem to have a great deal of aggression on these forums. (And you're a choirboy by compaison?) Was the “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest” image supposed to show a different side of you?" Nope. Just had to accentuate how ridiculous your Keegsta - Zundel bafflegab was. It was hilarious and ridiculous at the same time.I doubt you intended to be anything but serious, but you can be pretty funny.
-
At least Willie's got it right 8)
http://www.ctvnews.ca/sports/nhler-speaks-out-for-b-c-teen-who-opposes-soccer-team-sponsor-1.2627464
-
Well I hope Mommy takes a close look at willie's money. Surely Willies not complaining about his income source why would he. Take a look at the owner of his team. Speed trading American Self made billionaire Vincent Viola. I suspect according to mommy's standards that there would be a lot of unacceptable funds from such a source. Of course they will say that it is strictly a fish farm thing but I don't believe it for one moment.
-
http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/sports/b-c-teen-kicked-off-girls-soccer-team-over-sponsorship-spat-1.2632883
-
Key words in the the decision to kick that kid off the team:
after receiving feedback from teammates, their families and volunteers.
:-[ Oh gees nova those evil players, parents and volunteers.... :-[
Some how I suspect nova can and will not see the logic there. Oh well.
Insert: Demands for public enquiry>>>>HERE<<<<. Just wait for it, you know thats next.
-
"140 happy families and one crying activist."
-
Um, Steve - read that part of your quote where you bring up Keegstra and Zundel in reference. At the very least , you should own your "statements" or comparisons and not try to paint me with your natty brush.
"Actually it was you that made the comparison between the Reeds and Nazi sympathizers. I know it’s because you are a little upset that I found flaws in your Freedom of Expression argument.(self explanatory) Sorry, I was just trying to help. I am glad you are able to laugh as you seem to have a great deal of aggression on these forums. (And you're a choirboy by compaison?) Was the “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest” image supposed to show a different side of you?" Nope. Just had to accentuate how ridiculous your Keegsta - Zundel bafflegab was. It was hilarious and ridiculous at the same time.I doubt you intended to be anything but serious, but you can be pretty funny.
Oh boy...lol. It was brought up as an example of how Chapter 1 is not absolute and a licence to say what you want. That's what I own. What is hilarious is your ignorance of this when it doesn't have to be. You just needed to read up on it a bit more. Don't be in such a hurry to hit "Post". You took my comments out of context (nothing new...lol) and started suggesting that I was comparing the Reeds with Nazi sympathizers. I knew when I wrote it that you were going to do it, but it felt it was important for people to be informed of past case history regarding past charter challenges in court as well more familiar examples where the Freedom of Expression is not absolute like internet forums and amateur sport associations. Automatically, many started saying that Freyja Charter of Rights were being violated, but in reality they were not. You should know by now that when you post crap like that you should be prepared to be challenged on it.
-
when you post crap like that you should be prepared to be challenged on it.
Exactly why I challenged your comparison - it was ridiculous.
One of the members of my rugby club teaches law at UBC- and his opinion is that indeed this is an exercise in control and could be challenged in court. Now I never professed to be a legal expert, but what my friend says makes sense- the contract of the soccer association can't circumvent the constitution. He helped me in the past to collect money owed to my company by a strata council that claimed their "rules" circumvented the strata act. Their "rules" didn't and I collected what was due to me. Simply put, the family was expressing an opinion - which is their legal right. The actions taken by the soccer club could be subject to a legal challenge as a charter violation.Simply put, you can't make up rules that violate the charter of rights or other legislation, like it or not. Maybe I should get these 2 parties together....... ;) But please do regale us with your legal expertise Steve. :o
BTW - Good on Freyja for speaking up and her moral fortitude. This is exactly the type of young person that will become a future leader and not a sheep.
-
"A club news release said the decision was "collective" and based on feedback from players, families and volunteers."
So much for a majority vote. Is it your idea for mommy to take the kids, families, volunteers and league to court NB? LOL
Perhaps now the kids can get on with having fun while mommy and daughter continue on with their little crusade. If anything, mommy got free publicity on her T-shirt business.
-
It wasn't that long ago that you were threatening legal action over something said on the Internet and now you are a free speech crusader. What a reversal. You are a real hero.
-
Exactly why I challenged your comparison - it was ridiculous.
One of the members of my rugby club teaches law at UBC- and his opinion is that indeed this is an exercise in control and could be challenged in court. Now I never professed to be a legal expert, but what my friend says makes sense- the contract of the soccer association can't circumvent the constitution. He helped me in the past to collect money owed to my company by a strata council that claimed their "rules" circumvented the strata act. Their "rules" didn't and I collected what was due to me. Simply put, the family was expressing an opinion - which is their legal right. The actions taken by the soccer club could be subject to a legal challenge as a charter violation.Simply put, you can't make up rules that violate the charter of rights or other legislation, like it or not. Maybe I should get these 2 parties together....... ;) But please do regale us with your legal expertise Steve. :o
BTW - Good on Freyja for speaking up and her moral fortitude. This is exactly the type of young person that will become a future leader and not a sheep.
LMAO! You were the one doing the comparing. I was providing an example which is relevant because it was a challenge to the charter that was denied in court. You forgot that the charter is not absolute. Your lawyer friend should know that - you should know that...lol. Go challenge this in court by all means. Your lawyer friend should have advised you the cost going to court to fight this vs. the simpler solution by just going to a different team with a different sponsor. The association tried to meet the Reeds halfway by saying that Freyja didn't have to wear any branding that was associated with Marine Harvest. Instead, the Reeds have decided to take all the players on the team down this dismal path. They don't want Marine Harvest as sponsor - it's got nothing to do with branding.
It seems like parents of the other players, volunteers and coaches have spoken up against this selfishness. Where do their rights enter this or is it all about the Reed's getting their way to rid the team of Marine Harvest? Oh...that's right you don't want to touch that one...sorry. You don't think a court would take in consideration how this is impacting the association and the other players? Do you think a court would not take in consideration the comments on social media about the association, the sponsor and other parents that they don't agree with? So many do-gooders criticizing the soccer association, but not very many opening their pockets to sponsor ALL these players.
So when this forum censors members or kicks them off for breaking the rules are they circumventing the constitution? Why don't we all just start saying whatever we want? Where is your Freedom of Expression? Is this board controlling all of us too much? You're hilarious.
-
"A club news release said the decision was "collective" and based on feedback from players, families and volunteers."
So much for a majority vote. Is it your idea for mommy to take the kids, families, volunteers and league to court NB? LOL
Perhaps now the kids can get on with having fun while mommy and daughter continue on with their little crusade. If anything, mommy got free publicity on her T-shirt business.
Going to court isn't cheap. Finding an equitable solution which addressing the original concern which was wearing the branding and participating in events that involve the sponsor is. Does everyone get their way - maybe not but at least the kids can play soccer instead of having all this political stuff to deal with. The lame excuse from the Reeds was that going to another team involved a little better than an hour drive. So, it was deemed more appropriate to impact all the other players, volunteers and coaches. Apparently their rights don't count.
However, the Reeds wanted the sponsor kicked off the team - that what it was really about. The branding was just a distraction because Anissa has no problem putting her daughter in shirts that show her brand. Freyja continued playing on the team despite taking full advantage of the resources provided by the sponsor. If the sponsor was Browning, Esso or GlaxoSmithKline. Annisa Reed wouldn't have an issue with "branding".
-
It wasn't that long ago that you were threatening legal action over something said on the Internet and now you are a free speech crusader. What a reversal. You are a real hero.
I remember now. It involved comments made by Bob awhile back that NB thought were "off base". However, apparently you are safe Bob, according to the comments above so far. Can't circumvent the constitution. All is good.
-
I found the comment below from this story: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-island-teen-soccer-1.3295474
I believe it sums things up very well....
The headline is not supported by the text of this story. Through the time this story has been in the press, the company sponsor has not taken any action against this girl, the team, or the league. The league has kept true to it's rules regarding player expectations and behaviour, resulting in this.
Copied and pasted from the above article........""The club says it made the decision based on repeated breaches of its code of conduct and after receiving feedback from teammates, their families and volunteers.""
As much as she and her mom might try to make it otherwise, this is to maintain a league, sponsorships and teams that will benefit far far more than a single child with a sense of misplaced entitlement.
Now maybe her friends can get on with their game and she can get on with her protests.
-
I remember now. It involved comments made by Bob awhile back that NB thought were "off base". However, apparently you are safe Bob, according to the comments above so far. Can't circumvent the constitution. All is good.
Thanks Steve. I think he was maybe attempting the old crusader muzzle tactic back then LOL :)
-
Some comments from the Morton’s Facebook page:
It is also about being kicked off the team, the injustice of salmon farms notwithstanding. An athlete's freedom of expression in voicing injustice is an extremely important principle and I expect that it would be upheld under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is also a very troubling message to send to someone who is not yet an adult. Save the wild salmon for a world that honours fairness and Justice.
So, for example, if a participant and their parents don’t agree with a referee in an amateur sport league like hockey (or even soccer) and start verbally abusing the referee during a game and/or a campaign to have him/her removed by creating a Facebook page dedicated to that then that is ok? I mean the participant and their parents in this case could be voicing the “injustice” about being kicked out of a game for some call that they didn’t agree with or because the referee has done something else in his/her past that they don’t like. Should the Charter of Rights and Freedoms uphold that behaviour? Should the association uphold their code of conduct and show support for that referee or just let themselves and the referee be slagged in social media by this participant and their parents? What does this say to the other players who adhere to the code of conduct? Would you want to participate in an amateur sport league as a coach, participant, player, volunteer or sponsor where you could be open to harassment and bullying from other participants and their parents in such a way?
I cant' help but wonder if there's a connection between the company and someone on the club's Board of Directors.....
Actually it's a pretty even split, but I have no doubt the "yes" vote has been organized by Marine (Harvest).
Cue the conspiracy theories….lol. I noticed that Morton removed a conspiracy theory from her Facebook page which she tried to link the contracts between the association and its sponsors to something more devious. Not sure why she did that. Can’t circumvent the constitution, I am told.
-
Check out the reaction/angst to this issue on SportsfishingBC; it's worth the read.
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/forum/sport-fishing-bc-forums/conservation-fishery-politics-and-management/639779-ok-i-ve-had-it
-
If you look at the motives for Marine Harvest looking to sponsor a soccer association where they do business you have question the reasoning for the sponsorship.Clearly trying to repair their image as a multinational conglomerate looking to further their business through this public relations play.
When they get called on this " wolf in sheeps clothing "corporate image polishing move by a 14 year old girl , they have to hide behind the soccer assoc.
I say good for the girl, its got nothing to do with the assoc policies, the assoc. is now stifled into not looking like hypocrites if maybe some other people within the assoc. or members of the soccer team agree with fish farming or not.
They are certainly bound by the fact they are funded in part by Marine Harvest, a clear case of corporate bullying really .
Its to bad that this politicized to the point that the girl has to play elsewhere, when in fact,the girl would rather play close to home with her friends.
Maybe the soccer assoc. should have looked further into a less controversial sponsor ,if possible.
-
It wasn't that long ago that you were threatening legal action over something said on the Internet and now you are a free speech crusader. What a reversal. You are a real hero.
Well thank you - I appreciate your ability to see the difference between someone putting out baldfaced lies to assault one's character and integrity, and someone's legal right to an opinion.It's also nice to have legal council to explain the difference. Few can tell the contrast, but it's there.
Side step to your hearts content Steve- you brought that up, not me. You own it and judging by your defense of the comment, maybe you feel it was a bit rash.
But do carry on.
-
Check out the reaction/angst to this issue on SportsfishingBC; it's worth the read.
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/forum/sport-fishing-bc-forums/conservation-fishery-politics-and-management/639779-ok-i-ve-had-it
Thanks Dave - Found a pearl!
"Stephen Hall, Marine Harvest Canada Senior Management team as processing director... is also Head Coach for this soccer team" - Now a little research shows he coaches under 14 boys, (http://www.comoxvalleyrecord.com/sports/329193871.html) and this:
https://twitter.com/Norm_Farrell/status/658874147871678468
Now while it may or may not have any bearing on what happened, the optics aren't particularly good.
-
Well thank you - I appreciate your ability to see the difference between someone putting out baldfaced lies to assault one's character and integrity, and someone's legal right to an opinion.It's also nice to have legal council to explain the difference. Few can tell the contrast, but it's there.
Side step to your hearts content Steve- you brought that up, not me. You own it and judging by your defense of the comment, maybe you feel it was a bit rash.
But do carry on.
Hypocrite...lol. How's the lawsuit going against Bob? Do keep us up to date ok? ;D
-
Hypocrite...lol. How's the lawsuit going against Bob? Do keep us up to date ok? ;D
Reduced to name calling Steve? Sad.
-
Thanks Dave - Found a pearl!
"Stephen Hall, Marine Harvest Canada Senior Management team as processing director... is also Head Coach for this soccer team"
Now while it may or may not have any bearing on what happened, the optics aren't particularly good.
On schedule as usually with the conspiracy theories..... For you it doesn't matter if it has bearing on what happened or not just as long as you and other critics can manufacture some sort of connection to slag someone you don't know. Of course no connection to something underhanded is being implied here...lol. Coaches at this level are volunteering their time. Critics are really reaching for the stars now. It is sad to see this turn into a witch hunt by those that agree with the Reeds. Shame on you, NB.
-
Reduced to name calling Steve? Sad.
Can't circumvent the constitution, NB.
-
Nope. Just pointing out the facts Steve. But don't let them get in the way of your posts. I didn't imply anything, I just pointed out the optics. Shame on me? LOL!
-
http://www.alaskasalmonranching.com/kids-as-collateral-damage-no-problem-says-activist-mom/
-
I know many like Chris (to busy he once said), Nova and tb don't read Bob's posts, but this is a must. Read it, and like it says, please report any errors.
-
I know many like Chris (to busy he once said), Nova and tb don't read Bob's posts, but this is a must. Read it, and like it says, please report any errors.
I have a great little business to run, grandchildren, rugby, fishing ;), and a plethora of other things that sort of take precedent and after someone posted innuendo and some outright lies, I have little enough time and none to argue with a pile of salmon farmer's self serving nonsense. I do respect most of your posts and the hard work you put in for no money or glory (to a degree :D) Steve a tiny bit, but grudgingly.
And now for why this is an actionable, and don't shoot me. I brought it up with my legal buddy, and to boil it all down to a syrup- You can't have a binding contract with a minor. Most of the ,um, agreements won't hold water in a court, as well as charter rights. To be accurate, he told me a charter challenge, while it probably would be successful, may not work , but everything would rest on the contract with a minor, which is illegal. I know the person that told me that has a fine legal mind, teaches and has an outstanding background. I didn't have time to pick over the details when I talked to him earlier in the week, but I asked more specific questions today.
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/contract-law/
-
Nova, you and I are good, I want you to know that. Your pm to me when I lost my dog Molly meant a lot to me.
We all get caught up in this stuff, me especially ::) but I know some posts simply are not read, for whatever reasons ...
Had a discussion with my buddy Milo this afternoon and I told him I might be taking a lesser role in these on line debates. Hope I can do that ;D
Tight lines Nova; I wish you all the best and again, thanks.
-
Nope. Just pointing out the facts Steve. But don't let them get in the way of your posts. I didn't imply anything, I just pointed out the optics. Shame on me? LOL!
Sorry, but you are a stranger to the facts here, NB. As you can see going down memory road can be tough to take. but whether you like it or not Gord was correct to point that out. The rest you did on your own. Obviously you can see now that the Freedom of Expression in this country is not absolute. If you learned that much then my job here was successful. When you are ready to start discussing the actual issue again let me know.
Oh, I see the comment about the a binding contract with a minor. Good point, but did you and your lawyer actually read the UISA VIPL Parent's Code of Conduct in that link Bob provided? Look closely. Now I fully understand I am not a lawyer with an outstanding background (you got me there), just a dumb biologist, but I am kind of meticulous when it comes to looking for detail in what I am reading and researching. I will provide you the link below so you do not have to sift through an article you refuse to acknowledge, but that is your choice. However, Dave did recommend you read it and there was reason for it. As for a charter challenge, fly at it I say. Not much more to add on that.
https://uiriptide.wufoo.com/forms/uisa-vipl-parents-code-of-conduct/
-
And around goes the merry go round. We get back to control of the PARENTS right to free speech. As my friend said, you can't legally do that, so the contract isn't worth a hill of beans. I pursed that question with him as well. Simply put, if they chose to take it to court, the soccer association would lose. Now I would take a man who teaches law and has worked everywhere from private law firms to being a federal judicial law clerk for the court of appeal amongst other pursuits as quite well versed and knowing what he's talking about. However, if I need some biological advice, I'll know to ask you. If you need any flooring maintenance or installation advise, ask me. But I'm not asking you about law. Or flooring. ;)
-
Nova, you and I are good, I want you to know that. Your pm to me when I lost my dog Molly meant a lot to me.
We all get caught up in this stuff, me especially ::) but I know some posts simply are not read, for whatever reasons ...
Had a discussion with my buddy Milo this afternoon and I told him I might be taking a lesser role in these on line debates. Hope I can do that ;D
Tight lines Nova; I wish you all the best and again, thanks.
Thanks Dave - it would be a loss to not have you involved in the chatter. You're an intelligent man who brings a lot to the table. Be warned, it's hard to not get involved when it doesn't pass the personal smell test. I tried for a while and failed.
-
I know many like Chris (to busy he once said), Nova and tb don't read Bob's posts, but this is a must. Read it, and like it says, please report any errors.
You made me read it Dave and all I thought was why some goofball media hack from Alaskasalmonblahblahblah cares about a BC soccer mom. They should stay focused on Alaska yes no? Mind there own business instead of shamelessly promoting causes beyond their stated purpose. Just saying.
-
I guess then it would be fair to say that Doc Morton should mind her own business and go back to her home country. Lots of salmon farms there to protest.
-
After reading that article it's clear to me who the 'nutter' is.
The guy who wrote this is just doing a bad version of Harper's tactics trying to label people as 'political' and 'activist' like this is some kind of horrible thing.
Love to know more about what Willie's fish farm investment is though. Could 'propagandhist Bob' elaborate on that one?
-
The links in the blog should answer your question or you can leave a comment at the bottom of the blog.
-
And around goes the merry go round. We get back to control of the PARENTS right to free speech. As my friend said, you can't legally do that, so the contract isn't worth a hill of beans. I pursed that question with him as well. Simply put, if they chose to take it to court, the soccer association would lose. Now I would take a man who teaches law and has worked everywhere from private law firms to being a federal judicial law clerk for the court of appeal amongst other pursuits as quite well versed and knowing what he's talking about. However, if I need some biological advice, I'll know to ask you. If you need any flooring maintenance or installation advise, ask me. But I'm not asking you about law. Or flooring. ;)
In your previous post you did something kind of strange by starting to talk about a contract with a minor which this clearly isn’t as I correctly showed you. That’s why it’s called Parent’s Code of Conduct. Now you have backed away from that argument and are back at the parents again – thank you.
Freyja’s or her mother’s right’s to free speech is not being violated. Critics keep harping about this, but they don’t understand. They have let emotions take over any objectivity here. Freyja and her mother can express their opinion and conduct their campaigns about Marine Harvest and the soccer association all they want, but outside of the soccer league because the focus should be on soccer, not actions which take away from the game itself. The Code of Conduct is meant to protect those involved from bullying, gossip and intimidation in social networks, texts, blogs, emails, etc. By saying that it is not worth a hill of beans means that referees, coaches, players and volunteers are open to abuse from others within the soccer league. How reasonable is that? If that is the type of playing environment that is being fostered then how do you attract players, coaches, volunteers and of course sponsors. Frankly, it is ludicrous to think that an amateur sport association whether be soccer, hockey, baseball, etc. would not have a code of conduct that maintained a respectful playing environment where the individuals involved do not have to see themselves slagged on Facebook by other players, parents, coaches or volunteers.
Again, these codes of conduct are nothing new. Go to any reputable amateur sporting association and you will notice that they have a code of conduct. I would be very surprised that any court would find them highly restrictive and not reasonable because having an amateur sport league turned into an environment where its participants can be attacked by off-field comments in social media by other participants is not what the Charter was meant for. The other example that I did not mention before were employees in the private and government work places. They can express their opinions about their employer, colleagues or client, but they may find themselves reprimanded or have their position terminated. It is not uncommon for those workplaces to have codes of conduct – I can show you and your lawyer one I am very familiar with. Do you think the Charter would or should protect those individuals automatically? As you found out the other day, slander and libel are not protected by the Charter. You already unknowingly proved my point with this forum the other day about that (Lots of chest pounding about that, but I am wondering why you have not gone after Bob if he was so much in the wrong). That is why the Charter is not carte blanche to say whatever you want. Your lawyer should have advised you of this.
Critics of the association seem to think that a great injustice has been done so the Reeds need to go to court, get her back on the team, and sue the association by fighting this over Freedom of Expression. Ok, let’s say that the Reed’s after spending lots of money and time are successful in court. Many want Freyja to be able to return to her team in Comox instead of travelling an hour away to another team. Well that is probably not a good idea considering the Reeds were almost publicly lynched in a meeting by the parents of the other players. The Reeds totally underestimated the reaction of the other parents. The other parents are equally passionate and invested in their children on the team, and have been forgotten in all this. The Reeds have made this all about their plight while the other players and their parents have had to endure the barrage of media showing up at games, practices and other events looking for interviews. It was a powder keg that was basically ready to blow. In my opinion, the Reeds naively thought that they were going to rally support with the other parents so they could all take on the association to have the sponsor removed from the team. Well it did not happen and it is obvious now that Reeds do not have overwhelming support in the community. Secondly, Freyja would be returning to a team that has the same sponsor that was there before. What kind of resolution would that be for her considering her opposition to Marine Harvest as a sponsor for the team?
Sue for money? Sounds good, but I thought the goal was to have Freyja play soccer – not to have lots of money over this. In the public realm, the Reeds may open themselves up to further ridicule if they accept cash over this. More importantly, if codes of conduct like this are deemed “not worth a hill of beans” in court then what does that say about other amateur sport leagues with similar codes of conduct. Be careful about what you wish for, NB. Again, the simplest, most cost effective solutions which met the Reeds objectives were passed up due to stubbornness and selfishness on behalf of the Reeds. Those were: to not wear Marine Harvest branding or participate in functions that relate to the sponsor; go to another team with a different sponsor; or have their money back. In my opinion, a wise lawyer would have advised these options before going to court where expenses, time and frustrations are really not worth it when there are other alternatives. Even when you win sometimes you really lose in the end. Need to know when to cut your losses and pick your battles. My lawyer taught me these things when I needed her advice at a pivotal time in my life. I am surprised that your lawyer did not mention any of this – only if a person would win or not. I do not think you are getting very good advice with this.
-
You're wrong Steve, get over yourself and move on buddy. Stick to biology because law obviously isn't your strong suit. I asked the pertinent questions and off the record opinion of a legal expert - on a hypothetical situation. You didn't like what the response was, everyone gets that.And as to who gets the black eye? It has nothing to do with what the laws of the land, our opinions or public sentiment. But do feel free to carry on.
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t82/Willy1956/giphy_zps4ogcdtmr.gif) (http://s158.photobucket.com/user/Willy1956/media/giphy_zps4ogcdtmr.gif.html)
-
Two things come to mind.....Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is already made up.
Beating your head against a brick wall only feels good when you stop.
-
Two things come to mind.....Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is already made up.
Beating your head against a brick wall only feels good when you stop.
LOL ;D
-
You're wrong Steve, get over yourself and move on buddy. Stick to biology because law obviously isn't your strong suit. I asked the pertinent questions and off the record opinion of a legal expert - on a hypothetical situation. You didn't like what the response was, everyone gets that.And as to who gets the black eye? It has nothing to do with what the laws of the land, our opinions or public sentiment. But do feel free to carry on.
Wrong about what? If I am so wrong and you and your legal friend are so right then why haven’t you addressed any of the points I made? You throw out a red herring about minors not being bound by contracts for some bizarre, unrelated reason and I am supposed to buy into it? Sorry, not happening. What happened was that you once again did not read what was clearly put in front of you and your legal friend. That’s your fault, buddy. Because your “response” generated more questions than answers I am naturally going to ask questions, but all you seem to do is keep pointing to the fact that you received this advice from someone that knows what they are talking about. Did you know that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has little impact on the sport community because the charter applies to “government action” and nearly all sport activities in Canada are organized by private and autonomous sport organizations, not governments? You don’t have to take my word for it - go look it up. Go to any amateur sport association and you will see that they have codes of conduct. As I clearly outlined for you they are in place for reason. They are also drafted with legal advice because they are required by law – so much for the “hill of beans” argument. Without codes of conduct who would want to partake in amateur sport at the player, coaching or officiating level? It would be ripe for bullying, intimidation and gossip using a variety of sources including social media. To say they are not worth a hill of beans shows a clear lack of knowledge on this on your part and your legal friend, in my opinion. I am supposed to nod my head in agreement to something that makes no sense…lol? Sorry…not going to happen. There are legal firms that specifically help draft these codes for sport associations. Again, do not take my word for it – go look it up.
These codes of conduct do not preclude court action, but courts will likely be reluctant to be engaged in these matters if other avenues have not been explored. These other avenues I clearly explained to you already are: not wearing the Marine Harvest branding or partaking in events or fundraising that involved the sponsor; play on another team that does not have that sponsor; or a refund of funds spent. These accomplish the Reed’s goal about not supporting Marine Harvest without going through costly litigation. You and your legal friend have not thought about what the outcome for this should be other than just go to court because she can win. Win what? To think that litigation is the answer with the no suitable outcome for the plaintiff is silly. To have Freyja reinstated back on the same team where other parents are not supportive (to put it lightly) of the Reed’s actions doesn’t seem like a great outcome from court action. Critics of the association have basically glazed over the other players on the team and their parents through this as if their rights do not matter as much as the Reed’s rights. The other parent’s vocal reaction should not have come as a surprise, but apparently it did to the Reeds. In addition, the sponsor would still be on the team if for some reason Freyja were to be reinstated. Why would Freyja want to be back on a team with a sponsor that goes against her beliefs? At some point the Reeds have to decide which is more important: Protesting fish farming using amateur sport as a platform or play soccer. They can’t have their cake and eat it too.
-
Geez Steve,your legal opinion, and God bless your having one, goes against what I was told. You can type up a storm until your fingers bleed,but I asked someone with an extensive legal background and that's what I was told. By someone who one of his jobs was to "research points of law, write memos, attend hearings, read and summarize caselaw and materials concerning the cases" for a federal judge. Now I'll take his word over yours any day regarding legal issues. But do carry on by all means.
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t82/Willy1956/giphy_zpsmix0dtou.gif) (http://s158.photobucket.com/user/Willy1956/media/giphy_zpsmix0dtou.gif.html)
-
Thought it was timely to show this gem. You are sort of like the black knight in this scene.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4
Not surprised by your response. When you don't understand it is best to keep to rehearsed response. I guess you and your friend forgot to research a few things here...just saying. But do carry on, Perry Mason. :P
-
What would be your preference Steve? Pretend I'm a know it all or ask those that do have knowledge and 30 plus years of legal experience? But then you know it all, so carry on. HEY!~ Why don't you get an opinion from someone with a strong legal background? Then you could infer they're a buffoon too! ::)
(Should I be honoured with your snapping at my heels like a chihuahua nearly every time I post something? It's beginning to feel like you're on some weird kind of personal mission. I can't decide if it's hilarious or a sad spectacle) :o
"So glad you brought this up, NB. I was eagerly waiting."
-
What would be your preference Steve? Pretend I'm a know it all or ask those that do have knowledge and 30 plus years of legal experience? But then you know it all, so carry on. HEY!~ Why don't you get an opinion from someone with a strong legal background? Then you could infer they're a buffoon too! ::)
(Should I be honoured with your snapping at my heels like a chihuahua nearly every time I post something? It's beginning to feel like you're on some weird kind of personal mission. I can't decide if it's hilarious or a sad spectacle) :o
"So glad you brought this up, NB. I was eagerly waiting."
You're still ranting? My preference would be for you to actually address the points I made and even the questions, but you still seem very reluctant. If I am wrong then show me, but to date you haven't been able to actually show me where. Instead you provide the stock response which basically implies that this smart lawyer friend gave you this advice and that I should not question it because he is so much more knowledgeable about this than me. Again, if you are going to post this sort of stuff then expect questions on it and if you don't like being questioned on it, while critical of my opinion at the same time, then you shouldn't be crying foul. That's sad. Anyway, it seems like this thread has reached it's end, but if you want to keep bashing me feel free. Release that anger...lol.
-
You're still ranting? My preference would be for you to actually address the points I made and even the questions, but you still seem very reluctant.
I don't have all the answers Stevie.Never professed to that, but I find the volumes you write mind numbing. Can you do it in bullet point?
If I am wrong then show me, but to date you haven't been able to actually show me where. Instead you provide the stock response which basically implies that this smart lawyer friend gave you this advice and that I should not question it because he is so much more knowledgeable about this than me.
I'm not a lawyer Steve, NEWSFLASH neither are you. You have questions, go find a lawyer and ask him. I just gave you his opinion.
Again, if you are going to post this sort of stuff then expect questions on it and if you don't like being questioned on it, while critical of my opinion at the same time, then you shouldn't be crying foul. That's sad.
Now if that isn't the pot meeting the kettle.....
Anyway, it seems like this thread has reached it's end, but if you want to keep bashing me feel free. Release that anger...lol.
No anger Steve- just amusement at how wounded and keyed up you get when anyone disagrees with your "I know everything" opinion.You obviously didn't like that part about the contract with a minor, even though that's the way it works and the law. Get picked on a lot when you were a kid?
Carry on
-
No anger Steve- just amusement at how wounded and keyed up you get when anyone disagrees with your "I know everything" opinion.You obviously didn't like that part about the contract with a minor, even though that's the way it works and the law. Get picked on a lot when you were a kid?
Carry on
It's not that I didn't like that part about the contract with a minor. It was more that it had absolutely no relevance to the issue at hand. It was actually quite funny because both you legal eagles did not read what was clearly in front of you. You were so gung-ho to show how smart you were that you did not take the time to READ the Parent's Code of Conduct. Key word: Parent. You're funny.
-
Well I hope Mommy takes a close look at willie's money. Surely Willies not complaining about his income source why would he. Take a look at the owner of his team. Speed trading American Self made billionaire Vincent Viola. I suspect according to mommy's standards that there would be a lot of unacceptable funds from such a source. Of course they will say that it is strictly a fish farm thing but I don't believe it for one moment.
For tomorrow's event (see below)...clearly a guy with an 'agenda' and 'conspiracy' that works hand in hand with the she-devil Morton to take down the great and halo industry that is fish farming in our province:)
The Steelhead Society of BC is pleased to announce that we have received some generous donations from NHL player and B.C. Local, Willie Mitchell. Along with all of the incredible donations for our upcoming fundraiser on November 26th, Willie has donated the following packages, which will be up for auction:
- Package 1: 2 Tickets to the Vancouver Canucks / Florida Panthers game in January, along with 2 passes to the morning skate, and a meet & greet with Willie and the players.
- Package 2: Dinner for 2 at the Hawksworth Restaurant, 1 Night Stay at the Hotel Georgia, 2 nights 3 days fishing on the Upper Pitt River staying with Pitt River Lodge, and 1 Day Sturgeon Fishing (2 Days on the Pitt, 1 Day Sturgeon Fishing). The 2 that receive this package also have the choice to fish with Willie if they like.