Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Parenting Issues

Parenting Issues This forum is for discussing any of the parenting issues involved in your divorce, including parenting of step-children.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #61  
Old 02-28-2022, 08:47 PM
pinkHouses pinkHouses is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 579
pinkHouses has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Finally some sanity, why the father would press this and make unintelligent requests like "the kids will get all boosters" given what went on from mid-January to mid-february is odd he over reached. This was a good read.

Justice P says: it is incorrect to vilify and put labels on people just because they are opposed to vaccination or popular opinion or even the government.

Quote:
Poor father, he should have had the kids vaccinated 6 months ago, the court rulings would have been solidly in his favour at that point.
6 months ago is not this year:
a) COVID Feb 20222 is not the COVID of 2020/21 and the vaccine is still 2020/2021.
b) Ontairo sent the kids back to school and are not mandating COVID reporting and will take action at 30% absenteeism. Basically they are saying your kids is getting sick.
c) Public health departments have stopped collecting data from the public (they turn away COVID reports)
d) There was no vaccine for the 10 year old and may not have been for the 12 year old and that was for good reason.
e) The political climate and fear has changed. Mandates are going away and there are no plans for new mandates.

The father should not have been so lazy as to throw away their opportunity for rebuttal, maybe they did not have one. The Justice made a really good argument of their own.

Quote:
Now parents will have to actually show that vaccines work, which will drive up costs AND litigation.
They will lose.
Pfizer, the company that made the vaccine in question and even they say that the vaccine is not effective in preventing infection and they and all the data shows there are side effects to it.
Proving something is not a novel concept.

Good luck with a trial resolving the science because there is no data to support such an outcome for forcing the vaccination of children at this time.
Justice P outlined an argument in paragraphs 67, 68, 69 and 70 that pretty much crushes much of the "pro-vaccination" views that are extreme.

I don't know why people would be disappointed with this decision, he makes very good arguments.

There was hysteria and fear before; not now.
Some of those previous COVID rulings were absolutely stupid; the guy only being able to see his kid for 1 hour as opposed to 2hrs; the parent not being able to take their kid to a cottage after they followed all COVID protocols; probably many more.

If the flu vaccinations go over to mRna tech then I would expect those vaccinations to be challenged in court as well if there is science showing an increase in side effects.

Good luck in getting a court to determine what the science is anytime soon. It has been very up in the air for more than a year now when it comes to kids.

For those jumping to conclusions about anti-vaxxers being uneducated etc. Justice P was very clear on that here as well.

Last edited by pinkHouses; 02-28-2022 at 08:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 03-01-2022, 10:05 AM
pinkHouses pinkHouses is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 579
pinkHouses has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

That decision, the style of laying out facts. Is that how an affidavit should sound/be written? What parts?
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 03-01-2022, 03:34 PM
iona6656 iona6656 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 1,026
iona6656 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinso View Post
The law is now unclear at the Superior level. It's time for Court of Appeal intervention.
Is it really unclear though? I think there's been 5 cases on this in Ontario? and Pazaratz is the only one who didn't find in favour of erring on the side of caution with the vaccine.

Also- can we talk about him using the term "Eskimo"? :|
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 03-01-2022, 03:41 PM
iona6656 iona6656 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 1,026
iona6656 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkHouses View Post
Finally some sanity, why the father would press this and make unintelligent requests like "the kids will get all boosters" given what went on from mid-January to mid-february is odd he over reached. This was a good read.

Justice P says: it is incorrect to vilify and put labels on people just because they are opposed to vaccination or popular opinion or even the government.
In my opinion Pazaratz overstepped in his commentary on the father's view. I get that his rulings can be a bit kooky. But he seemed to take real issue with the dad's evidence- which, if it wasn't relevant- just say so and move on? Did he really need to give a long winded lecture on tolerance.

Does anyone know how many of his decisions have been appealed? [calling Tayken to thread]

Quote:
They will lose.
eh. I don't think they will.

Quote:
I don't know why people would be disappointed with this decision, he makes very good arguments.
it's disappointing because he goes against what's in the best interest of the kids because he didn't like the dad's attitude.



Quote:
Good luck in getting a court to determine what the science is anytime soon. It has been very up in the air for more than a year now when it comes to kids.
this is exactly why people are disappointed. Judges are not scientists. So maybe they should stfu about making any determinations on science?

Quote:
For those jumping to conclusions about anti-vaxxers being uneducated etc. Justice P was very clear on that here as well.
I thought we established that you can be educated AND hold idiotic viewpoints?
See Maxime Bernier. And basically anyone affiliated with the PPP.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 03-01-2022, 06:21 PM
pinkHouses pinkHouses is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 579
pinkHouses has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

I would no more argue with a "pro-vaxxer" than I would an "anti-vaxxer" or try to convince them that their views are unreasonable.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 03-01-2022, 06:41 PM
Janus's Avatar
Janus Janus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,731
Janus will become famous soon enoughJanus will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkHouses View Post
Pfizer, the company that made the vaccine in question and even they say that the vaccine is not effective in preventing infection
Vaccines never prevent infection. That is not the purpose of a vaccine. I will presume that your formal science education was minimal at best.

Quote:
For those jumping to conclusions about anti-vaxxers being uneducated...
See above. You may have some education in something, but clearly no real background in the appropriate sciences that would allow you to arrive at reasonable conclusions.

Kinda like how chiropractors talk about their hundreds of hours of education. They still understand science less than my grade school children.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 03-01-2022, 07:17 PM
pinkHouses pinkHouses is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 579
pinkHouses has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Tell it to the head of phizer who agrees with me, they are supposed to greatly reduce infections for a prolonged period of time and so transmission and certainly symptoms. The vaccines no longer do that because THE VIRUS CHANGED. We are talking kids that just last year docs said didn't have to worry about COVID.
I think all y'all need to get an education that is not off of social media or a government communication departments space because most of you are talking some major crap.

For those going on about intelligence etc....you are not talking law and you are not speaking to something base on facts, you are simply name calling. Me: how about 2 courses in genetics and 2 in biology from well known university X. What do you have, please tell me it equates at least to that if you so bold as to spout off. One of you even said the 10 year old should have been vaccinated before a vaccine was approved for them.

In practice I have had to help the doctor figure out what they are supposed to do more than a few times, sure they looked it up and don't take my word for it; just goes to show I am no dummy when it comes to medical. Let's see. Neurosurgeon, ENT, family doctor, another specialist...oh and another one, I remember that guy loosing his cool because I embarrassed him in front of his intern. So please again before you spout off.

You guys are so quick to take barstool shots and behaving just like Justice P admonished in his decision. Maybe people here didn't read it.

Like I said "pro-vaxxer" "anti-vaxxers". They come from the same stock and this is from a guy that had a family member die and another one hospitalized. I myself am vaccinated.

I really wish it was simply "let us stick to the law" instead of hysterics.

Last edited by pinkHouses; 03-01-2022 at 08:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 03-01-2022, 09:26 PM
blinkandimgone's Avatar
blinkandimgone blinkandimgone is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lucknow
Posts: 5,551
blinkandimgone is a jewel in the roughblinkandimgone is a jewel in the roughblinkandimgone is a jewel in the rough
Default

I'm going to jump in here to say we're not going to debate vaccines or their efficacy here.

If you have thoughts or feelings around vaccination in relation to family law, by all means discuss those.

As long as the conversation remains civil, reasonable and on topic for this forum, we will keep the thread open.

Thanks!

Last edited by blinkandimgone; 03-01-2022 at 09:27 PM. Reason: No buts allowed.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 03-23-2022, 10:02 PM
nofrills nofrills is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 46
nofrills is on a distinguished road
Default

Update.

My ex decided to vaccinate the kids a few weeks ago on her own.

She had planned to take the kids to FLA for March break, I told her I wasn't going to sign the consent letter unless the kids were vaccinated. She sent various emails, claiming I was blackmailing her into vaccinating the kids and preventing the kids from seeing their grandparents in FLA. Finally, she sent a final email claiming she vaccinated the kids under duress. It was very hard not to respond to these accusations. All my responses were two sentences or less and basically, "no shot, no travel".

Kids were happy about it and are looking forward to getting their second shot.

thank you all for your help.

I've now got another problem and will start a new thread to discuss.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Covid: filing unsworn forms Sugg53 Divorce & Family Law 4 05-14-2021 05:04 PM
Divorce due to Covid Shawkid Divorce & Family Law 1 03-18-2021 04:03 PM
Refusing daycare during covid Googlelawstudent Parenting Issues 7 06-06-2020 01:19 PM
Can people update child support orders during covid? pinkmorganite Divorce & Family Law 0 06-04-2020 09:09 AM
Covid - Access Issues - Shoe on the other foot Abba435 Divorce & Family Law 15 04-10-2020 08:05 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:35 AM.