@ Manda, I didn’t find the conversation useless in any way. It certainly caught me off guard, and my discomfort with maintaining a “jokey” tone grew as the conversation progressed. But I mean, don’t promote an “open source” process about contentious issues and then get all shocked that people use it to disagree with you either…

@ Brittney – I just read this now, which means two less days of rehearsal to argue about the relationship between “free will” and socio-economic status.

• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
• Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)
• UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (UN Rules for the
Protection of Juveniles)
• UN Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (The Riyadh Guidelines)
• UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing
Rules)

The disagreement over the YOA is legally irrelevant. Khadr is a victim, not an offender. There was a harrowing article in the Star last month about Al Shabab coercion in Somalia towards the recruitment of child soldiers – a timely reminder of why these covenants are essential in upholding our humanity! http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/757924–al-shabab-s-reign-of-terror-grips-somalia

I sort of said this to you today in rehearsal, but I thought I’d share it with the internet also. I am completely the product of my liberal and liberated upbringing. While I have certainly evolved from my 15 year old self in many ways, I am still very much the same person. My parents taught me to think for myself from an early age. I actively questioned many rules and many authority figures: I distinctly remember questioning a rule in my first year of high school that required everyone to wear ID badges, and my stance was always that I would do it as soon as someone could give me a logical explanation of why the rule existed. No one ever did, so I never did it. While my parents were not pleased to receive that phone call home, they never told me I had to do it. And when I was told that I did HAVE to do something I disagreed with/didn’t understand (usually something completely ridiculous like, you know, “clean your room”), I certainly put up a fight. We disagreed frequently in my youth (and to this day about some things) and I was never shy in expressing my opinion, no matter the shouting match or grounding or whatever that followed. I am confident that if my parents had suggested something extreme, I would have questioned it thoroughly before going along with it. I was not a teenager who would have been easily coerced into anything. Whatever I did when I was 15 was firmly by my own choice and responsibility.

I think all 15 year olds probably know the difference between right and wrong, whether by their own definition or that of their parents is perhaps another story. And I also think that “all 15 year olds” is a gross generalization.
Fifteen is a tough age. Not everyone is in the same place, developmentally, academically, intellectually, emotionally, socially, etc. It is a raging whirlwind of social and parental influences, academic pressures, and, of course, hormones! Which is why I find this debate (and, by extension, 15 year olds) so interesting…

And, as far as Fauxmar Khadr is concerned, all I will say is that I eagerly look forward to that part of rehearsal!

Fifteen was a time for some dangerous experiments. I’m grateful no one handed me ideological high explosives (or an actual grenade.)

I think Michael handled your fake Omar really well. Troll seems a bit of a misnomer – I’d go for sophist. I think if you can respond without it being ‘taking the bait’, then you probably should. They aren’t after you anyways. Their opponent is just collateral damage. They are after the audience and when you have a responsibility to that audience, lies about simple objective truths and really shoddily formed arguments shouldn’t just be left to stand.

I would love to hear Michael and t.schwellnus chime in on whether they found the exchange useless.

(I had a different reason for wondering how you could take his words out of context: He knowingly posted on a blog soliciting collaboration in creating a theatre performance! If that isn’t recognition that some recontextualisation is going to take place, what is?)