"Natural
Parents have NO RIGHTS.... ONLY RESPONSIBILITIES....
"Natural
Parents' Rights now gone with my Homosexual Marriage
bill"
16.10 Maximum Contact & Friendly Parent Rule has to go to
conform
to Judicial Practice, or Judges may be held in criminal
BREACH OF TRUST"
FYI,
the ideas that the State assigns
Rights &
Responsibilities to it's Citizen is straight from
pre-war Nazi Germany. Under the British system
rights are not State-given, but God Given.
Buying into the Court's position that what
rights remain are Children's Rights, is buying into the same
position that "<Natural> Parents have no rights", and
Canadian Children are at birth the property of the Courts.
In
"Women and the Process of Constitutional Reform"
McLellan warns that <Horrors!>
"Provincial
Legislatures may impose a presumption of Joint Custody...
and perpetuate the domination of men over women"
Ask a lawyer what "Common Law" is and
they will likely tell you it is
"Judge Made Law", and expand up this to say
"Common Law is whatever the Judges are commonly saying these
days".
This is completely FALSE. The Judges
are Agents of the Crown and they BY DEFINITION Judges are WITHOUT
CAPACITY to make any law whatsoever. Since
1649, only
PARLIAMENT has the Capacity to make Law.
British Common law was NOT created by Judges, it was
only observed and documented by individuals sent out by the
newly Norman Crown after the
Norman Conquest of 1066 to observe and codify the
laws and customs of the various peoples of Britain..
This was done with a view to aggregate existing customs
which may vary across the land, into a unified body of
Laws. The Authority quoted by the Commoners in their
administration of
Common Law were frequently direct quotations from the
Bible and
principles of
Danelaw
The process of documentation took only a
couple of hundred years, and the product was a STATIC body
of Law which was historical, popular, and has served in the
intervening centuries as a Benchmark against which
Statutory Law may be measured for "Fairness".
It does NOT change.
Instead their position to promote the
"rights" of a "Parent" in the widest sense of the
word, making NO distinction between
NATURAL PARENTS and
wannaabe
Legal Parents. They have bowed to
University of
Victoria's assertion that the SCC's
Trociuk
Decision
"endorses a Heterosexual View of the Family and must be
ignored", legitimizing the ongoing
Child
Trafficking by the State which views
Canadian
children as State Property and merchandise for sale in
the lucrative Child
Adoption Market They refuse to be hampered by prior
obligations to that pesky Natural Parent who thinks they can
Veto an Adoption.
It appears that many
"Fathers Rights" groups commonly fall in with the United
Nations and Liberal
Irwin Cotler's assertion that the
Child's Right is to be protected, but the Natural Parent
has "NO RIGHTS",
making the State, not the Natural
Parents the Protector of the Child..
Without Cause or
Consent, no Child shall be removed from a Natural Parent!!!
"In spite of credible revelations dating back to April 2002
about Bill Graham, a sex addicted bi-sexual sodomizing a 15
year old male prostitute named
Lawrence Metherel,
Paul Martin allowed Graham to remain
Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister - and eventually named
him to the portfolio of Minister of Defense.
"On Sept. 28/2005 a vote was held in Parliament to raise the
age of consent from 14 (one of the lowest age of consents in
the world) to 16 (an age which many still consider too low).
"Bill Graham, Paul Martin, and Anne McLellan, on Sept. 28th,
voted against raising the age of consent to 16
"The Family Courts
are <generally> a bunch of second rate hangers-on
... build each other's businesses through
referrals...Family Law is a <parasitic> self-sustaining
Industry"
Habeas
Corpus : "literally, "you
may have the body". A Habeas
Corpus is a legal writ that protects an individual against arbitrary
imprisonment by requiring that any person arrested be brought before
a court for formal charge. If the charge is considered to be valid,
the person must submit to trial; if not, the person goes free. When
the law is suspended, then individuals can be imprisoned
indefinitely and without charge."
.....
Skeletons in the Closet, a film drawn from the dramatized lives
of families living with a protected
Pedophile and the mental
illness it may create when a loving, faithful, Victim keeps the
Secret. This is shockingly
common. The Secret is their Power -
BREAK IT!
(You would be well advised to stay away from the Public Servant.)
Abortion Veto for Dads & Parents of Minor Mothers
Abortion Veto for Dads & Parents of Minor
Mothers
It
has been suggested that,
Roe V Wade (1973) is the first example of
Judicial Activism in
the West. Like Canadian Judicial Activists have done since the
Canadian Charter was created in 1982, the US Court in
Roe V Wade (1973) claimed the right to Rule against the
Legislative Houses the grounds of their Statues being
"un-Constitutional". This is the premise that the Legislatures must work
within the confines set by it's own Contract with it's people, the US
Constitution. Agreed. What made
Roe V Wade (1973) different was that a majority of the
Judges used powers granted them by Statute to enforce WRITTEN bounds on
legislation to enforce the JUDGE'S PERSONAL VIEWS which they claimed to
be operative though absent in the written text of the US Constitution.
Neither could these newly "activist" Judges demonstrate their Decision
was in keeping with the practice of previous Courts.
In the
Roe V Wade (1973) example, Justice White noted the US
Judiciary's hijacking of Legislative powers in his Dissenting
Opinion,
"I
find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to
support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions
and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers
and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action,
invests that right with sufficient substance to override most
existing state abortion statutes."
Roe
V Wade is possibly the first example of the
Judicial Mysticism we in Canada have seen with increasing
frequency since 1982 in the Courts of
"Femi-Nazi"
Beverley Mclachlin. Mclachlin in defending her policy of
Judicial Activism refers to a "higher power" to which Judges may
refer when they are at odds with the Statutes of the legislative
bodies.
It is an interesting fact that a
philosophical basis for Judicial Activism and Abortion Activism
isn't hard to find. One of the original
Femi-Nazis
Margaret Sanger, the founder of
Planned Parenthood and
Adolf Hitler were both Believers in
Eugenics (directed Human Evolution) and shared many
religious views, including the notion of a "Master Race" (or is
that Master Class, Beverly?).
More than likely both
Sanger &
Hitler would have subscribed to Haeckel's,
Theory of "Phylogenic Recapitulation" , 1866,
(complete rubbish) to make their
objectives
less repugnant to the misguided observer. Haeckel's idea
was that the Evolutionary Path of embryo's Phylogeny (species)
is "Recapitulated" from fertilization to birth by moving through
a series of less evolved Species to increasingly more evolved
forms until birth. Haeckel's farcical drawings have been
widely distributed. You've no doubt seen them in your
schoolbooks.
Since at least
Gregor Mendel (1822 - 1884) we have known each Species has a
specified
Genetic Number - the number of genes in the haploid
cells (gametes)
provided by each parent, male and female. During
Fertilization these genes pair up, male genes to female genes,
and when all are paired, the newly
diploid cell can begin it's first division into body
cells. Barring a debilitating injury to the genetic
information, genetic Number is a constant throughout a Species'
lifespan, including it's embryology. The constancy of a
Specie's genetic number precludes
"Phylogenic Recapitulation". Consider also the
extraordinary variation of Genetic Number which is supposedly
"recapitulated" This is so huge a topic it would
take
pages and pages to itemize, nevertheless a few samples
follow in ascending
Chromosomal Number..
Family Canidae
(Dogs & Foxes)
39 pairs, 78 Chromosomes, Dog 17 pairs, 34 Chromosomes,
Fox
It
is impossible for any of these to be "blood relatives" because
their dissimilar chromosomal numbers
forever bar them from having offspring together. They are
similarly barred from having a common ancestor.
Set aside for the sake of argument, the humanity of a human
fetus. Forget the legal contrivance to exonerate medical
practitioners of criminal charges by deeming unborn children
"Non-Persons" until they have survived birth.
In Canada the WRITTEN Charter Rights twice
precludes discrimination between Male and Female Parents.
It is our contention that Fathers already have the Statutory
Right to equal participation in the care and fate of a "fetus",
whether you regard the unborn child as Person, Property, or
something in between.
The Natural Fathers' Consent must
therefore be obtained before the destruction of any unborn child
who is sadly unwanted by their Mother. Both Natural
Parents must be participant in any parenting decision.
Abortion is not just a "Woman's issue" it is a Natural
Parent's Issue. The
Abortion Veto for Dads is a humane, gender neutral and
Constitutionally required
alternative to the 'Planned
Parenthood" approach.
The number of babies born in Canada fell to a record
low in 2002, Statistics Canada said Monday. Live births in the country
dropped for the 11th time in 12 years, the agency said in a report on births in
2002. That year in Canada, 328,802 babies were born, down 1.5 per cent
from the previous year. The agency also talked about the dips in the crude
birth rate — the number of live births for every 1,000 population.
"The crude birth rate dropped to 10.5 live births for every 1,000 population,
the lowest since vital statistics began to be produced nationally in 1921. The
rate has dropped 25.4 per cent in the last 10 years alone," Statscan said.
....
Compared with other nations around the world, Canada falls somewhere in the
middle in terms of fertility. The United States, France, Australia and the
United Kingdom have higher rates and Italy, Japan and Germany have lower rates.
The replacement level is 2.1 children per woman.
Women in the United States have averaged at least two children per woman
since 1989......
The average age of mothers continues to rise, Statscan says. In Canada in
2002, the average age was 29.5, up a full year from a decade previous. ...The
national average age for first-time mothers in Canada in 2002 was 27.7 years.
REMARK:
"Notably Absent from Statscan's finding was
any possibility that the declining birth
rates in Canada have anything to do with the
biased and draconian laws and polices that
make men slaves and wallets. ... What
about the marriage stats? The Divorce stats?
No link here?" ....h.t.
REMARK: I heard on the radio a long time ago that in Canada that
abortions outnumber live births three to one. This is a more palatable way of
reporting that 75% of pregnancies are aborted.
From memory of radio shows, I can say in a rather
freewheeling fashion that:
of all the conceptions in Canada, only 25% make it past the woman’s
Abortionist.
of those that survive to live birth, only 38% (100-62) will still have
their fathers by the time the marriage is five years old, and 92% of the time
that loss is perpetrated by the mother.
of those 62% by year five, are completely denied a relationship with their
natural father and forced into a relationship the mother chooses with a step
father and step brothers. This is the MOST COMMON scenario of sexual
abuse of children.
by eliminating the Natural
Father from the child’s family, the mother increases
the risk of physical abuse something like 8 fold..
by eliminating
the Natural Fathe from the child’s family, the mother increases the risk of
physical abuse by the mother something like 15 fold.
by replacing the Natural Fathe with step father, the mother increases the
risk of sexual abuse by the live-in boyfriend or step father something like
sixty fold.
If these numbers aren't
too bad, the number of conceptions that have survived
the mothers aggression by year five of the marriage is only (0.25 x 0.38 x 1/0.92) =
10%.
To understand how women can do this and still make the husbands look bad
you’ve got to understand NARCISSISM.
1892: Parliament passes Canada's first Criminal Code.
It prohibits abortion as well as the sale, distribution and
advertising of contraceptives. A significant number of women
continue to seek abortions, according to news reports.
1969: Pierre Trudeau's Liberal government decriminalizes
contraception and allows abortion under certain circumstances.
Abortions may be performed in a hospital if a committee of
doctors decides that continuing the pregnancy may endanger the
mother's life or health. Access to abortions varies across the
country.
1969: Abortion activist Dr. Henry Morgentaler defies the
law and opens an abortion clinic in Montreal. His clinic is
raided in 1970 and he is charged with several offences. It marks
the beginning of a 20-year series of legal battles.
May 1970: 35 women chain themselves to the parliamentary
gallery as part of a two-day demonstration for abortion rights.
March 1973: Morgentaler announces that he has
successfully performed over 5,000 abortions.
March 1975: Morgentaler begins serving an 18-month jail
sentence after the Supreme Court of Canada rejects his appeal.
Earlier, a Quebec court had convicted him of a charge of
conspiracy to commit an abortion. While he's in jail, Quebec
prosecutes him on a second count of conspiracy to commit an
abortion. This time, he's acquitted - and the Quebec Court of
Appeal does not overturn the verdict.
May 1975: A petition against abortion rights with over
one million signatures is delivered to Parliament.
January 1976: The federal justice minister sets aside
Morgentaler's original conviction and orders a retrial.
Morgentaler is released from jail after serving 10 months.
September 1976: Morgentaler is acquitted of the original
charge laid after his Montreal clinic was raided in 1970. In
November, Quebec's newly-elected Parti Québécois government
drops all outstanding charges against Morgentaler.
1982: Canada enacts the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Any law found contravening those rights can be struck down as
invalid.
July 1983: Police raid Morgentaler's newly-opened Toronto
clinic and charge him along with two colleagues. Over the next
five years the case winds its way up to the Supreme Court.
1983: Former Manitoba politician
Joe Borowski launches a case asking the courts to declare
the 1969 amendments invalid. He argues that the outlay of public
money for abortion is unlawful because it contravenes the
Canadian Charter of Rights, which he argues guarantees a fetus's
right to life.
A Gallup poll shows that 72 per cent of Canadians believe the
decision to abort should rest solely with the pregnant woman and
her doctor.
1988: The Supreme Court of Canada strikes down Canada's
abortion law as unconstitutional. The law is found to violate
Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it
infringes upon a woman's right to "life, liberty and security of
person."
Chief Justice Brian Dickson writes: "Forcing
a woman, by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to
term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own
priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a
woman's body and thus a violation of her security of the
person."
Canada is now one of a small number of countries without a law
restricting abortion. Abortion is now treated like any other
medical procedure and is governed by provincial and medical
regulations.
March 1989:The
Supreme Court of Canada refuses to rule on Borowski's case,
which argues that fetuses have a constitutionally guaranteed
right to life. The court says his case is moot since the
abortion law had already been struck down.
1989: The Supreme Court rules that a father has no legal
right to veto a woman's abortion decision. The ruling comes
after the boyfriend of Chantal Daigle obtained a court
injunction preventing her from getting an abortion. By the time
the case was settled, Daigle had secretly obtained a late-term
abortion in the U.S. In Ontario, a similar injunction was
granted against Barbara Dodd filed by her ex-boyfriend. She too
has an abortion but later tells the public she regrets her
decision.
1989: Nova Scotia bans abortions in clinics outside
hospitals.
1990: The federal government, led by Progressive
Conservative Brian Mulroney, introduces
Bill C-43, which would sentence doctors to two years in jail
for performing abortions where a woman's health is not at risk.
The bill is passed by the House of Commons, but dies in the
Senate after a tie vote.
May 1992: Morgentaler's Toronto clinic is firebombed.
1994: New Brunswick bans abortions in clinics
outside hospitals.
November 1994:
Dr. Garson Romalis is the first Canadian doctor shot for
performing abortions. He's hit by a sniper while eating
breakfast in his Vancouver home. Two other similar shootings
follow in 1995 and 1997, first in Ontario, then Manitoba. None
of the attacks is fatal. James Kopp, who was later convicted for
the fatal shooting of a doctor who performed abortions in
Buffalo, is named as a suspect in some of the Canadian
shootings.
1995: Provincial and federal rulings force Nova Scotia
and New Brunswick to allow private abortion clinics. Despite
that, access to abortions outside hospitals continues to be
inconsistent across the country. Some provinces decide to cover
the cost of abortions performed in clinics outside hospitals.
Others don't, meaning that women who can't get into a hospital
for an abortion must pay the costs of a clinic abortion out of
their own pocket.
June 2, 2004: Conservative Leader Stephen Harper tries to
steer clear of the abortion controversy while campaigning for
the June 28 election, saying he has no plans to change the
country's abortion regulations if he forms the next government.
The statement comes after his party's health critic says women
considering an abortion should receive third-party counselling.
June 3, 2004: Liberal Leader Paul Martin says he would
never undermine a woman's right to choose on the issue of
abortion.
May 18, 2006: Dr. Everett Chalmers Hospital in
Fredericton, the last hospital in New Brunswick to perform
publicly funded abortions, announces it will suspend the service
as of July 1, citing workload problems. New Brunswick is the
only province in Canada that refuses to pay for abortions
performed in clinics, despite the 1988 Supreme Court of Canada
ruling.
It
is impossible for any of these to be "blood relatives" because
their dissimilar chromosomal numbers
forever bar them from having offspring together.
Similarly, their unequal Chromosomal numbers bar them from
having a common ancestor.
"Natural
Parents have NO RIGHTS.... ONLY RESPONSIBILITIES....
"Natural
Parents' Rights now gone with my Homosexual Marriage bill"
16.10
Maximum Contact & Friendly Parent Rule has to go to conform
to Judicial Practice, or Judges may be held in criminal BREACH
OF TRUST"
FYI,
the ideas that the State assigns
Rights & Responsibilities
to it's Citizen is straight from pre-war Nazi Germany.
Under the British system rights are not State-given, but God
Given.
Buying into the Court's position that what rights
remain are Children's Rights, is buying into the same position
that "<Natural> Parents have no rights", and Canadian Children
are at birth the property of the Courts.
Disclaimer: EqualParenting-BC.Ca encourages exercising democratic
rights such as the freedom of expression, but does not by association or
reference to other materials condone or sanction violence or hatred.
