Issues Area Home
1215: MAGNA CARTA, JUNE 15TH
Issues Summaries
Abortion Veto for Dads
Adoption Veto for Dads
Adopted Children Disallowed NPs
Affirmative Action
Age Of Consent
Anti-Depressants, Drug Induced Suicide
Battered Woman Syndrome
BC Vital Statistics Act Misandry
BC Legislature MUST
Big Brother, Micro-Management
Bill C-22
Birth Rate Displacement
Best interests of the Child
Breach of Trust
"Case Law" is NOT Law
CCA Wood and Playgrounds
Child Support Tables / SOW Fraud
"Child's Right" or "Parents' Right"
Child Trafficking by Public Officers
Common Law Perverted by Activist Judges
Compulsory Drugging of Children
Corren Agreement
Court Ordered Sexism
Credit Crisis, Currency Replacment
Custody Orders not Enforced
Debtor's Prison Reinstituted
Day Care Universal
Deadbeat Dad Propaganda
Disabled parents
DISS = Divorce Initiated Suicide Synd.
Domestic Violence Propaganda
Division of Assets
Enticement Seduction Tort Claims Precluded
Estate Taxes Thieve a Child's Inheritance
Euthanasia, Spousal
Ex Parte Orders
False Accusations
Father Hatred Propaganda
Fatherlessness, State Imposed
Federal Reserve / Fiat Currency
FEMA Camps, Martial Law
Femi-Narcissism
Feminism = Socialism = Nazism
Fitness Test for Natural Parents in Divorce
Fitness Test for Students: "Transitions"
FMEP = Family Maintenance Enforcement
Forgiveness is NOT Compulsory
Freedom of Speech
Friendly Parent Rule, Max. Contact
Fundamental Justice
Globalism is Treason
Global Warming Fraud "Climategate"
Habeas Corpus Abandoned
"Hate Crime" Speech Police
Homofacism
Homosexual Violence
Homosexual Activism
Homosexual Marriage
"Human Rights” Commissions in Canada
Human Trafficking
Imputed Income: Fraudulent CS Orders
Inheritance Theft: Grey & Black Widow
Judicial Activism is Breach of Trust
Judicial Falsification of Court Transcripts
Judicial Freemasonry is Racketeering
Judicial Globalization is Treason
Judicial Interpretation
Judicial Racketeering, Law Societies' Rackets
Kinship Families / Grandparents
Law Societies' Self Regulation, Corruption
Lawyers Lying in Court
Legal Abuse Syndrome
Letters to MP
Letters to MLA
Letters to Editor
Malicious Mother Syndrome
Malicious Prosecution
Misandry = Hatred of Males
Monetary Crisis: "Money as Debt"
Move Aways
Narcissism
Natiional Sovreignity
Natural Parents Rights Eliminated, SSM
NAU = North American Union
Net Neutrality: Keep Internet Free!!
No Fault Divorce
NCR = Not Criminally Responsible
Oath Keepers
Parliament MUST
Parental Alienation
Parental Kidnapping
Parenting Time Presumption
Passport & DL Removal
Paternity Denied, Birth Registration
Paternity Fraud, Birth Registration
Pedophiles Fear Dads New
Pedophiles in Public Service
Petitions
Poofy Judges
Predatory Pregnancy
Protestant Revolution, BBC
QE = Quantitative Easing
Sexual Abuse by a Public Officer
Sex Change Surgery
Shadow Government
Sole Custody is Child Abuse
Special Prosecutors for Homo's & Judges
Star Chamber's Secret Overlords
SOW = Status of Women, KILL IT!!!!
Stockholm Syndrome Paradigm Shift
Straw Man Redemption, Free Man
Supremacy of Parliament
Target Legislation
Teachers displacing Parents
Teachers Seducing Students
Tracts and Flyers
Treasonous Public Officers not Prosecuted
Transcripts & Documents altered by Judges
"Women's Shelters" = Lesbian Gulags |
|
Albrecht, Katherine : RFID Spychips
Angry Harry
Annett, Kevin: Child Trafficking in BC
Asher, Jeffrey
Baskerville, Stephen: "Taken .. Custody
Baxter, Dorian: Canada Courtwatch
Beck, Glenn Beck: World Government
Bennett, Richard: Purpose Driven Church
Blick, Edward: Global Warming & Marxism
Blumner,Court Ordered Sexism
Burrows, Lynette: Homo Adoption
Carley, Dr. Rebecca: Vaccinations
Carr, William Guy: Pawns in the Game
Christie, Doug: Freedom of Speech
Chopra, Dr. Shiv: Health Canada
Coulter, Ann: Free Speech
Cools, Senator Anne: Lying Lawyers
Coffman, Dr. Michael: Global Warming
Coleman, John: Global Warming Fraud
Coleman, Dr. John (MI6) Comittee of 300
Conspiracy of Silence, Boystown Pedophiles
Coren, Michael: Islamophobia, Homophobia
Crane, Ian: Codex Alimentarius Scam
Cromwell, Oliver: Supremacy / Parliament
Cuddy, Dennis L. "Power Elite"
Cumbey, Constance : New Age Nazism
Cummins, John: BC Conservative Party
Delaney, Chris : "No HST in BC!"
Dioguardi, Joe: Saving US / Debtors' Prison
Dodd, Norman: NWO Fabian Socialists
Duane, James:"Don't Talk to Police"
Dutton, Don: RADAR, "Rethinking DV"
EP-Australia
Estulin, Daniel: Bilderberg Group
Evans, Stanton: "Blacklisted, Joe McCarthy"
Federer, Bill: Endang'd Speeches, Quran
Farrell, Warren: Why Men Earn More
Fischer, Greg: Family Preservation Festival
Fogal, Connie: No NAU
Forseth, MP Paul: FTSOTC Panelist
Fromm, Paul: Free Speech, CAFE
FTSOTC 48 Recom's
Gage, Richard: Architects & Engineers 9/11
Gairdner William
Galloway, Roger: FTSOTC Panelist
Geldof, Sir Bob: The Love..
Gerrish, Brian: EU's "Common Purpose"
Griffin, G. Edward: Fed Reserve
Grignon, Paul: "Money As Debt"
Gunderson, Ted: FBI, Protected Pedophiles
Haeck, Lisa: Sexual Abuse
Haines, Bruce, QC: Justice Review
Hein, Arnie: "Cross My Heart" EP Trek 2005
Hiebert, MP Russ: Human Rights Commission
Hill, MP Jay: EP Legislation
Hinton , Betty: Status of Women's "Hit List"
Holland, Lary: "GET OFF THE BENCH"
Horowitz, David: Islamofacism, Universites
Howse, Torm
Hunt, Dave: Woman / Beast
"In a Small Town" Pedophile Boy Scouts
Iserbyt, Charlotte: Dumbing Down
Jones, Alex
Kay, Barbara, National Post
Kennedy, John F: Assassination 1963
Kernberg, Dr. Otto: Personality Disorder
Kerkman, Larry : CRISPE
Keyes, Alan :
Knight, Robert: Obama's "Radical Rulers"
Kruk, Edward: Child Custody
Leslie, Sarah: "Pied Pipers of Purpose"
Levant, Ezra: HRT, Islam, Freedom of Speech
LInde, Carey: Statutory Ammendments
Lively, Scott: "Pink Swastika"
Loftus, Elizabeth: Recovered Memories Myth
Luther, Martin: "Sola Scriptura"
Macdonald, Peter: "Taxcap" limits Debt
Man, Woman, & Myth
Matrisciana, Caryl: Islam Rising, FITNA
Martin, Malachi: Globalization, Occult
McManus, John: Stopping NAU
McKay, Dr. Marty
McLean, Candis
MacKenzie, Rob: EP Trek 2006
Menard, Robert: "Bursting Bubbles"
McQuaid, Robert: Fix CAS
Millar, David
Mills, Dennis: MP Targetted by Homsexuals
Monckton, Lord Christopher
Monarchy, David Starkey
Monteith, Dr. Stanley: Aides / Luciferians
Morris, Dick: G-20 Vs US Sovereignty
Murtari, John: NCP Hunger Striker
Nash, Dave: Cross Canada Run
Nazanin: Persian Beauty for a Free Iran
Neufeld, Gordon: Hold - Kids
Nicholson, Robert: BC's Protected Pedophile Rings
Nicolosi, Joseph: Homosexuality
Norton, Bob: Family Court Watcher
O'Connor, Matt: Original F4J-UK
PAFE = Planetary Alliance, Fathers in Exile
Palin, Sarah
Paul, Dr. Ron: Sound Money
Peck, Dr. Scott: "People of the Lie"
Pedersen, Rob: EP Bike Trek US, 2007
Pellman, Adrian, LLB: Judicial Activism
Perloff, James: Shadows of Power
Phenomenon: The Lost Archives
Pizzey, Erin: Women's Shelter Scam
Plywood Man, NWT
Protestant Revolution, BBC
Quigley, Carroll: Banking, Globalization
Rhodes, Carol: Child Support
Riplinger, Gail: Luciferian Bibles
Roberts, Carey
Roberts, Elise: False Allegation of Abuse
Roscoe, Peter: Judicial Bigotry
Russo, Aaron: NAU, CFR, Rockefellers
Ruppert, Michael C
Saburido, Jacqueline: Don't Drink
Sacks. Glenn
Secret Files of the Inquisition
Schlafly, Phyllis: Global Governance
Simons, Frank: Courts From Hell
Schafer, Nancy: Child Trafficking at CPS
Schiff, Peter: Currency Crisis, Debt Ceiling
Shafarevich, Igor: The Socialist Phenomenon
Short, David: St. John's Anglican
Shrimpton, Michael , QC: Intelligence
Shrout, Winston: Common Law
Simpson, Kari: Road Kill Radio
Smith, Ron: DC Rally, Drugging of Children
Soever, Alar: SOW's Child Support Fraud
Sodhi, Eeva
Somerville, Margaret:“Same-Sex Marriage”
Still, Bill: "Money Masters", "Mystery of Oz"
Stopps, Gordon Vs Just Ladies, BCHRT
Stormer, John: Betrayed .. Bench
Story, Christopher: "Perestroika Dec.
Sutton, Anhony: Wall Street & Hitler
Taylor, Captain Tony: "Fatherless Day"
Trociuk Darrell, BC Birth Registration
Tyndale, William, "God's Outlaw", RIP 1536
V for Vendetta / Guy Fawkes the Hero
van Gogh, Theo: Islamic Violence
Vellacott, MP Maurice
Ventura, Jesse: Conspiracy Theory
Vieira, Dr. Edwin: Fiat Empire
Wagener, William
Wallace, Tom: Sharia Law in UK & US
Warren, Elizabeth: Collapse Middle Class
Watson, Paul: EU's Nazi Origins
William III & Mary II: "Bill of Rights" 1689
Wooldridge, Nancy: Canadian Grans
World, Gordon: Sexualizing BC Children
Youth Protecting Youth (YPY), UVic
Zepezauer, Frank: Feminist Crusades |
|
Let Ex Husbands Be Fathers
Perception vs Reality
Some Facts...
Both Parents Vital
Broken Homes, Bleak Future
Justice Review
Fatherneed
Rights of fathers Ignored? |
|
Support one of over 50 class-actions against
unconstitutional 'sole custody' by Indiana Civl Rights
Council
thetruthandjusticefoundation.org
BC Statutory Amendments |
McKenzie & Pedersen, the "Two Robs",
Equal Parenting Bike Trek US 2006, 2007...
Robb MacKenzie Equal Parenting Bike Trek - Google Search;
Robb MacKenzie Equal Parenting Bike Trek - Google Video
Rob Pederson, Equal Parenting - Google Search;
Robert Pederson, Equal Parenting - Google Video
 Cycling4Children.com
Equal Parenting Bike Trek's photostream
More:
Issues:
McKenzie & Pedersen, the "Two Robs", Equal Parenting Bike
Trek US 2006, 2007...;
Issues: Smith,
Ron: DC Family Preservation Rally, Compulsory Drugging
of Children;
Issues:
Compulsory Drugging of Children, Thymerisol; |
Beware of the "Parental Rights" IMPOSTER!!!!
"Natural Parent's Rights" Vs "Parent's Rights"
Be on the lookout for the "Parent's
Rights" IMPOSTER. Insist on "Natural Parents Only",
please!
It comes as a big surprise to us that
many groups that present themselves as
"Parents Rights" groups REFUSE to defend the
NATURAL PARENT, and
and to demand RESTORATION
of
Natural Parents Rights taken from Canadians in the
Homosexual Marriage
legislation.
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!!!
More:
About:
Beware of the IMPOSTER!!!! "Natural Parent's Rights"
Vs "Parent's Rights";
News: Lessard, Hester - Heterosexual view of
Parenthood must be ignored
News: Smith,
Judge Daphne, BCSC, for Child Trafficking;
Issues: Trociuk,
Darrell;
Issues:
Child Trafficking, Canadian;
Testimonials: Rick Fredrickson of Saskatoon |
Bill Graham, Liberal <Pedophile> Leader & Defense
Minister
Bill Graham, mp - Google Search;
Bill Graham, mp - Google Video
Lawrence Metherel - Google Search
2007-06-19 Liberal MP Bill Graham announces
resignation
"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
More:
News: Graham,
Bill: Pedophile Parliamentarian, Defense Minister |
 |
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."
.....
More,
Glossary of
terms |
|
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.) |
| |
Lynette Burrows: Police warn Psychologist to stop talking about
Homosexuals and Parenting
|
|
|
 2005-10-12 Police warn author over gay comments
<on Adoption> "Lynette Burrows, an author on
children's rights and a family campaigner, took part in
a discussion on the Victoria Derbyshire show on Radio
Five Live about the
new civil partnerships act....
During the programme,
she said she did not believe that homosexuals should be
allowed to adopt. She added that placing boys with two
homosexuals for adoption was as obvious a risk as
placing a girl with two heterosexual men who offered
themselves as parents. "It is a risk," she said. "You
would not give a small girl to two men"
|
|
1999-Spring: 'How to control adults by means of
'children's rights' - How Paedophiles masquerade behind
Children's Rights By Lynette Burrows This
article is published by The Human Life Foundation, Inc. New
York, in the HUMAN LIFE REVIEW, Vol. XXV, No. 2, Spring 1999,
pages 65 - 73.
Lynette Burrows is a well-known English educator and journalist.
Her latest book, The Fight for the Family, was published in
1998, revised and reprinted in March 1999 by the Family
Education Trust, Family Publications, Oxford, England.
When you think about it, the fashionable crusade of 'children's
rights' is bound to be anti-family. It is a movement which
declares itself to be more interested in the welfare of children
than are ordinary parents. It seeks rights and laws for children
that neither they, nor their parents, want. It promises to give
children legal sanctions against their parents and, in so doing,
pits the interests of children against their parents. The
inescapable implication is that children are not in safe hands
with their own parents and that a whole movement has had to be
called into being in order to protect them. It is an
innocent-sounding piece of subliminal, anti-family propaganda,
advertising the fact that parents are, at best, inadequate and,
at worst, hostile to the needs of their children.
Analysing the 'loaded' message of the title 'children's rights'
one can see it attempts to pack the punch of an appeal to both
parental feeling and the nobility of action implied by the word
'rights'. It is utterly bogus! A 'right is classically defined
as 'the freedom to act without interference, according to one's
conscience.' It means nothing unless the individual has the
capacity to act upon their 'right' and children, by nature of
their immaturity and inexperience, do not have that capacity. So
they have people who act for them, in the form of the people who
created them and who love them more than anyone else. Those
people, the adult parents, have a freedom to act according to
their conscience, and within the law, with their children and it
is that freedom that the children's rights activists seek to
remove.
One can clearly map their intentions by what they have achieved
so far and what they are signalling they want to do in the
future. I don't know anything about the American scene but, in
Great Britain, and several European countries, among their
achievements has been securing the right of the state to allow
under-age children to be given contraceptives and abortions
without their parents' knowledge or consent. This remarkable
right was not achieved via parliament, which still upholds an
'age of consent' at sixteen years. Still less was it achieved by
pressure from either parents or children. It was as achieved by
the active collaboration of the industry that sells
contraceptives, the people who are employed in promoting their
use, and the 'children's rights' lobby who claimed that, since
children had now decided to be sexually active - there was
nothing parents could do about it.
The right for children to 'divorce' unsatisfactory parents has
also been secured for them by children's rights lawyers; working
on the usual pay-rates but with the bill settled by the
taxpayer. So far parents have not been given the right to
divorce unsatisfactory children - but that is consistent with
the philosophy of children's rights. It is parents who are
failing in their duty to give children the freedom they need.
Children, the client group, are not to be criticised or
restricted in any way.
Children have also been given the right to take themselves out
of the care of their parents and put themselves instead, into
the misnamed 'care' of the local authority. Just what this can
mean was illustrated by a mother, Mrs Iverson, whose14 year old
daughter went to live with a 33 year old drug-dealer from
Jamaica. She appealed to the local authority to get her daughter
back and they responded by getting a social worker to take the
child to a contraceptive clinic. The anguished mother could do
nothing whilst her daughter was first introduced to a life of
prostitution and then, a month later, murdered. No-one in
authority was criticised or prosecuted for their lack of action
since they, and the police, were prevented from denying the
child her 'right' to free association, by the Children Act,
1989.
Thus, one can see by their aims and achievements, that the right
to behave badly is second only to the right to premature sexual
activity, according to the children's rights agenda. Furtherance
of this aim was massively enhanced by the successful campaign of
one of the earliest children's rights groups to get corporal
punishment, of even the mildest kind, outlawed in schools. An
unwary parliament passed this law by one vote, against a
background of generally unproblematic discipline in schools.
Certainly primary schools were little havens of tranquillity and
learning for children in even the roughest areas. All this has
gone now; together with thousands of good teachers who have fled
a profession where harassment of them is the norm rather than
the exception in many areas.
Children have, in other words, been given an amazing collection
of liberties to behave badly, with absolutely no enforceable
obligations to behave themselves or even to observe the law. On
the other hand, their misdeeds are providing masses of highly
paid work for the now enormous lobby of professionals who are
parasitic on the new options available to children and the
problems they bring. Any attempt to improve the behaviour of
young people, is bound to run into opposition from these
professionals since they are defending a financial interest that
is dependent upon more of the same.
Another peculiarity of the rights, sought by activists for
children, is how extremely limited and arbitrary they are. If
these really were rights that any child could legitimately be
supposed to need or to want, they would surely start with the
right of a child to be born and not to be killed before birth.
But all children's rights activists support abortion in
principle and in practice as if, in any circumstances, it could
be considered in the unborn child's best interest.
Then again, any child should surely have a right to enjoy a
relationship with both their mother and their father; rather
than being created by artificial insemination for the benefit of
a lesbian couple. In all the arguments about this still highly
contentious practice, and its rather more relevant, related
topic, the ability of homosexuals to foster and adopt children,
the children's rights people have been 'out to lunch'.
Another major area where a serious question of children's rights
are involved, is surely the right of children not to be bullied
at school. Parents protest about it all the time, but little has
been done to address their concerns because parents do not
belong to well- funded organisations with direct access to the
media. 70% of parents were found last year to want corporal
punishment restored in school; and so too did 68% of
schoolchildren.
The reason for this is, no doubt, because many children are in
fact receiving punishment that is decidedly 'corporal' in school
- but from bullying thugs rather than from lawful authority. The
rights activists don't address this subject because they are so
busy monitoring schools for signs of homophobia, sexism or
racism that they seem to have overlooked the much larger number
of children who are simply terrified of the big boys.
Other areas deserving attention from those who could support
parents in wanting the best for their children, would be having
a flexible school leaving age and having the right to do work
outside of school hours. Even more important, amongst the list
of glaring omissions in the children's rights agenda, is the
care and protection of children who have been taken into council
care.
The Social Services Inspectorate presented a report last year
that pointed out just how badly children 'in care' are doing.
Despite there being only 0.5% of children in local authority
care, 22% of young men in prison and 39% of prisoners under 21
have been in care. One third of people sleeping rough in London
have been in care and one quarter of children in care aged 14 or
over, don't go to school regularly. For some reason, referred to
in the report but not explained, many of those who abscond from
children's homes, somehow disappear from local authority records
thereafter.
When this report came out, there was much public discussion
about this parlous state of affairs and many people commented on
the lack of independent monitoring to safeguard vulnerable
children. None that I saw, even thought to question the complete
lack of involvement or interest in this scandal by the many,
high-profile, publicly funded, children's rights organisations.
There are many areas of pressing need in relation to
disadvantaged children, where parents with the best will in the
world, simply have no power to get things done. Well- funded
organisations with premises, facilities, telephones, full time
staff and, above all, access to the media, could do so much of
real value if they wanted to; but our current crop do not. So,
one has to ask, what do they really want?
The answer to this must be that it is something ideological as
well as something financial. The financial objective is fairly
straight- foreward. It has provided a good many jobs and the
children's rights activists have certainly found themselves a
career. My book, The Fight for the Family, (a second edition of
which came out in March) started life as a commissioned chapter
in a book about social affairs. I was given a researcher
(American) and told to find out about the principle children's
rights groups; who formed them, who supported them and who paid
for them.
Once we began, we found a scene so entirely different from what
we had expected, that we became seriously interested and what
had started out as a fairly hum-drum piece of research turned
into a fascinating lesson in the modus operandi of pressure
groups. It also ballooned into a small book.
For a start we discovered that all the principle groups
concerned with this characteristically liberal/left version of
children's rights, groups were founded or co-founded by one man,
and his domestic 'partner', mostly as limited companies. Their
friends and colleagues over the years were spread amongst child
care charities and government committees and one, or both,
turned up on the boards of all eight of the principal
organisations promoting their version of 'children's rights'.
Their ideological orientation explained why the narrow agenda
they pursued in every case was so similar. It also explained why
the basic assumption was always that children needed to be
'liberated' from their parent's care and control. Not having
chosen to get married themselves, despite having children, it is
fair to say that they have some rooted objection to marriage as
an institution or, at least, believe that it is not important.
These groups have played an important part in promoting all the
rights referred to above relating to premature sexual activity
and behaving badly. One of the organisations was exclusively
devoted to securing the abolition of corporal punishment in
schools and, that having been achieved, its funds were
transferred to another organisation, End Physical Punishment of
Children, (EPOCH) which is the principle driving force behind
attempts to get parental smacking of children criminalised.
The part of my book which really enraged rights activists,
however, was not the discussion of their ideological bent, which
they did not seem to dispute. It was the fact that attention was
drawn to the similarity of their aims to those of the paedophile
organisations of the 1970's, which were prosecuted and
suppressed in 1980.
As a matter of fact, the similarities are striking and, whilst I
was not claiming that children's rights activists were all
paedophiles, it is nevertheless evident that their campaigns
have been useful to those who want greater sexual access to
children. 'Unwitting' was the word I used to describe the direct
help given to paedophiles by the de facto abolition of the age
of consent for girls in the matter of providing them with
contraceptives at school. Now it is proposed to apply the same
age of consent law to boys for homosexual activity, we will no
doubt see its de facto abolition too.
However, it was after the book was sold out that the response to
the publishers began to make another aspect of 'children's
rights' clear. It was always obvious that the welfare of
children was very low on most of the activists' agenda.
Otherwise they would have been doing honest research to discover
whether the freedoms advocated by them for children, were
actually beneficial. They would also have been much more
interested in whether breaking up families was the best response
to anything but clear law-breaking on the part of parents, not
to mention whether local authority care was better for children
than a normal, even strict, home.
Now, like a voice from beyond the grave, we suddenly heard that
Sweden had, at long last, developed a protest movement against
the things that were being done to them in the name of
children's rights. I don't know if it is the same in America,
but here and in Europe, Sweden has always been held up as a
paragon of 'progressive' innovation. It is referred to in
reverential tones by liberals everywhere and children's rights
activists place particular emphasis on the beneficial effects of
their 1979 law which forbade parents to smack their children.
According to their literature, no parents have ever been
imprisoned or otherwise penalised for having laid a hand on
their children and there is no cause for concern anywhere.
Well, it isn't true! An organisation of academics, lawyers,
doctors and other professionals have formed 'The Nordic
Committee for Human Rights', which is principally concerned with
human rights abuses in Sweden, the most powerful and influential
of the Nordic nations. They have a website (NKMR.org) where you
can read all about it in English. They point out several
crucial, historical factors. Notably that the Nazi's copied a
good deal of their social policy from the Swedes; particularly
that part of it which saw children as belonging to 'the parental
state' rather than to its parents. The family too was viewed
with dislike since it encouraged thoughts and actions that were
not prescribed by the state.
Unmarried mothers had their babies automatically taken away from
them and an organisation called 'Save the Children' was begun
during the 1930's in Sweden, which was, contrary to expectation,
profoundly anti- family. What children had to be 'saved' from,
were the imperfections of their natural parents and the
oppressive and un-enlightened atmosphere of a normal family.
That has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it?
They were also very enamoured of eugenics and the idea of a
perfect racial type. Unbeknown to the rest of the world, the
Swedish government pursued a policy of forced sterilisation of
children it thought came from poor stock, until 1976. What a
surprise for liberals everywhere when the fact came out, only
last year, that more than 60,000 children had, in that way, been
cleansed of their ability to procreate.
Few people had any idea that the Swedish government had the
power to maintain such secrecy when it also had a relatively
free press. One can hazard a guess that the truth only emerged
finally because a couple of sad individuals, who had been
deprived of their birthright by being sterilised when they were
children in care, sued the government for compensation for what
was done for them. Victims have now been promised the princely
sum of £7,000 apiece.
The Nordic Committee, under its energetic and fearless chairman
Ruby Harrold-Claesson, has at last broken open many of the other
half- truths that the Swedish authorities are still putting
about. She is a lawyer - incidentally, the only black one in
Sweden - and has dredged up a lot of the figures relating to the
seizure of children by the authorities. These are difficult to
obtain because they are not recorded in the normal, criminal
courts. Hence the ability of the children's rights people to
claim that there have been no prosecutions under the 1979 law.
Children are taken away under the auspices of an administrative
court which, in the public interest, of course, keeps the
figures safely out of reach of most people.
To give you an idea of the scale of the tyranny over the family,
it is necessary to describe the context. Sweden has a population
of eight million; it is also extremely homogenous as to race and
no people in Europe are more clearly identifiable by their
appearance alone. It has virtually no poverty, wall-to-wall
welfare and no large cities. The capital city has a population
of less than two million and the second city has one hundred and
fifty thousand people. There should be, in fact, very few cases
where children need to be taken from their parents. Yet, in 1981
the authorities seized 22,000 children; which represents a rate
of seizure 86 times greater than that of West Germany. An
equivalent figure for America would be, by that reckoning, more
than 687 thousand - in one year!
No doubt the authorities had such a field day because of the
number of children who had been smacked by their parents before
the 1979 Act came in. The figure fell somewhat after that but,
in 1995, it was 14,700 children removed from their homes. That
is a rate 57 times that of Germany and, in American terms, would
be nearly 500 thousand children. A mind-boggling number for the
rest of the world to contemplate and a clear explanation why so
few people in Sweden either get married or have children.
Yet why is this so little known? From time to time there is
brief publicity of the abuses of Sweden, before liberals return
to their uncritical admiration of it. Unfortunately for the
oppressed everywhere, the liberal/left always treasures its
heroes - even when they are murderous tyrants - so it will take
some time, and a lot of repetition, for the truth to rise to the
surface.
Another stalwart of the Nordic Committee, Siv Westerberg, has
taken eight cases to the Court of Human rights at Strasborg, and
has won seven times. The Readers Digest featured one of her
cases in 1993. It involved three children who were abducted by
the authorities whilst they were at school. They were sent to
separate families 600 miles away and it took the parents 5
months even to find out where they were. No specific reason was
ever given for why they had been taken; just that it was in
their 'best interest'. It took seven years before the parents
were able to get their case to the European Court, which found
in their favour. The parents were awarded £33,000 compensation
and the Swedish authorities were told to return the children to
their parents. The eldest, who was then 17, was allowed home but
the other two were not. This is the system that we are being
asked to admire and follow!
By a striking coincidence, on the very day the organisation that
published my book held a conference to discuss its findings, the
BBC asked to do an interview with me about the smacking debate.
Since I was tied up with the conference, they decided to
interview me in a side room during the lunch break and,
accordingly sent an interviewer and crew. I took the opportunity
to introduce them to Ruby Harrold- Claesson, who was one of the
principle speakers at the conference and she gave them a brief
run-down of what she was saying about Sweden.
The team looked uncomfortable and, when I suggested that they
include an interview with her to beef-up the debate, they said
they already had been to Sweden and would be including an
account of things there, as part of the programme.
When we watched the programme a few days later, sure enough,
there they were in Sweden interviewing a handful of
schoolchildren who confirmed that their parents were not allowed
to smack them. They then asked a senior official about whether
many children had been taken from their families as a result of
the anti-smacking law. Laughing uproariously, she waved her hand
around her, 'Can you see many children being taken?' she said.
And that was supposed to be a sufficient answer.
After this, the missing brick fell into place! The question was
always, why are the children's rights people so concerned to
make the parental right to smack their children illegal? Most of
their organisations have been more or less devoted to the
subject despite the fact that 90% of good and caring parents say
that it is necessary at times. Now the answer is clear.
It is a device which places most parents in the power of social
workers. They are, by training and tradition, Marxist, feminist,
and anti-religious. They don't much care for the family and lend
their weight on every possible occasion to arguments and devices
that show it in a bad light. In this country, they are still
opposed to the inclusion, in official statistics, of figures
which show the precise nature of the relationship of abusers to
the children they abuse. At present, they are simply called
'fathers', even though they are seldom genetic fathers and, even
more seldom, genetic fathers actually married to the mother of
their children. The traditional family is still the safest place
for any child to be - but you would not know it from official
literature on the subject.
Thus, anybody who wanted to further a Marxist, feminist agenda,
could not do better than to have most families in thrall to
social workers. The right to browbeat parents because they smack
their children when they think it necessary, as the Bible tells
them they must, would be all an officious bureaucracy needed to
infantalise the majority of adults. It is not about the
elevation of children's rights at all. It is about the crushing
of adult ones.
It is a particularly crafty bandwagon to set on the road because
it has drawn support from so many unpleasant but powerful
allies. Contraceptive-selling commerce has welcomed and
supported them; paedophiles love them; and as for those
government employees engaged in the job of directing, but not
curbing, the rising tide of young people in trouble - they
simply could not do without them.
Baby-snatching, as it has always been called, is almost bound to
be due for a make-over in the years to come. There has been in
increase in infertility amongst the young that would be
considered alarming if we were not still so fixated with the
idea of over-population; plus the fact that the 'wrong' sort of
people are still having babies, particularly out of wedlock.
This rise must be due, at least in part, to the powerful
steroids being given to young girls to ensure their continuance
as sexually active people. Also because of the extraordinary
increase in the sexually transmitted diseases which cause
barrenness in women and sterility in men.
Evils have a habit of happening one upon the other and it is an
ironic observation made by the Nordic Committee for Human
rights, that one of the reasons it is so easy to find foster-carers
for the thousands of 'snatched' children in Sweden, is a
political one. Successive social policy makers have scorned the
role of wife and mother for many years. A woman loses all child
benefits if she refuses to place her children in a crèche and
she would feel very vulnerable to having them taken away too.
Unless of course she had a very well-paid job to do there -
looking after other people's stolen children.
It is incongruous, isn't it? To build your home on the ruins of
someone else's. No wonder Scandinavian dramatists at the turn of
the century were always so gloomy; they must have sensed what
was coming. |
|
|
|
