"Honorable
senators know that I have studied a terrible and pernicious
heart of darkness
that has developed in our court system, being the use of
FALSE ACCUSATIONS in civil justice.
"This
is the mischief of litigating parties, usually mothers,
suddenly within the context of divorce and within child
custody proceedings falsely accusing the other party,
usually fathers, of the sexual abuse of their own children.
,,,
"These
FALSE ACCUSATIONS are often made with the overt
or covert complicity of their
lawyers. They are a
lethal weapon in the business of parental alienation. They
are a tool for achieving sole custody of children and
creating fatherlessness."
"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.)
FYI, most of what you hear
about Family Violence is a huge fraud because
World Health Organization
obligates members to:
a) NOT report results of studies which do
not show "expected results", and
b) if "unexpected results do eventually get
reported, they may only be reported with "expert" commentary to
explain away the deviation from the expected result that "Men are
violent" and "Women are their Victims".
The World Health has as a primary Sponsor, the
Rockefeller Foundations, a
Fabian Socialist group
which has as it's aim the conversion of the West to a Soviet style
block which can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.
See Norman Dodd.
Opponents of Equal Parenting like to tell you
that seventy something percent of Custody Cases don't go to Trial,
and are awarded as Sole Custody to Mom BY CONSENT.
What they don't tell you is that in ninety
something percent of Custody Cases that do go to Trial Mom gets Sole
Custody anyway, and Dad has to pay on top of his Lawyer fees, the
Court Costs for having lost his Application. Faced with these
abysmal odds, Dads are commonly told to "Just give her what she
wants so you can have a good relationship with her". Under
such
Duress many Dads foolishly acquiesce .... for
a time at least......
We prefer that Natural Parents NOT sign a Consent
Order that is not completely Equal with respect to Gender, as the
relationship of the divorced couple is greatly destabilized with
each injury to the equality of parental powers .
Pedophile Activists obviously don't go around
telling you what they're up to. Instead they call
themselves "Mentors", "Social
Workers", "Feminists" or "Homosexual Rights Activists". In
Canada, Pedophile Activists have been successful in getting
greater access to children by reducing the
Age
of Consent to ,
and in eliminating a parents "right to know" when the child reaches
the age of
,
replacing them with school counselors and
Social Workers, and by, of course, eradicating fathers from
their children's lives entirely from birth on request by the mother.
With
the recent changes to accommodate homosexual marriage, the right of
natural parents to "parent" their natural children will soon be
removed entirely. Through these statutory changes, the term
"LEGAL PARENT" is replacing the
historic term "NATURAL PARENT"
in Canadian statutes. As a result Natural
Parents can no longer automatically claim to be the Legal Parents of
their own natural children at birth. Instead, to accommodate
the Homosexual Activists' plan to push Natural Parents aside when it
comes to parenting children, the Courts alone now decide who will be
the "parents' of all children born in Canada.
Pedophile
Activists are often lawyers, school counselors, teachers,
Social Workers, Sex Ed teachers,
YWCA leaders,
pastors, Judges, etc. etc. They seek positions with access and
power over Children & Families, and positions to create social and
political change. The publicly undisclosed prevalence of
Pedophile & Homosexual Activists in our civil service has been
attributed to their determined politicism in the many groups like
ACT UP! , the secrecy of the
alliances made in various "secret societies" and sex clubs, and to
Sexual Nepotism in the workplace.
Lynette Burrows, Psychologist: How to control adults by means of
'Children's Rights', How Paedophiles masquerade behind Children's Rights
Family-values campaigner quizzed by police for making
'homophobic' comments
"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"
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 Ł7,000 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 Ł33,000 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 crčche 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.
Teenagers whose parents are married are far
less likely to have underage sex, a report suggests.
The Family Matters Institute quizzed 2,250
adolescents aged 13-15 about sex.
The institute says its findings show that teenagers are less
likely to have sex if their parents are married, keep an eye on
what they do, and set strict guidelines.
It adds that teenagers are less likely to have underage sex if
their parents are religious and have clear standards of morality
- which they discuss with their children.
But the conclusions have been attacked by supporters of
single-parents and sex education.
Children of married parents are the least likely to engage in
underage sex
The report, entitled 'Does Your Mother Know?', was compiled for
the Lords and Commons Family and Child Protection Group.
Gerald Howarth MP, chair of the group, said "Every study has
shown incontrovertibly that marriage and stable family life
provide the best framework for bringing up children.
"'Does Your Mother Know?' reinforces that message through its
findings - that the children of married parents are the least
likely to engage in underage sex."
Parents
The report found 58% of those who have not
had a sexual experience say they have a very good relationship
with their mother, compared to 43% of those who have.
Fewer than one in three sexually active girls said they were
given any parental rules about boyfriends.
The survey also found:
A quarter of sexually active 13-15 year
olds, have had four or more sexual partners
A "significant increase" in the number of
teenagers who have had a sexually transmitted disease
One in five say they lost their virginity
while drunk
Almost two-thirds of girls aged 13-15 who are sexually
active say they spend their spare time "just hanging around
outside"
72% of parents of girls aged 13 who are
sexually active do not know their daughters are having sex.
A report published in 1999 by Dr Clifford
Hill, one of the authors of the new report, claimed 17% of 13-15
year olds were sexually active.
Dr Hill said: "The simple fact is that the family environment
and the relationship between husband and wife can have a very
real effect on the children.
He said parents should start talking about sexual behaviour and
morality with 10,11 and 12-year-olds.
'Blight'
Professor Martin Richards, director of the
Centre for Family Research at the University of Cambridge,
backed the report.
He said: "Britain has a high rate of teenage pregnancy and, most
disturbingly, the rate is not falling as it is in the rest of
Europe.
"Premature parenthood blights the lives of those who have
responsibilities thrust on them too early."
The report calls on the government, which has pledged to halve
rates of teenage pregnancy by 2010, to "radically change" its
policy.
Margaret Creear, of Gingerbread, the charity for single parent
families, told the Observer newspaper: "These types of report
are not helpful.
"The reasons for underage pregnancies are
much more complex and often to do with social deprivation, not
whether your parents are married or not."
Lynette Burrows, author of 'The fight for the Family', said it
was no surprise one parent found it more difficult than two.
"Most parents do a pretty good job, but they get no help from
government, and we have got a culture that undermines them at
every turn."
Jan Barlow, chief executive of Brook, which provides
confidential sex and contraception advice to young people, said:
"Attributing sexual activity in under 16s to divorced, separated
or single parents is simplistic and stigmatising and obscures
what is an extremely complex issue.
"To suggest that a return to Victorian family values is the way
to reduce teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections
is naďve and unhelpful."
Scott Lively, "Pink Swastika", Homosexuality and the Nazi
Party
Violence and Homosexuality;
"The top six U.S. male serial killers were all
gay < as are
40-something % of Canadian Law Faculties, Law Societies, and the
Judiciary, "common knowledge" among lawyers>
Juan Corona was
convicted of murdering 25 migrant workers (he "made love"
with their corpses).
"Lesbian
Aileen Wuornos laid claim in 1992 to "worst female killer" with
at least 7 middle-aged male victims. She singlehandedly topped
the lesbian nurse team of Catherine Wood and Gwen Graham, who
had killed 6 convalescent patients in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
The association between serial murder and homosexuality isn’t
recent..... "
Lawyers consistently estimate the
homosexual fraction of
the Law Societies & Judiciaries as "forty-something" percent.
That is,
a randomly selected Judge or Lawyer is about thirty
TIMES more likely to be homosexual than the population at large
Children are born with no Parent other than
the State, which can now pretend
to "Protect" the "Rights of a Child" against the Parent.
Hitherto, the
Parens patriae role of the State was evoked only when the
Child had been ABANDONED by the Parent, or there was Cause for
Removal. This does not suit the
CBA's purposes,
and Statutes must be made to conform the Judicial Practice
rather than the other way around.
The Law Societies are now conditioning you to
abandon your "God-Given Rights"
of Common Law. and
accepting their Nazi /
European Civil Law mindset that rights are granted you by
the State by casting the discussion in their Nazi / European
terms of "Rights & Responsibilites"
"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.
2006-01-19
The Straight slate - Port Moody–Westwood–Port Coquitlam, Mary Woo
Siims, Straight.com;
"Mary Woo Sims, the former chief commissioner of the
BC Human Rights Commission,
is a hero to some in the gay and lesbian community for her record as
a defender and promoter of human rights.
Sims, a motorcycle-riding lesbian, lost a bid last year to
get elected to Coquitlam city council",
Georgia Straight
Former
Senator Nancy Schaefer and her husband Bruce have died from
a single shot wound each. The deaths are being handled as
a 'murder-suicide'. <Ha!> The husband shot once in the chest.
Nancy was shot once in the back. Both shots were
lethal. Two shots, Two Kills
"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
Hester Lessard, UVic Feminist Law Prof:
Heterosexual View of Parenthood must be ignored
"Trociuk is .. a
disheartening endorsement of biological concepts of parenthood
... flawed .... it legitimizes a heterosexual view of the family. ..
It must be ignored."
"Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist /
Communist government is the goal of Feminism."-
Catharine A. MacKinnon
"Anyone who knows anything of
history knows that great social
changes are impossible without
feminine upheaval. Social
progress can be measured exactly
by the social position of the
fair sex, the ugly ones
included."Karl
Marx
Patricia Ireland: Lesbian YWCA Chief & NOW
President
"NOW President Patricia Ireland led the
largest, most visible and most successful feminist organization in the
United States for 10 years, from 1991-2001.
"WWII was started by Hitler, Stalin and
American multinationals, "Useful Idiot" University Professors
& Homosexuals
will be lined up against a wall and shot"
"Honourable
senators know that I have studied a terrible and pernicious
heart of darkness that has developed in our court system, being
the use of
FALSE ACCUSATIONS in civil justice.
This is the
mischief of litigating parties, usually mothers, suddenly within
the context of divorce and within child custody proceedings
falsely accusing the other party, usually fathers, of the sexual
abuse of their own children. ,,,
These
FALSE ALLEGATIONS are often made with the overt or
covert complicity of their lawyers. They are a lethal weapon in
the business of parental alienation. They are a tool for
achieving sole custody of children and creating fatherlessness."
Sexual psychopath. His
'data' mostly came from sexual psychopaths, sex offenders,
criminals, pedophiles, male prostitutes, and promiscuous
homosexuals. Two of his "co-investigators" were serial
rapists:
Rex King, convicted of 800 counts of child rape involving
both sexes, and
Fritz von Balluseck, an ex-Nazi convicted of the rape-murder
of a ten-year-old girl in Berlin
Kinsey solicited and encouraged pedophiles, at home and abroad,
to sexually violate from 317 to 2,035 infants and children for
his alleged data on normal "child sexuality."
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.
