Remember, Remember the 5th of November,
The gunpowder treason and plot, I see no reason
why Gunpowder Treason should ever be forgot

Guy Fawkes thumbnail

    ● EP-BC Home About  Issues Testimonials News  Reference   Fun Stuff Members


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" = "Blank Cheque"
Breach of Trust
Carbon Tax funds Global Government
"Case Law" is NOT Law
CCA Wood and Playgrounds
Child Support Tables / SOW Fraud
"Child's Right" or "Parents' Right"
Child & Human Trafficking righs of CBA
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
EU = European Union:  Nazi Brainchild
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
Franklin Scandal, Conspiracy of Silence
Freedom of Speech
Friendly Parent Rule, Max. Contact
Fundamental Justice
Glass-Steagall Act Repealed
Globalism is Treason
Habeas Corpus Abandoned
"Hate Crime" Speech  Police
HELP = Human Early Learning Partnerships
Homofacism
Homosexual Violence
Homosexual Activism, Gay Manifesto
Homosexual Marriage
"Human Rights” Commissions in Canada
Imputed Income:  Fraudulent CS Orders
Inheritance Theft: Grey & Black Widow
Judicial Accountability, Removal of Judges
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
Lawyers in the Legislatures
Lawyers Lying in Court, Self Regulation Fail
Legal Abuse Syndrome
Letters to MP
Letters to MLA
Letters to Editor
Lisbon Treaty (2007) is Treason
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
NDP = "No Dads Party"
Net Neutrality:  Keep Internet Free!!
No Fault Divorce
NCR = Not Criminally Responsible
Oath Keepers
Parliament MUST
Parental Alienation
Parental Authority Usurped by Teachers..
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
PPP = Public Private Partnerships, Public Assets
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
UNCRC = UN Convention..Rights of the Child
Uptick Rule Repealed 2007
"Women's Shelters" = Lesbian Gulags

Notable Authorities





















Albrecht, Katherine :  RFID Spychips
Alexander,  Rachel:  Shared Parenting
Angry Harry
Annett, Kevin: Child Trafficking in BC
Asher, Jeffrey
Baskerville, Stephen: "Taken .. Custody
Beatley, Terry:  UNCRC Vs Parental Rights
Baxter, Dorian: Canada Courtwatch
Beck, Glenn Beck: World Government
Bennett, Richard: Purpose Driven Church
Blick, Edward:  Global Warming & Marxism
Blumner,Court Ordered Sexism
Briffault, Robert: Briffault's Law
Burrows, Lynette: Homo Adoption
Caradori, Gary: Franklin Cover-up Investigator
Carley, Dr. Rebecca: Vaccinations
Carr, William Guy:  Pawns in the Game
Christie, Doug:  Freedom of Speech
Chopra, Dr. Shiv: Health Canada
Clarke, Christine:  BC Conservatives
Clifford Dean:   Freeman
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
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
Decamp, John: Franklin Cover-up
Delaney, Chris : "No HST in BC!"
Dioguardi, Joe:  Saving US / Debtors' Prison
Dodd, Norman:  NWO Fabian Socialists
Doomsday Preppers
Duane, James:"Don't Talk to Police"
Dutton, Don:  RADAR, "Rethinking DV"
EP-Australia
Estulin, Daniel:  Bilderberg Group
Evans, Stanton: "Blacklisted, Joe McCarthy"
Farage, Nigel:  UKIP, EU Titanic
Farrell, Warren:  Why Men Earn More
Federer, Bill: Endang'd Speeches, Quran
Fischer, Greg:  Family Preservation Festival
Fogal, Connie:  No NAU
Forseth, MP Paul:  FTSOTC Panelist
Fromm, Paul:  Free Speech, CAFE
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
Iserbyt, Charlotte: Dumbing Down
Jones, Alex
Kah, Gary: Obama, Vatican, Globalization
Kay, Barbara, National Post
Kennedy, John F:  Assassination 1963
Kernberg, Dr. Otto: Personality Disorder
Kerkman, Larry :  CRISPE
Keyes, Alan :
Khodeir, Lucien:  Child-Support Guidelines
Knight, Robert: Obama's "Radical Rulers"
Kruk, Edward: Child Custody
Lafantaisie, Michele:  CAS, CCA wood
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
Machon, Annie:  Ex-MI5
Makow , Henry PhD: "Save the Males"
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 Pedophiles
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
Silverman, Earl:  Domestic Abuse against Men
SJCA - FTSOTC 48 Recom's
Simpson, Kari:  Road Kill Radio
Smith, Dr. Helen,  "Men on Strike"
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, RIP 2005
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
Wilberforce, William: Slave Trade Act, 1807
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

Your Articles

Let Ex Husbands Be Fathers
Perception vs Reality
Some Facts...
Both Parents Vital
Broken Homes, Bleak Future
Justice Review
Fatherneed
Rights of fathers Ignored?

Petitions, Class Action

Support one of over 50 class-actions against unconstitutional 'sole custody' by Indiana Civl Rights Council

thetruthandjusticefoundation.org

Support one of over 50 class-actions against unconstitutional 'sole custody' by Indiana Civl Rights Council

BC Statutory Amendments

Your Letters to an MP

Your Letters to an MP:  HOME

Letters to MP: I have $104.58 left over after paying child support

Post New Letters to a Member of BC Legislative Assembly (MLA) here

Your Letters to an MLA

Your Letters to MLA: HOME

Post New Letters to a Member of a Legislative Assembly (MLA) here

Your Letters to an Editor

Your Letters to an Editor: HOME

Post your New Letters to an Editor here 

Senator Anne Cools, FTSOTC Chair on False Accusations & Lying Lawyers

Senator Anne Cools, formerly Liberal, now Conservative, on False Accusations &
Law Societies' permitting Lawyers to Lie in Court

"'..  mothers and fathers should have equal rights in the raising of their children, regardless of marital break down"

Anne Cools - Google Search
Anne Cools - Google Video

Canadian Bill s-12, senator cools - Google Search

"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."




2004-06-08  SENATOR ANNE COOLS LEAVES LIBERAL FOLD TO JOIN CONSERVATIVES  

Senator Anne Cools Runs Away With The Suns's 10 Top Women Poll, Kevin Connor, TO Sun

2004-06-08  Liberal senator < Anne Cools >  goes Conservative

1997-10-28 Child Custody and Access Reform, Special Joint Committee Established

Erin PizzeyMore:  Issues:  Cools, Senator Anne
Issues: False Accusations;
Isues Women's Shelters' Scam
News:  Liberal Hedy Fry / Status of Women (SOW):
News:  Cross, Pamela:Feminist Law:  Female Accusers must not be required to face those they accuse of Violence;
Issues:  Domestic Violence Scam & "Women's Studies" Propaganda
Issues:  Pizzey, Erin: Women's Shelter Scam;
Issues:  "Women's Shelter" Gulags:  Lesbian Brainwashing & Seduction Camps
Issues:  Cools, Senator Anne: Lying Lawyers;
News:  Liberal Hedy Fry / Status of Women (SOW):
Issuess:  False Accusations;
Issues:  Child Trafficking by Public Officers & Judges

Liberal Irwin Cotler:  "Natural Parents have NO RIGHTS"

Irwin Cotler, former Liberal "Justice" Minister robbed Canadians of their NATURAL PARENTS' Rights

Irwin Cotler - Google Search;
Irwin Cotler - Google Video


"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.

More:  News:  Cotler, Irwin:  "Natural Parents have NO RIGHTS...;
News:  European Union;
Issues:  Paul Watson:  Nazi Origins of European Union;;;
Issues: G. Edward  Griffin ;
Issues: Fabian Socialism;

Liberal Anne McLellan says "Joint Custody Perpetuates the domination of men over women"


Former Liberal Justice Minister, Deputy Prime Minister

Anne McLellan , MP - Google Search

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"  

The Liberal Party and Child Sexual Abuse


More:  News:  McLellan , Liberal Anne "Joint Custody Perpetuates the domination of men over women"

Common Law Perverted by Activist Judges and Legal Oligarchy

Chapter VII. The English Common Law. Section 57. The Norman Conquest

A beautiy of British  Common Law is that it is STATIC, and NOT DYNAMIC as these Activist Judges would have you think.

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.

More:   Issues:  Common Law Perverted by Activist Judges and Legal Oligarchy;
Issues:  "Judicial Interpretation" to pervert Statutes of Parliament;
Issues:  Judicial Activism is Breach of Trust;
Issues:  Judicial Globalization is Treason

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

















Phyllis Schlafly and Stephen Baskerville

On February 14, 2006 Both Phyllis Schlafly and Stephen Baskerville join together in a landmark interview
"War Against The Family".mp3

Phyllis
Schlafly

"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"

Stephen
Baskerville

"Why isn't "Focus on the Family" working for Equal Parenting?

Stephen Baskerville's Home; American Coal. for Fathers and Children

Terminology

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, 2001

Skeletons in the Closet

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.)

Trial By Jury displaced by Activist Judges

Of course Judges and other "Friends of the Court" won't receive capital punishment for Capital Crimes like Treason.

Trial By Jury, Canada - Google Search

Violence and Murder of Men by  Women sanctioned by Courts

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.

What Is Gendercide?

Wages Gleaned at Source

BC ALS victim Art Brown finds FMEP garnishing his disability pension of Child Support for adult Child not living with Mother

Threats of Court  Costs &  Assessments lead Natural Fathers to abandon Custody Rights under Duress

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: Sexual Enticement of Children

Teacher-Student sex rules being relaxed by BCSC

Sexual Abuse by a Public Officer

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 FOURTEEN, and in eliminating a parents "right to know" when the child reaches the age of TWELVE, 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.

Paul Forseth, former MP for New Westminster - Coquitlam,  Special Joint Committee Panelist, Co-Author of the "Dissenting Opinion"

 

Paul Forseth, past M.P., (New Westminster-Coquitlam-Burnaby)

We are fortunate in British Columbia to have a number of pro-family parliamentarians.  Of particular prominence is Paul Forseth, M.P. -  member of the "For the Sake of the Children" Committee, co-author of the Dissenting Opinions, and a staunch advocate of pro-family concerns.  Paul has put in many years pushing to have Equal Parenting issues brought forward to the Canadian Parliament, and faced fierce opposition from the Prime Minister.   Both Paul and Senator Cools have pressed on to redeem fathers from groups like the Status of Women (SOW) enduring multiple death threats from various radical feminist groups while serving on the Committee.  These MPs are tough.

More:  Issues:  Forseth, MP Paul: FTSOTC Panelist

MP Paul Forseth's EP Update, Nov.7th 2005

Dear Equal Parenting-BC:

"Conservatives are committed to Shared Parenting. The national party “Policy Declaration” that was passed by delegates at our March 2005 Montreal convention says clearly that:   Shared Parenting:  is an objective of the Conservative Party of Canada. 

A Conservative Government will make the necessary changes to the Divorce Act to ensure that in the event of a marital breakdown, the Divorce Act will allow both parents and all grandparents to maintain a meaningful relationship with their children and grandchildren, unless it is clearly demonstrated not to be in the best interests of the children.    

My Liberal colleagues that served with me on the Senate-Commons committee that wrote the “For the Sake of the Children report, admitted that they have little confidence that their Party will ever enact the needed amendments to the Divorce Act, that completely fulfills the report recommendations. The NDP opposed us during the Committee process, and have never been supportive of dads.

Conservatives are the only hope for fairness and reasonableness in Divorce and Family Law. I encourage those who care, to focus their energy where it will help the most, by working to elect as many Conservatives as possible. I hope that the many who are frustrated, not become sidetracked into protest, which does nothing during an election but undercut our ability to make good things happen. The Liberals and the NDP will say anything in an election to get a vote, but they will never deliver “shared parenting”. Every vote that does not go to a Conservative in the next election is a vote against “shared parenting”. Paul Forseth MP

More:  Issues:  Forseth, MP Paul: FTSOTC Panelist

Conservative Party of Canada's policy on Equal Parenting

 The Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) has a policy document describing its platform. ... The current document is at HERE.   It has this to say about family law:

56. Family

i) The Conservative Party of Canada believes that the family unit is essential to the well-being of individuals and society, because that is where children learn values and develop a sense of responsibility. Therefore government legislation and programs should support and respect the role of the Canadian family. September 8, 2004 Page 16 Conservative Party of Canada

ii) The Conservative Party of Canada believes in the right and duty of parents to raise their own children responsibly according to their own conscience and beliefs. We believe no person, government or agency has the right to interfere in the exercise of that duty except through due process of law.

iii) The Conservative Party of Canada believes that Parliament, through a free vote, and not the courts should determine the definition of marriage. A Conservative government would support the freedom of religious organizations to determine their own practices with respect to marriage.


...    Robert T McQuaid,  Orangeville Ontario,  Decriminalize parents

DISSENTING OPINION - REFORM PARTY OF CANADA,  "FOR THE SAKE OF THE CHILDREN", DECEMBER 1998

DISSENTING OPINION - REFORM PARTY OF CANADA

Paul Forseth, M.P.
(New Westminster-Coquitlam-Burnaby)

Eric Lowther, M.P.
(Calgary Centre)

Philip Mayfield, M.P.
(Cariboo-Chilcotin)

The Reform members support the themes of the Report as far as they go, but have profound disappointment that some proposed recommendations were not ultimately supported by the government members, and to varying degrees by the other Parties. The Reform members have been an integral part of the Report process from the beginning, and the Report hopefully will heighten a national concern for the intrinsic value of the family. The Reform members support the concept of "shared parenting" as a right and obligation. There are shortcomings that the Committee failed to address in the final version of the Report, due to the ideological intransigence of some Committee members, regardless of the public testimony.

Reformers recognize the seriousness and extent of the national problem of family breakdown in Canada. The consequences of dissolving families bring injury to children and parents, and hurt the quality of Canadian society. The prevalence of divorce and unstable families is a national problem that has not been sufficiently recognized by the present government. Consequently, a more dynamic political leadership is required at both the federal and provincial level to reduce the social forces that mitigate against stable family life, and secondarily, to improve the set of rules under which families may dissolve. Moreover, the needs of children require a bold approach in family-law reform.

We recognize that the existence of the Committee was not initiated by the government, but was only created as a compromise in exchange for Senate passage of amendments to the law governing child maintenance payments. It is recognized that under the federal Divorce Act, parents themselves may divorce, but they do not divorce their children. Also, the balance of parental rights and obligations has not been sufficiently defined in the current Divorce Act. Consequently, in view of the serious political vacuum surrounding the national family-law problem, the Committee Report recommends a change to the historical nature of divorce law.

It is recognized that parental rights and obligations continue after family dissolution. However, it is clear that in too many cases, the legal system poorly serves the interests of children. In view of the outcry in Canada of many sad stories, a new approach that legally emphasizes children's needs over short-term parental wants, has been recommended. Studies and social convention point to the ideal, that children thrive best in a conventional stable two-parent family where there is a loving father and mother. If families dissolve, then a legal climate that facilitates the ongoing involvement of children with both parents in a full and meaningful way, should be the preferred outcome of parenting plans.

Specifically, in addition to the Committee recommendations, the Reform members recommend that:

The individuals to whom the Divorce Act applies should be more clearly defined concerning who is considered "a child of the marriage". The Act concerning the parenting plans and maintenance payments should be applied only for "children" and not "young adults". Therefore the definition of "child" in the opening definition section of the Act should be amended to read in part... ``is the age of majority or over and under their charge but unable, by reason of illness, disability, to withdraw from their charge. The existing additional terms "or other cause" and "or to obtain the necessaries of life" should be deleted from the definition, as the courts have unreasonably read-in obligations from these terms that have created a fundamental inequality between "intact families" and "divorced families".

Grandparents of both blood and adoption not be required to seek "leave of the court". The second profound shortcoming of the Committee Report is the failure to recommend a change to Section 16(3) of the Divorce Act, which says "A person, other than a spouse, may not make an application under subsection (1)or(2) without leave of the court". The recommendation recognizes the special relationship and obligation that grandparents may have in the legal parenting plans for children of divorce. Grandparents should not have to first seek permission of the Court, if they choose to file their own Court action for the making of parenting plans. Interestingly, the new Nisga'a settlement in B.C. says its government does not need "leave" under this section.

The Report forcefully comments upon the obvious historical failure of the federal government to contemplate in family law the pervasive and insidious problem of "false accusations of criminal conduct", the "unreliability of sworn affidavits" that lawyers have deposed from their clients, and the pathetic record of the Courts to defend the Orders they make about child-care arrangements and parent-child contact. The Reform Committee members wanted clear recommendations for action on these points but were unable to persuade the Committee. The Committee would not approve recommendations for improvements to the Criminal Code concerning deliberate false accusations of abuse or neglect, and the need for "prosecutors" to more frequently act to enforce Criminal Code sections 131 & 132-misleading justice, 135-contradictory evidence, 137-fabricating evidence, 138-affidavits, 139-obstructing justice, in family law matters.

The ethical standards of law societies and bar associations concerning the swearing and filing of affidavits be improved, and codes of conduct be actionable in law.

Provincial governments review their definitions of "child at risk" in their respective "child-protection legislation", where there are repeated unsubstantiated allegations of abuse.

The provisions of the "Child Support Guidelines" operate under the principle of reasonableness. Reform Members wanted a clear statement recognizing how the new rules of the "Child Support Guidelines" may operate against the best interests of children. Specifically, the Committee merely recommended that the Minister of Justice undertake as early as possible a comprehensive review. Reform members of the Committee argued for stronger language in this section including the principle of "ability to pay versus demonstrated need".

Enforcement of parent-child contact terms, as rigorously as child maintenance. Although financial transactions and parent-child contact are not legally tied together, the persistent psychological connection and sometimes real social connection must be recognized. Capricious non-compliance of ordered parent-child contact could be considered a form of child abuse, and treated accordingly during enforcement proceedings. Parents that disturb children through a failure to fulfil their duties under a court order should be penalized.

The long-standing record of inaction to the pervasive complaints on the preceding points from across the country, partially explains the deep malaise in Canadian family law practice. These serious problems on the operational side of the law, require remedy through government leadership with the provinces, the law societies, and the court system. The Committee Report does not go far enough in signalling these problems or suggesting remedies. It clearly is an area for further study.

As the pressures that mitigate against the stability of families are often economic, the Reform members also note the systemic discrimination of the income tax law between "intact families" and "dissolved families". Reform members promote the development of a family or household orientated comprehensive social security system administered through the income-tax system. Additionally, it should have been noted that the rules for delivery of the "child tax benefit" are in some disarray, and in many cases are delivered contrary to Divorce Act court orders.

Recourse to a Court is often the final phase of the disintegration process when alternatives have failed. Unfortunately, the Court is a rather blunt instrument to respond to the unique and changing needs of children caught in a parental conflict. Sadly, some parents are able to unreasonably manipulate the justice system during a divorce proceeding, and thereby communities in general suffer.

Therefore, it must be emphasized that the witness testimony that the Committee heard, highlighted the need for a societal focus on better parenting, family life education, and for much greater alternative dispute settlement services outside of courts. There is great need for a spectrum of preventive and remedial social services, and a renewed commitment from the workers in the system, to speak out for renewal and for quick change from what is currently delivered. When family trouble strikes, governments have a role to provide accessible and affordable help to children and parents.

Paul Forseth, MP: Address to NSPA Conference, 1999-05-xx

IMPORTANT NOTE The following contains the basic notes and working text, which I gave as a speech to the Shared Parenting Conference in Regina Sask. on May 15/99. Most of the material sources are borrowed, and I claim no originality in phrasing or sentence structure. However, I accept accountability for what was said, as the comments reflected my understandings of the political and legal situation at the time of the Conference. Speech delivery may have varied slightly from the working text

Plenary Address

Thank you for inviting me to speak to you this morning. We are here today, because we have a deep concern about how Canadian society values children, especially concerning dissolving families. Much can be said about the social place and significance that children play in defining who we are -as a people -as Canadians. I am reminded this morning of the song from a recent "Rankins CD album, where they sing, "we rise again, in the spirit of our children". So in emotionally reaching, and thinking about the future, we reflect on how we as Canadians are raising our children. What is the spirit, which is rising and living on?

Times are changing. Technological capacity and economic capacity, creates its own new demands. Expanding boundaries of "the freedom to know", "the freedom to move", and "the freedom to be and become", challenges the core of social orders. The freedom to move across the landscape, the change in our social relationships and parenting styles, the post war emergence of the "rush hour", the journey to work in a car on the freeway, and the myriad of social permutations that we are able to paint into the "picture of our lives", brings exciting prospects, -but they also bring new challenges and consequences. So in the middle of the emerging "cyber-age", the well-being of our children is of grave concern to me.

I come from a background of public and community service. My father was a Reverend Minister who led by example, and dedicated his life to serving others in the larger community. My mother, as a stay at home mom, raised my sister and I, in that way. Mom had our home open, always serving the temporarily dispossessed individual. The choice to have a parade of people through our house, was premised on the principle of helping, and showing encouragement for those who were downcast so they could help themselves, and that a better tomorrow could be made. My parents left me an example of lives helped, -and most importantly that in life, showed me there was more to life than just acquiring "things".

Maybe that example had some effect on my choosing an academic goal of obtaining a teaching degree to become a High School Counsellor, (service over sales, helping over acquiring) which then led me into a 23-year career as a professional helper in the forensic social work field. I became a B..C. government public servant in the Corrections Branch of the Provincial Attorney General, and became an Officer of the Courts of British Columbia, giving advice to Judges on sentencing, and doing pre-court diversion, and alternative resolution programs. I was also a Probation Officer and a Parole Officer, and administered Orders of the Court on individuals. I was also the eyes and ears of the Judge in the community to make recommendations on disputed child custody and access cases. I served as a divorce mediator and referee on disputed child maintenance and access problems. I recite a few of these things for you, to provide perspective on my work, as I have represented the Reform Party view on the workings of the Divorce Act, and what the present Liberal government is not doing.

Again we have the picture, that the Reform Party has a well-researched and broadly popular plan of action for change to the Divorce Act. Note the 48 recommendations of the Committee, as well as the dissenting opinion on page 106-107. The Liberals are defending what we have now, resisting change, and not taking action in view of the obvious community need. How many times has the country been in that situation -whether it is managing the economy for growth and full employment, -criminal justice reform, -national unity, -or caring for our children. It is the official opposition vrs. the government. Reform vas the Liberals -positive change vs. stay where we are. -what a picture!

Obviously there is a lifetime of work for me to accomplish as an MP Perhaps it can be seen that I am just the pointed tip, out in front of a great community effort to bring Canada successfully into 21st century. We must admit, that we have what we have from government, because people voted for it. If you didn't vote that way, I say don't give up and opt out, but work to convince just a few more to vote positively for a vision, rather than just sorting between options to consider which would do the least amount of damage. Politics matters.

As a historical marker for national change, we must remember the Joint Senate-House of Commons Report "For the Sake of the Children". As a member of that Committee, we brought forward 48 recommendations from well over 500 witnesses, and a very balanced investigation of the present situation. The recent government response is to it, is merely a message of "just further consultation". From the Official Opposition viewpoint, the government's answer to the Committee Report, from my perspective, - is a carefully crafted "no". When one reflects upon the government response, it becomes much more like an "in your face" bold "no", to the Committee and the country, when one clears away the snow. At best, we have the likelihood of a political promise for action from the Liberals that might arise during the next election. Then we know how reliable are Liberal election promises. The Liberals never wanted the joint Committee in the first place, and has been resisting ever since, while not wanting to offend anyone, but just hoping that the whole thing would go away.

But I want to turn to the need for change. For change begins with the recognition that a problem exists. Sadly, the government is in denial. Let me talk awhile about the problem as I see it, -from an insider's view from within the court system. For I had a ringside seat with the operations of the family law system for years. I witnessed systemic hypocrisy, sanctimony, and incompetence. The picture is that the divorce process in this country is a mess. Let us sharpen our view and see that not all fathers are deadbeats or child abusers, and not all mothers are blameless victims. Both men and women can get shafted in divorce, both can become victims. We live in a society where a mother can poison her children's mind against their father, then steal the children away and nobody will give a damn. Politicians need to change that.

However, in some Unified Courts where there were extra services, or in situations where truly neutral mediators were provided, I saw a lot of good work being done to respond to marital breakdown, and to protect children from at least the worst of what a father or a mother were perpetrating on the other, and their children.

The problems are more widespread than most realise. I saw from working inside the system, how rampant were the myths, prejudices, and sexist biases embedded in our views about men, women, and divorce. I saw how gender politics inflamed and clouded the issues, how a pervasive media bias then distorted them, how a blind enslavement to political correctness was preventing justice from being served and the truth from being told. In view of what I have seen, as a politician I see the need to speak out, to become a spokesperson from the Federal Reform Party of Canada, to let the country know where we stand and how we are committed to change things. We are fundamentally committed to basic fairness and equality.

In the 35th Parliament, Bill C-41 established federal support guidelines and introduced punitive measures, such as revoking passports and driver's licenses, for payers who were usually fathers, who failed to meet their payment obligations of support. While uniform child support guidelines might have been needed, the bill was regressive because, among other faults, it considers only the payers income, reinforced stereotypical notions about post-divorce parenting roles, and heightened the possibility of custody fights, because whoever got the children got the money, power and control, with no accountability required. The bill utterly failed to address the other side of the issue, which is the widespread problem of custodial parents -usually mothers -who denied non-custodial parents contact with their children, and consequently the best interests of the child did not result.

That legislation can be said to be degrading to fatherhood. It did produce a groundswell reaction once the public learned of the details by the time it hit the Senate. Justice Minister Allan Rock's exchange deal with the Senate to ensure passage, was a promise to establish a Joint Senate - House of Commons Committee to investigate the issues of child custody and access.

As the Committee got going, some of the media were awakened to the idea that there just might be another side to divorce -the real needs of children, rather than parental wants, or feminist victimology. We also became known as the "politically incorrect committee" because we were prepared to hear all sides, and ask tough questions.

We have the media cliché "the deadbeat dad" but perhaps the more predominant reality is perhaps "the deadbolted dad" -locked out of his children's hearts after divorce. I said at the beginning that times are changing, our social lives are being re-ordered. The greater role fathers are taking in direct raising and supervision of children is one of the strongest shifts in the image of the manly ideal. More men, whose wives are employed out of the home, are acting as primary caregivers to pre-school children. Yet when divorce occurs, the courts are still operating in the retro world of mother and female as victim of the male patriarchy. In many sad family stories, those characterisations are true, but maybe in just as many, it is not.

There is the continued Court bias in the struggle for control, using notions such as -continuity, sameness and predictability of the supposed child's perspective. What this often means, is what mother wants, rather than what children need. In the court, it is still sadly and wrongly viewed, that mothers meet child needs better than fathers. And in the larger social context, mother will most often win custody, because it is seen as a great social disgrace for a mother to lose custody of a child, as compared to a father losing.

According to Statistics Canada in 1994, mothers were awarded custody approximately 70 % of the time, and fathers approximately 10 % of the time. Parents wound up with joint custody 20% of the time, and on half the occasions that fathers fought for custody, they won. Fathers usually would only attempt to be the primary care giver when the evidence was already highly in their favour, yet they were successful only one-half of the time.

Family lawyers point out that they often see fathers who want some form of custody, but refrain from seeking it because they are advised and are convinced they will never win, while others embark on the fight but wind up so brutalised by the system that they eventually withdraw. Likewise, many devoted fathers become so frustrated dealing with "access" problems that they throw up their hands and walk. I can't tell you how many clients I have had in my office who appear to be very decent fathers who have no relationship with their kids. Many have untold access problems, and they often finally just give up.

The reality in Canada today is that no matter how good a father, a man might be, if his marriage ends and the wife wants child custody, it is almost a forgone conclusion that she gets control. Naturally nearly every lawyer will advise the mother to go for everything, as Bill C-41 has turned the child into a lucrative prize of power. If the mother decides to make it difficult for a father to see his young children, the chances are overwhelmingly that the father will lose the right to be a significant parent to his children. For where the kids go, so does all the power and control. There is sometimes also the attitude that if a parent got the kids, they obviously were not the "turkey" in the marriage relationship. Child custody is used to vindicate the winning parent over the other concerning the fight about why the parents divorced. Possession of the children to cover the sins in the marriage is a powerful motivator for control.

Yet despite too many fathers being only at the edges, an impressive and growing body of social science research tells us that fathers are vitally important to children's lives, that they want to parent, that they grieve when they cannot, that children want to be parented by their mothers and their fathers, and that when fathers are absent, a litany of disastrous social problems like poor school performance, drug and alcohol abuse, teen suicide, welfare dependence, and child poverty follow. Fatherless boys become confused about their masculinity and disproportionately become violent criminals. Fatherless girls believe their fathers have abandoned them for not being good enough or pretty enough, suffer from low self esteem, and fail to learn how to conduct healthy relationships with men as adults. We also know that there is absolutely no reason to value the contribution of one parent over the other. Mothers and fathers give their children different gifts, but each gives something necessary and valuable. Are we raising a generation of fatherless children -heaven help us when that generation decides to pay us back.

We know that fathers who live with their children, usually work hard to increase their incomes, while fathers who have been banished from the day to day routines of raising their children tend to lose the sense of meaning to put sacrificial effort and money into the estranged mother's household. There is no widespread problem in this country of fathers refusing to support their children within marriage. It is unlikely that all of these same men who have supported their children when married, suddenly turn into deadbeats once divorced. The crux of the issue is that when we evict fathers from their children's lives, then tell them their only function as a father is to pay the bills, we should not be shocked if some of them temporally withhold support money. It is often the only leverage they can use to see their children. Many lose heart and drift away, or perish the thought, become criminal.

The sudden amputation of their fathering role -the hurt of cut off visitations and the pain of partings, the sadness they feel knowing their ex-wives new partner will see more of their children than they -becomes unbearable for them. So they fade out of the picture and tell themselves it is disruptive for the children if they do. Often they gravitate towards second families, where they can be fathers again -fathers who have the opportunity to support their children not only in a financial sense, but also in an emotional one.

It is important for children to maintain relationships with their fathers and mothers. Some feminist academics, family lawyers, lobbyists, advocates in government-funded women's groups, the Justice Department, as well as some feminist journalists, are arguing that what is best for women and children is to maintain the legal status quo -mothers should be the primary caregivers with the final say in most matters for the children. In effect that means that mothers have dictatorial powers regarding the children, that they are not held accountable if they violate court orders or deny their children contact with fathers, and that fathers will see their children at the mother's discretion, while providing them with child support on pain of having their wages garnisheed or their drivers licenses and passports revoked should they fail to make payments.

These particular kind of feminists who have controlled the debate and the direction of legislation pertaining to "women's issues" most often speak as if women and children are one entity, as if the two are inextricably bound, and that what is good for one is automatically good for the other. They assume that fathers have nothing to do with children's issues, nor have any place in discussions about the future of their children. They argue that child support and access parenting should not be linked, because children are entitled to the financial support of both parents, regardless of the parental relationship or parent-child contact. This view also says that there can't be a presumption of joint custody in our divorce law, because of widespread domestic violence. The violence thing is always thrown in to manipulate and side-track the debate.

However, the tendency to lie, cheat, and be an unreliable person, to act like a bully, or even a child abuser, is not gender specific. Both men and women equally fail to fulfil their duties in life, and as parents. But the mother as "saint and victim", and father as "disinterested brute" still holds far too often.

These kinds of ideas were presented to the government prior to the passage of Bill C-41, and to members of the joint Committee on Child Custody and Access. They have been used to encourage the government to introduce ever more punitive measures to punish fathers who fail to meet their support obligations, and are at the centre of a strenuous lobbying effort designed to prevent change in the divorce laws that would give fathers a greater role after divorce than they are currently permitted. This manipulative contest is also waged at the Provincial level to deepen biases, both in statue and in social services practice.

We know that some men walk away from their children and support obligations, but we know little of what was done to them that contributed to that behaviour. We also know that, statistically so far, divorce causes women more economic hardship than men, but it is changing. It is a sad fact that domestic violence goes on in far too many homes. However, with all the selective "abuse" statistics being hurled from both sides of the gender divide, and the media's denigration of divorced fathers through repetition of inflammatory phrases like "deadbeat dad" and "power-monger etc" it is easy to forget that what makes a good parent is character, not gender, and that the vast majority of divorced parents in our communities are decent citizens who don't shirk their obligations, and they just want to raise their children to the best of her abilities. The media also falls into the trap by talking about "violence against women and children", instead of reporting on the social stain of "family violence" in all its subtleties.

Feminists pulled down the walls of the patriarchy in part to help create the new man -the dad who is in the delivery room when his children are born, who enrols them in their classes, reads them stories, nurses them when they are sick, stays home from work for child emergencies. Ironically, the kind of man feminists might have celebrated as an ideal father to his children in marriage, is the same man feminists attack for not walking away from his children except to pay the bills. For me, that is the essential bankruptcy of the feminist position in family law.

Feminism as I define it, is about equality, about mutuality between the sexes, not about replacing one double standard with another, or a patriarchal society with a matriarchal one. The sad truth is that there's a double standard at the heart of some feminism that is as bad as what it sought to replace. Many feminists, who speak about women's issues in relation to divorce, refuse to acknowledge that there is another side to the family-law story. They may demonstrate a blinkered stone-hearted lack of understanding and compassion for what that story might be. What's truly best for the children of divorce is eclipsed by a deep resentment of men. Even the institution of marriage itself is sometimes described as oppressive for its very existence. In other situations, there is an overshadowing anger at ex-husbands, and the need to seek revenge against them with an us-against-them mentality based on the idea that men are finally getting what they deserve, and that is it is payback time for the oppressive patriarchy. What most know but few will admit, is that for the ex-wives who wish to exact revenge on their ex-husbands or extort money from them, the best weapon is the children.

Both sexes play the system using the cards that they are dealt, and there is no question that in the "heat" of divorce, the adversarial process can bring out the worst in everyone. But the women to whom I am referring, cash in on the perceived moral superiority of mothers, beat their breasts and play the victim card all too often. They leap to the moral high ground and appropriate the language of children's best interest to advance mainly their own interests.

Gender politics and a certain brand of feminist rhetoric has blinded us to the fact that most men are decent, that most make wonderful fathers, that many make far better parents than their female partners, and that after divorce, separation, or just making a baby, not only do children yearn to continue to be parented by both parents -they are entitled to be -socially and legally. Politics and rhetoric have obscured the reality that maintaining involved relationships with both parents is truly best for children, except in the minority of cases where a parent is abusing a child. It is also well documented but not widely known, that child abusers often are mothers -pathology and sin is not gender related.

The one-upmanship game of domestic disputes is too often played for years through the children. PAS - Parent Alienation Syndrome, cited by Dr. Richard Gardner, is real. In Canada, many judges, assessors, and court authorities are ignorant of parental alienation syndrome and of the basic empirical social science data on the needs of children of divorce. Others are reluctant to dispute the court's prejudices about the inviolate mother-child bond. Our Committee recommendation number 8 tried to bury the "tender years doctrine" forever. In addition, the idea that women are incapable of wickedness permeates our legal system. In the courtroom setting, "the presumption of innocence rule" has taken a major hit in a misguided attempt to have sensitivity to witnesses who are seen as particularly vulnerable. Children are unreasonably treated as truth tellers for the purpose of mother's claims.

As a result, the crime of parental alienation -and I really think it is a crime, -is going unpunished. Parental alienation is also largely a silent crime, one that exists in the public consciousness precisely where the crimes of domestic assault an child abuse existed years ago. We once considered those problems private family matters and dirty linen. Today we know better.

Because of the subtle and sometimes unconscious nature of the programming for children, parental alienation syndrome is extremely difficult to prove in court. Yet even when the evidence is plain and the syndrome can be proven, the odds are overwhelming the court will do nothing. Having turned a blind eye to the problem while it is happening, the Court would most likely say that once the children were programmed to hate their father, there was nothing it could do. The defence is "the kids just don't want to be with him". The Courts almost never remove a child from the custody of an alienating mother. This deeply rooted belief, that mothers are morally untouchable and children of divorce are better off with them, almost regardless of the circumstances, is a too prevalent notion that we must overcome for our children's sake.

The judicial system tends to hurt men and women in different ways. Because it favours the litigant with the deepest pockets, men are usually perceived to have the upper hand in divorce court in the financial realm, and sometimes that is the case. However, it is also the case that many women can qualify for legal aid, while their husbands are driven into bankruptcy battling the infinite resources of the state. Men are at a clear disadvantage in seeking custody through the Courts, and they are more likely to be held accountable for violating a Court Order, which is usually for support. Men are also far more vulnerable to false allegations brought before the Courts.

Many men who wish to protect their rights to a relationship with their children now know they cannot just leave the home when their marriage dissolves. For their wives, making false allegations against them has become an all too easy way to get them out of the house, to gain the advantage in the battle for property and child custody. Family lawyers regularly see clients who are using the criminal justice system to help them tactically in family law proceedings. As members of the Joint Commons - Senate Committee, we heard horror stories of false allegations, that my colleague from the opposite Liberal side of the House and one of the joint chairpersons of the Committee, was led to speak in the press, saying that the Divorce Act is becoming an instrument of the Criminal Code.

In some reported cases, lawyers coached female clients to provoke an incident. Get him to loose his temper -get him to shove you or hit you. Sadly the term abuse is now so broadly defined that a man can be permanently evicted from his home for stamping his foot and yelling at his wife in the heat of a domestic argument, behaviour that while socially offensive, hardly warrants the intervention of the police. The "no discretion policy" when police are at the door of the house has not curtailed domestic violence, but has brought the justice system into disrepute. For that reason, lawyers routinely advise male clients, particularly those still living in the matrimonial home, to scrupulously avoid situations that could result in a nuisance charge, and to photocopy and keep safely outside the house any documents they might need in a divorce action.

In recent years police have responded to complaints of spousal abuse more zealously, laying charges even in the absence of supporting evidence, or even indications of the contrary. The politics of the matter has resulted in provincial Attorneys General issuing directives to the justice system to proceed on any domestic and sexual assault complaint, and that the normal and prudent standards of investigation have been suspended. We see occasions when charges have been brought forward to Provincial Court when there was really nothing but a vindictive motive and no real assault incident. Too often the male is assaulted, and he might respond within the lmits of the law of the most minimal force necessary to defend himself and prevent further assault, but the standards of law change from outside the home to inside the home. While sadly, there are male "controllers" who use various methods of intimidation and violence behind closed doors to control the spouse, women do it too.

Some judges, confronted with abuse allegations have tended to operate on the assumptions that it is better to be safe than sorry. Caution may prevent tragedies, and has the added advantage of protecting judges from criticism by women's groups or the media. Once charged, a man will often be handcuffed and removed from his home, often in front of his children, then forced to spend the night in jail, have a restraining order slapped against him, or bail conditions set that restricts him from returning, except to collect his personal effects. Although the charges against him may be uncorroborated, he will be guilty until proven innocent. If the charges are ultimately dismissed, the damage to his reputation will be done. The stories are legion of fathers whose lives have been destroyed by malicious allegations, but it is virtually unheard of for the woman who falsely accuse them to be held accountable.

(Part two to follow)

This phenomena has turned out to be a boon for a certain type of woman, not to mention a certain type of lawyer for whom any tactic, no matter how morally rank, seems justifiable, in the vigorous pursuit of the client's interests. Some women don't need to pay for such advice; they are becoming wise to the opportunities now afforded them in the law.

Many feminists have not been willing to admit that such women exist, let alone say that their actions cause irreparable harm, or that they should be held responsible for their reprehensible acts. Instead, they attack those who voice contrary views, as merely anti-feminist mouthpieces for the fathers rights groups, who are just a bunch of angry men who can't admit their problems. Even Senator Ann Cools who served on the Committee with me, and who was a pioneer of the Canadian women's movement and helped found one of the first women's shelters in Canada, was tagged with the "anti-feminist" moniker for speaking out against feminist bias.

Fathers groups have for years been trying to raise public awareness about the issue of false allegations, along with injustices that divorced fathers and their children face, but the media have been highly sceptical of the claims of men they perceive to be mostly angry marginalized, and misogynist.

It is no coincidence that it took a female Senator with a history of feminism to bring them to national attention. On these matters men have been silenced in our culture. Men are simply not perceived to have the credibility to speak about issues of sexual politics, even though the debate dramatically affects their lives. And while some fathers groups attract women-hating extremists, just as some women's groups thrive on man-hatred, most of the politically active fathers I have met are dedicated individuals, putting in long hours at their own expense to change attitudes, and without funding from any level of government, to make their voice heard.

I have said quite often publicly, that the family law system in Canada is in a mess. Indeed, the picture that emerged from the Committee's hearings was one of a system designed to serve the interests of the legal establishment, while treating with contempt, the citizens who desperately need its help and are paying for its operation. We as Committee members heard of a system rife with vested interests, where judicial discretion is often synonymous with judicial bias, where perjury in affidavits is rampant and goes unpunished, and where bringing false charges to gain advantage has become frequent, and where scorched earth tactics are so common that lawyers regularly attend professional development seminars on how to combat them.

I have seen normal people become neurotic, and neurotic people become psychotic, as a direct result of embroilment in adversarial proceedings associated with their divorces. I encountered uninterested lazy and uncommitted judges, or ones with very strange social attitudes, during my years as an expert witness. While not all lawyers exploit their clients by encouraging protracted litigation, some divorce lawyers are overtly extreme with absolutely no appreciation of the grief they are causing children.

Lawyers are fond of saying that they're only acting on their client's instructions, and therefore it's really the clients who are to blame when divorce cases turn ugly. While the excuse that "I was only acting on my client's instructions" conveniently lets lawyers of the hook for any conduct, it ignores the fact that client's lives are in pieces and they are emotional wrecks. Thus scared and confused, the vast majority do exactly as they're advised to do by their lawyers. They have entered foreign intimidating territory and much is at stake. Some are hell-bent on revenge for real or imagined marital pain, or for all the broad disappointments of their lives. Some are walking time bombs of repressed rage and have finally found the perfect forum to act it out. Those are the clients who go looking for a hired gun -an unscrupulous lawyer.

The process is so brutal that many are reduced to a dysfunctional state where they become easy prey for those manipulative lawyers masquerading behind fancy credentials for whom the fee, the right fee, and the win is everything. Most parents who turn to the Court system at this traumatic time in their lives have little idea what lies ahead. They enter the system, wishing they did not have to be there, but innately respectful of the process and believing that if they have the evidence and just tell the truth, justice will prevail. Whether they win or lose in the end, typically they emerge from the experience unspeakably angry at the process that appears to have little to do with justice, and they remain with the feeling that they have been fleeced. How much they spend before the scales fall from their eyes seems to depend on how much they have.

The law may appear arcane and beyond the understanding of mere mortals, but, stripped of its cumbersome, obfuscating language and forms in triplicate, what family lawyers do is not rocket science and is made to seem far more complicated than it is. The staggering amount of money people are forced to spend to dissolve their marriages is the main reason we are unlikely to see initiatives for reform coming from the family law community. It is they who are the chief beneficiaries of the current system. We cannot rely on the legal profession to clean its own house, nor to protect us from unscrupulous lawyering. Judges and lawyers by virtue of their background, their training, and sometimes their personalities, are hardly the best professionals to deal with family issues. A short course for lawyers to become certified family mediators, poorly serves the community. And the court system, the blunt instrument that it is, is the worst possible place to bring a family in crisis. And the most ethical lawyers, those who care about their client's problems and are sincerely dedicated to solving them in the most expeditious manner possible -are powerless to help within a system that consistently rewards the unscrupulous.

The judicial system is fundamentally an adversarial forum based on competing rights, where two spouses are forced to duke it out and where one can carry on a personal vendetta against the other indefinitely, given the will and enough cash. Anyway you look at it, such a system is damaging to children. So are words like "custody", "access", "visitation", "primary parent","day to day care and control parent" - language which only reinforces the terrible idea that children are property, and that in divorce, one of the parents becomes more important and powerful to the children, to the child's psychological detriment.

Canada is seriously lagging behind other western countries in divorce reform. The trend in other western countries such as Britain and Australia and in certain American states such as Washington and California, tries to get parents out of the courts and around a table where they work out a parenting plan as part of the process. These jurisdictions have shifted the focus of their divorce process from parental rights and wants, to parental responsibilities and children's rights. -which is the direction in which our thinking must turn. If couples were told that they must come up with a parenting plan that is based on some form of co-operative parenting, and that if they can't, it will be imposed on them, they'd be better served than they are by the options available to them now.

Parents need a forum where they can take the ongoing problems that inevitably arise. Fathers who want to co-parent should be allowed to do so, while those who feel insecure should be encouraged to take it on. More fathers need to come forward and defend and protect their children from poor mothers. Mothers who are not really very good caregivers should be able to admit it and work out a more appropriate role as a parent. Keeping both parents actively involved in their children's lives after divorce is not only better for children, its better in the long term for parents and the community. Joint parenting also means that fathers should not automatically be expected to leave the home after divorce.

Any form of alternative dispute resolution will be useless, however, unless it's mandatory and timely, unless it involves binding arbitration and enforcement of decisions, and unless both parents are held accountable, as much for defaults on support obligations as for denying children contact with their parents. Committing perjury and making false allegations should be considered serious offences. Parents who are given guidance but continue to demonstrate that they won't exercise their parental obligations responsibly, should lose those privileges. Criminal court is the place to deal with criminal matters -charges of child abuse, or domestic violence or parental alienation.

As I wrote in the Joint Committee report, changes should be based on what we know children need. That means paying attention to our common sense, to the social science literature, and to what children of divorce tell us, not what judges with preconceived notions or assessors with vested interest or special-interest groups with political agendas would have us believe children need. The whole concept of child support should be broadened to include emotional as well as financial benefits. Children need parents who support them not only with money but also with love. We punish parents who don't pay their child support, but do nothing to ensure that children receive the other kind of support they need, even though children are probably far more able to cope with a lower standard of living than with losing the guidance and model of a loving parent.

The process of divorce must offer fair value for the dollar and lie within the financial grasp of the average citizen. Families suffering the trauma of a divorce are already facing tremendous stresses and downward mobility; and they should not have to drain their life savings to dissolve their marriages, nor should their children be robbed of their inheritances.

As a society, we have to face our fears, examine our prejudices, and begin talking about these questions, however disturbing or uncomfortable they may be. These are questions that concern us all, whether being involved in divorce or not. In the end we cannot legislate that people be good parents. But we can protect those who want to be, and ensure that the children of divorce continue to be nourished by all those who love them.

Divorce should not be reduced to a gender issue, as it is rather a societal and human issue. To speak of divorce is to speak about matters of the heart and soul that reside at the centre of everything we cherish. They reflect the values we hold as a society, and they distinguish the path we want to establish for the next generation. If we hope to prepare our children well for their journey down that path, we cannot avoid the fact, that on this issue we are failing them, and that we have to fundamentally change our thinking and our practices around divorce.

Divorce is about loss, about being cut loose from the moorings of a former life, forced to watch helplessly as the shore recedes, never sure that one will make it back to solid ground. It is one of the most traumatic calamities that can befall a family. In addition to the sordid, unseemly mess of it, a divorce brings pain, anger, vengefulness, and deep wounds. We do not need to add to that agony. We do not have to destroy completely a family already crippled by marriage breakdown. We must deal with the devastating realties of divorce, wisely and intelligently and compassionately. We owe it to ourselves and to our children to see that we do.

I have painted the picture. But what can we in this very room do about it. We can have conferences like this one. We can lobby our Member's of Parliament. But most of all, we can look at what we know is right, then ask ourselves -"how much do we want to change things?" What are we prepared to do, to defend what is right against those who now have control, and who dominate the national policy agenda. I tell you, the ultimate answer is a political one.

Do you want just more of the same? -I think not! Wake up and make a political judgement, a report card for performance if you will. Ask seriously, who is committed in Ottawa to give you what you want? What Party and MPs speak for you? If we don't like what we have, why would we continue to support those who are directly responsible for the unsavoury situation that we have? Remember that all we have had in Parliament, is Liberal and Conservative governments -they are responsible and must be held accountable for what we have today.

I call upon you in this room to action. We will hear a lot in the next two days of this conference, that we should galvanise our commitment to real action. It is about how we define ourselves as Canadians. Who reflects us in Parliament, -who will change the laws to give us our vision?

I have painted the picture that we now have. In closing remember -my parliamentary colleagues in my Party are unequivocally committed to deliver a new vision of fairness and equality. Give us 150 MPs who are of like mind, and overnight we will change "what we have", into "what can be" for the 21st century.

Paul Forseth, MP

 

former MP for New Westminster - Coquitlam

SJCA Panelist, Co-Author of Dissenting Opinion

Paul Forseth, MP - Google Search

1999-12-xx_FORSETH-Child-Custody-Flyer.pdf

"Conservatives are committed to Shared Parenting. The national party “Policy Declaration” that was passed by delegates at our March 2005 Montreal convention says clearly that: Shared Parenting: is an objective of the Conservative Party of Canada.

"The <SJCA> Report forcefully comments upon the obvious historical failure of the federal government to contemplate in family law the pervasive and insidious problem of "false accusations of criminal conduct", the "unreliability of sworn affidavits" that lawyers have deposed from their clients, and the pathetic record of the Courts to defend the Orders they make about child-care arrangements and parent-child contact.'

"The existing additional terms "or other cause" and "or to obtain the necessaries of life" should be deleted from the definition, as the courts have unreasonably read-in obligations from these terms that have created a fundamental inequality between "intact families" and "divorced families"

"A Conservative Government will make the necessary changes to the Divorce Act to ensure that in the event of a marital breakdown, the Divorce Act will allow both parents and all grandparents to maintain a meaningful relationship with their children and grandchildren, unless it is clearly demonstrated not to be in the best interests of the children"

The Conservative Party of Canada believes that Parliament, through a free vote, and not the courts should determine the definition of marriage

1997-10-28 Child Custody and Access Reform, Special Joint Committee Established

More:  Issues:  Forseth, MP Paul: , former MP,  Special Joint Committee Panelist, Co-Author of the "Dissenting Opinion";
Issues: Vellacott, Maurice, MP:  Equal Parenting Advocate, Bill C-422;
About:  Equal Parenting How-Tos, "Three Layer Cake";
Issues:  Kruk, Edward:  "Child Custody, Access & Parental Responsibility";
Issues:  Hill, Jay MP for presumptive joint custody on divorce, Bill C-245;
Issues:  Galloway, Roger MP: FTSOTC Panelist
Issues:  Toews, Vic:  Age of Consent;

 Issues:  Pizzey, Erin: Women's Shelter Scam;
Issues:  "Women's Shelter" Gulags:  Lesbian Brainwashing & Seduction

Liberal Irwin Cotler:  "Natural Parents have NO RIGHTS"

Irwin Cotler, former Liberal "Justice" Minister robbed Canadians of their NATURAL PARENTS' Rights

Irwin Cotler - Google Search;
Irwin Cotler - Google Video

"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.

More:  News:  Cotler, Irwin:  "Natural Parents have NO RIGHTS...;
News:  European Union;
Issues:  Paul Watson:  Nazi Origins of European Union;;;
Issues: G. Edward  Griffin ;
Issues: Fabian Socialism;

Liberal Anne McLellan says "Joint Custody Perpetuates the domination of men over women"

Former Liberal Justice Minister, Deputy Prime Minister

Anne McLellan , MP - Google Search

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"  

The Liberal Party and Child Sexual Abuse

More:  News:  McLellan , Liberal Anne "Joint Custody Perpetuates the domination of men over women"

Edward Kruk:  Child Custody, Access & Parental Responsibility

edward kruk, ubc - Google Search edward kruk, ubc - Google Videos

2008-12-xx_Kruk-Child-Custody(full).pdf

More:  Issues:  Kruk, Edward:  "Child Custody, Access & Parental Responsibility";
Issues: Vellacott, Maurice, MP:  Equal Parenting Advocate, Bill C-422;
About:  Equal Parenting How-Tos, "Three Layer Cake"

Maurice Vellacott, MP:  Equal Parenting Advocate, Bill C-422

Maurice Vellacott - Google Search;
Maurice Vellacott - Google Video

Bill C-422 - Google Search;
Bill C-422 - Google Video 

More:  Issues: Vellacott, Maurice, MP:  Equal Parenting Advocate, Bill C-422;
About:  Equal Parenting How-Tos, "Three Layer Cake";

Issues:  Kruk, Edward:  "Child Custody, Access & Parental Responsibility";
Issues:  Hill, Jay MP for presumptive joint custody on divorce, Bill C-245;
Issues:  Toews, Vic:  Age of Consent;

 Issues:  Pizzey, Erin: Women's Shelter Scam;
Issues:  "Women's Shelter" Gulags:  Lesbian Brainwashing & Seduction

Senator Anne Cools, FTSOTC Chair on False Accusations &
Law Societies' permitting Lawyers to Lie in Court

Senator Anne Cools, FTSOTC Chair

Anne Cools - Google Search;
Anne Cools - Google Video

"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."

Identified Issue: Canadian Law Societies' General Failure to Self Regulate, Members permitted to Lie in Court, Anne Cools' Bill 2-12 provides an answer

More:  Issues:  Cools, Senator Anne
Issues: False Accusations;
Isues Womens Shelters' Scam
Issues:Senator Anne Cools
News:  Liberal Hedy Fry / Status of Women (SOW):
Issues:  Pedophiles Fear Dads

Roger Galloway, MP: FTSOTC Panelist

Roger Galloway, MP, Ontario - Google Search;
Roger Galloway, MP - Google Video

We are sorry to see Mr. Galloway was not re-elected after his offices were targeted by Homosexual Activists for repeated demonstrations in front of the Constituency Offices during the Campaign.   Many pro-family MPs were attacked in that same fashion, and subsequently lost re-election along with Mr. Galloway.  To see what the gays are doing, just Google Roger Galloway, gay - Google Search

1997-10-28 Child Custody and Access Reform, Special Joint Committee Established

More:  Issues:  Galloway, Roger MP: FTSOTC Panelist;
Issues:  Mills, Dennis:  Pro-Family Liberal MP Targeted for removal by Homosexual Activists
Issues:  Forseth, MP Paul: FTSOTC Panelist;
Issues: Vellacott, Maurice, MP:  Equal Parenting Advocate, Bill C-422;
About:  Equal Parenting How-Tos, "Three Layer Cake";
Issues:  Kruk, Edward:  "Child Custody, Access & Parental Responsibility";
Issues:  Hill, Jay MP for presumptive joint custody on divorce, Bill C-245;
Issues:  Toews, Vic:  Age of Consent;

 Issues:  Pizzey, Erin: Women's Shelter Scam;
Issues:  "Women's Shelter" Gulags:  Lesbian Brainwashing & Seduction

Jay Hill, MP for presumptive joint custody on divorce, Bill C-245

Jay Hill, MP (Prince George – Peace River)

Jay Hill, mp - Google Search

Bill C-245, Divorce Act - Shared Parenting

“I’m pushing for equality —both parents should have equal rights and equal access to their child,” Hill said. “The courts seem to start from the premise that somehow fathers aren’t responsible parents. But both parents are deemed good parents as long as the marriage lasts; why are they not when the marriage ends?”   

Jay has introduced Bill C-245, An Act to amend the Divorce Act (shared parenting)   This bill would ensure that courts grant custody of a child to both divorcing spouses unless there exists evidence that it would not be in the best interests of the child.  The bill includes the recommendations of the Joint House of Commons-Senate Subcommittee on Custody and Access which the Liberals have essentially shelved.

More:   Issues:  Hill, Jay MP for presumptive joint custody on divorce, Bill C-245;
Issues:  MP Maurice Vellacott;
Issues:  Toews, Vic:  Age of Consent
About:  Equal Parenting How-Tos.: 

Vic Toews:  Age of Consent

.

Vic Toews MP - Google Search;
Vic Toews MP - Google Video

More:  Issues:  Toews, Vic:  Age of Consent;
Issues:  Hill, Jay MP for presumptive joint custody on divorce, Bill C-245;
Issues:  MP Maurice Vellacott;
About:  Equal Parenting How-Tos.

Erin Pizzey, Founder of the Women's Shelter Movement: 

Erin Pizzey

"Why I loathe feminism... and believe it will ultimately destroy the family",
"Feminism began with Marxist Lesbian University Professors and their students"

Erin Pizzey - Google Search
Erin Pizzey - Google Videos

2008-02-14  Erin Pizzey on KFBK talk radio (Sacramento, California)

Erin Pizzey is  the founder of the women's shelter movement and of the first modern women's refuge (1971, Chiswick, London, England)

More:  Issues:  Pizzey, Erin: Women's Shelter Scam;
Issues:  "Women's Shelter" Gulags:  Lesbian Brainwashing & Seduction Camps
Issues:  Cools, Senator Anne: Lying Lawyers;
News:  Liberal Hedy Fry / Status of Women (SOW):
Issues:  Pedophiles Fear Dads;
Issuess:  False Accusations;
Issues:  Domestic Violence Fraud
Issues:  Child Trafficking by Public Officers & Judges

Hedy Fry, "Queen of False Accusers" & SOW:  insists Women may Lie in Court with Impunity

Hedy Fry, BC - Google Search

Hedy Fry, "Queen of False Accusers", insists Women remain able to Lie in Court with Impunity..  enters Liberal leadership race

Hedy Fry is the Liberal MP who fought strenuously to have removed from For the Sake of the Children the legislative changes to make FALSE ACCUSATIONS to gain sole custody an offence under Canadian Law.

Presently, the burden of proof is on the Accused to prove themselves innocent (unless you are in a Criminal Court), Rare is the Judge who  enforces Perjury laws against a woman. 

Fry's Doctrine of False Accusations with Impunity is a critical element upon which the Divorce Industry has built it's Empire.   See Anne Cools on  False Accusations  

1997-10-28 Child Custody and Access Reform, Special Joint Committee Established

More:  News:  Fry, Hedy "Queen of False Accusers" & SOW:  insists Women may Lie in Court with Immunity;
Issues:  Cools, Senator Anne: Lawyers lying in Court with Impunity

Beverly McLachlin:  Canada's Treasonous Chief Judge for Judicial Globalization & Judicial Displacement of Parliament

More:  News:  Beverly McLachlin:  Canada's Treasonous Chief Judge;
Issues:  Cromwell, Oliver: Parliamentary Supremacy;
Issues: Supremacy of Parliament;
Issues:  Judicial Interpretation;
Issues: Judicial Globalization is Treason

Liberal Anne McLellan says "Joint Custody Perpetuates the domination of men over women"

Anne McLellan , MP - Google Search

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"  

More:  News:  McLellan , Liberal Anne "Joint Custody Perpetuates the domination of men over women"

 


     
Copyright 2002  equalparenting-bc.ca 

 

        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.