"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.)
The
Education Establishment And The Homosexual Agenda;
In The Homosexual Agenda, Sears and Osten
report that America's largest teachers union, the National
Education Association, is enthusiastically developing programs
to incorporate the gay agenda into public school curricula for
children of all ages. Many of them are in place today and have
been for some years now.
Female Teachers seducing boys receive Child
support from boy's parents
Two cases we know of now, one in the US, one
on Vancouver Island, involve a femal Teacher seducing and
becoming pregnant by a fourteen year old boy. She is of
course portrayed as the Victim of "Ageism"
the outcry of organized Pedophiles.
In these cases, the new ""Case
Law" our BC Courts created was that the boy's Parents can be
sued successfully by the pregnant Teacher in BC Courts for
Child Suport;
The parents of the boy of course thanks to
the BCTF are not permitted to know what is going on with their
boy's sexual life after the age of FOURTEEN.
<The
Pornocratic Courts again break with Statute and ratify a the
historic practice of BCTF regarding Pedophile
Teachers, ie, if you can get away with it, it's OK with
them. They'll just move you to a different school.>
See also
"Four Missions" of Homosexual Activism
;
Janet Steffenhagen, Vancouver Sun, Friday,
June 09, 2006
Recent court rulings that
lowered the penalty for teachers who had sex with students
are forcing the B.C. College of Teachers to rethink its high
standards for professional conduct, registrar Marie Kerchum
said Thursday.
The college's professional standards say educators should
not have sex with children or students -- with or without
consent -- and the college, in disciplining teachers who
have breached that standard, has usually imposed the
toughest penalty possible by cancelling teaching
certificates.
But B.C. Court of Appeal decisions in two separate cases
have signaled that the college should ease up, Kerchum said.
"If the courts are saying it's okay once in a while and on
some occasions, what are we to do about that? We have to
adjust to the rule of law set in the higher court."
Mitchell was 26 and
teaching in Vancouver when she had a sexual relationship
with a 14-year-old male student in the mid-1980s.
Young, also 26, was teaching in Chilliwack when he had a
sexual relationship in the late 1990s with a 16-year-old
female student.
Both admitted to the affairs, although Mitchell's did not
come to light until years later, when the boy filed a
complaint.
The college cancelled their teaching certificates, but the
two appealed. The courts found the cancellations too harsh a
punishment and imposed, instead, a two-year retroactive
suspension for Mitchell in February 2005 and a one-year
retroactive suspension for Young in 2001.
In the Young case, the courts said the most extreme penalty
should be reserved for the most extreme case. His was not
considered extreme, the court said, because he was only 10
years older than the student, their relationship was an
enduring one that had been accepted by the girl's mother and
he was at low risk of similar misconduct in future.
On Wednesday, The Vancouver Sun revealed that Young, now 35,
is being investigated by the college again -- this time for
allegedly having an inappropriate relationship with a
16-year-old student while he was teaching at Williams Lake
secondary school. He resigned after the allegations came
forward earlier this year.
When licenses are cancelled, teachers have a right to
reapply after two years, but must prove to the college's
satisfaction that they are rehabilitated. There is no such
requirement in the case of license suspensions.
Kerchum said she fully expects lawyers will use the two
court decisions in future to argue against license
cancellation for teachers who are found guilty of similar
misconduct. "It really reduces our ability to make a strong
statement in this area . . . and uphold a strong standard."
Education Minister Shirley Bond said she was not aware of
the college's concerns nor of details of the cases. Asked if
she thinks the college's standards are too high with respect
to sexual relations involving students, she replied: "The
teaching profession is a calling and teachers are in
positions of trust. Of course, we believe that that should
be measured by the highest standard of appropriate behaviour."
Kerchum said the Mitchell ruling was more troubling for the
college than the Young case because the student was only 14
and learning English-as-a-second-language. The students in
both cases were found to have been willing partners, but
police were only involved in the Mitchell case.
She was charged with gross indecency and sexual assault
after the boy filed a complaint with police in 1996 but was
acquitted by a jury in 1998. Her trial was told the sex was
consensual and didn't start until the boy was 14, the age of
consent.
Although the age of consent is 18 when one person is in a
position of authority, Mitchell had ceased to be the boy's
teacher before they began having sex.
The students have not been publicly identified.
Irene Lanzinger, vice-president of the B.C. Teachers'
Federation, said the union doesn't believe the college is
generally too harsh with discipline. "Sometimes they are and
sometimes they aren't," she said. "Every case needs to be
looked at individually and every teacher has a right to
appeal the decision of the college, and that's appropriate.
"We have a system where the courts do get to decide that."
2006-10-10
B.C. Parents Denied Access to Debates on Controversial Pro-Gay
High School Course; "Secrecy and selective access have marked ongoing
debates on the content of a controversial high school course
promoting homosexuality ... Invitations
to the two-day conference included the Gay and Lesbian Educators
of B.C., the Vancouver Humane Society, the B.C. Civil Liberties
Association, and homosexual activists
Peter and Murray Corren, the couple who struck a special
deal with the
B.C. Human Rights Commission in 2005, allowing them to
directly specify pro-homosexual content in the Social Justice
high school course."
2002-04-29 Pedophilia more common among 'gays' "The
rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is
staggering,....Abel’s data of 150.2 boys abused per male
homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual
violations "
And about a quarter of US homosexuals admit to having sex with
a Minor boy.
"Natural
Parents have NO RIGHTS.... ONLY
RESPONSIBILITIES....
"Natural
Parents' Rights now gone with my Homosexual
Marriage bill"
16.10 Maximum Contact & Friendly Parent Rule has to go
to conform
to Judicial Practice, or Judges may be held in criminal
BREACH OF TRUST"
FYI,
the ideas that the State assigns
Rights &
Responsibilities to it's Citizen is straight from
pre-war Nazi Germany. Under the British
system rights are not State-given, but God Given.
Buying into the Court's position that
what rights remain are Children's Rights, is buying into
the same position that "<Natural> Parents have no
rights", and Canadian Children are at birth the property
of the Courts.
Disclaimer: EqualParenting-BC.Ca encourages exercising democratic
rights such as the freedom of expression, but does not by association or
reference to other materials condone or sanction violence or hatred.
