"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 grants
Rights
Responsibilities 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.
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!!!
Svend Robinson (right) cries while being supported by his partner
Max Riveron. Robinson claimed "stress" caused him to steal
the jewelry he intended to give his boyfriend. Robinson continues
to practice law in BC following a deal cut with his
Special Prosecutor.
Svend's
Bill C250 added Homosexuals to the super class of groups in Canada's
retarded "Hate Law". who
can destroy in Criminal Court regular Canadians for exercising
Free Speech.
"THE leading family judge in England reinforced
the traditional view of marriage yesterday as he rejected an attempt by
two lesbians to have their Canadian wedding legalised in Britain.
.. Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson lost their High Court fight
to be recognised in law as a married couple. .. The British
couple used human rights laws to argue that the union should have full
legal status under English law. But Sir Mark Potter, President of the
Family Division of the High Court, also cited human rights legislation
in dismissing their application. .. He ruled that “to accord
a same-sex relationship the title and status of marriage would be to fly
in the face of the European Convention on Human Rights as well as fail
to recognise physical reality”. .. The
university professors,
who married while working in Vancouver in 2003, said that they were
“deeply disappointed by the judgment” and claimed that it perpetuated
discrimination." NOTE: Another example of Lesbians their
exercising the Courts to gain favorable precedents with NO STATUTORY
BASIS. Note also exchange of lawyers between the countries.
The UK Courts shouldn't allow Canadian Law or a Canadian Lawyer
presenting Canadian arguments in a UK Court. They should
immediately consider the possibility of trying for Treason anyone
pushing Canadian Law into UK Courts.
In June 1989,
Gisele Marie Goudreault, 46 disobeyed a court order to hand her son
Orey over to his father, Rod Steinmann of Ponoka, who had been awarded
custody. She fled with the boy to Mexico and lived there for four months
before moving to California. ... Justice Peter Martin condemned
Goudreault's behaviour,
which prevented Orey and his father from being together during the
child's formative years. "They had the right to know and
love each other. "That possibility was totally and irrevocably
destroyed," Martin said. "What this woman did to this man and this
child is every parent's nightmare."2004-02-19
US teen 'discovers own kidnap', BBC
Childhood
Sexual abuse is a recurring theme. We take extreme issue with
Religious Training which obligates
sexual abuse victims to "Forgive" their Perps before the Truth is told
and the Perp repents. Quashing a victims' report often results in
Displaced Aggression, perhaps murder.
Absent
father is the most highly correlated background factor found in
homosexuals, both male and female. Absent Father is a
developmental, NON-genetic factor. If homosexuality were genetic
there should be NO correlation with developmental factors, and
these factors should show Statistical Independence. They don't.
Also highly correlated to homosexual males is the "Lastborn Male" (of
several
children)
factor, a clearly NON-genetic factor, and suggestive of fatherly
neglect. Female Serial Killers may be of the Lesbian variety, or
the "Black
Widow" type. For some reason, many women applaud the "Grey
Widow" type, which we believe would not be possible without the
gross negligence and Femi-Narcissism of Courts in Division of Assets and
it's concurrent violence to Inheritance provisions for children of a
previous marriage.
1.
Money (74%)
2. Control (13%)
3. Enjoyment (11%)
4. Sex (10%)
5. Drugs, Cult involvement, cover up, or feelings of inadequacy
(24%)
From
Female Serial Killers
Darrel
should be able to sue Justice Southin PERSONALLY for DAMAGES, but will
that ever happen? All members of the Law Societies have sworn
their First Allegiance to their Society members.
"The CCP is the darling of powerful
liberal-left special interest groups who are used to getting their way
if they make enough noise -- notably feminists, gay-rights activists and
aboriginals. .. The CCP may be funded by Canadian taxpayers,
but it has been taken over by the very special interest groups that are
its major beneficiaries. Aided by their ideological supporters in the
academic and legal communities, these "rights-seeking" advocacy
organizations use the program to fund court cases whose goal is a
radical interpretation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. ..
Most of the time, when such cases get to court, these left-leaning
government-funded organizations are opposed by traditionalist or
right-of-centre groups who receive no tax dollars to cover their legal
expenses.
"Please all watch May 15, & May
16, 2006 then give CBC feedback
liaison@cbc.ca or
cbcinput@cbc.ca. ... This
documentary is regarding CAS and it's power. As this story unfolds
exposing the Durham Children's Aid Society and the nightmare that
has rocked a kinship family it will carefully relate the gut
wrenching detailed story of the "Abuse of CAS's power" and a system
that is not held accountable by anyone. This show will reveal
the over drugging, and sexual abuse of a young boy, J while in the
"care" of the Durham CAS. ... As well
CBC will show how CAS covered up of the abuse, and the grandparents
$60,000.oo fight to get J out of the hands of the CAS. Plus many
more heartbreaking events concerning the Durham Children's Aid
Society located in Oshawa, Ontario. The dates are as follows for the
airing:
Monday May 15, 2006 and
Tuesday May 16, 2006 at 6:00 PM. LOCAL CBC Television as well as
Radio with 3 1/2 to five minute segments.
Tuesday May 16, 2006 at
10:00 PM with Peter Mansbridge on the National News about a 22
minutes time frame.
There are no words to describe
the suffering and the trauma that these children and grandparents
have endured." Thanks, Betty
"I receive death threats and abuse on a regular
basis. My address and phone number have been placed on the Internet by
gay militants and people told to harass and assault me. Jokes were made
when my father died, insults made about my family. ..I have been told by
editors and publishers that I will never work as a writer in various
places because I defend marriage. But I will not react in kind and I
will not surrender. I do, however, want people to know that there is
hatred at work."
www.EqualCustodyAct.com;
Dr. Mark Klein:
"Equal
Custody Act is a federal act Dr. Klein would propose which would give
equal rights to moms AND dads in custody cases. Currently men's civil
rights for the most part are being ignored in family courts. Dr. Klein
is currently in the "testing the waters" phase of a bid for the
presidency of the United States of America. Dr. Klein's key plank on his
platform is the Equal Custody Act. The Equal Custody Act will restore
civil rights to dads as the Civil Rights Act restored equal rights for
African Americans in the 1960's."
"Unfortunately,
disparate, decontextualized and
sometimes illegitimate findings can be easily cited and are often
employed to back up fallacious claims. Even cases of "scientific
studies"…demonstrate serious inconsistencies and indicate the enigmatic
nature of empirical research which is so often treated as "objective""
Dear
Members,
We have great news. There is a joint physical care bill that has
taken us completely by surprise. SF507 just passed out of the Senate
Judiciary committee and is now on its way to the Senate Floor. Below
is a copy of the bill that is exactly what we have been working for.
Since HF22 was passed into law (2004) we have been watching the
court rulings. What we have found is that most judges approved of
the law but a small few ignored it. One of them was Judge Pelton and
as you know we took action against him. The second thing we found is
that most judges do not find existing cases to qualify for joint
physical care. They claim that the bill is not considered a change
of circumstance; well the legislators appear to disagree with the
courts. SF507 will give every parent the right to request JPC, in
addition make it very difficult for the courts to deny it. This is a
very important bill and it needs your help for it to have a chance
to become law this year......
Senate
File 507
"Section 1. Section 598.41,
subsection 5, paragraph a, Code 2007, is amended to read as follows:
a. If joint legal
custody is awarded to both parents, the court may award joint
physical care to both joint custodial parents upon the request of
either parent during the proceedings on the initial dissolution
petition or during the proceedings on a modification of the original
custody border. A
rebuttable presumption exists that a request for
joint physical care by either parent is in the best interest of the
child, the burden of proof to rebut the presumption rests on the
party denying that joint physical care is in the best interest of
the child, and such party shall demonstrate that joint physical care
is not in the best interest of the child by clear and convincing
evidence. If the
court finds by clear and convincing evidence that joint physical
care is not in the best interest of the child and denies the request
for joint physical care, the determination shall be accompanied by
specific findings of fact and conclusions of law that the awarding
of joint physical care is not in the best interest of the child. In
determining the best interest of the child relative to the denial of
a request for joint physical care, the court shall consider that the
best interest of the child includes the opportunity for maximum
continuous physical and emotional contact possible with both
parents, unless direct physical or significant emotional harm to the
child may result from this contact.
Existing Legislation: Iowa Code 2003: Section 598.41;
"1. a. The court, insofar as is reasonable
and in the best interest of the child, shall order the custody
award, including liberal visitation rights where appropriate, which
will assure the child the opportunity for the maximum continuing
physical and emotional contact with both parents after the parents
have separated or dissolved the marriage, and which will encourage
parents to share the rights and responsibilities of raising the
child unless direct physical harm or significant emotional harm to
the child, other children, or a parent is likely to result from such
contact with one parent. ... "
Iowa's Bill HF22, Presumption of Joint Physical
Custody
"If joint legal custody is awarded
to both parents, the court may award joint physical care....
If the court denies the request for joint physical care, the
determination shall be accompanied by specific findings of fact and
conclusions of law that the awarding of joint physical care is not
in the best interest of the child. b. If
joint physical care is not awarded under paragraph "a", and only one
joint custodial parent is awarded physical care, the parent
responsible for providing physical care shall support the other
parent's relationship with the child. Physical care awarded to one
parent does not affect the other parent's rights and
responsibilities as a joint legal custodian of the child.
Rights and responsibilities as joint legal custodian of the child
include, but are not limited to, equal participation in decisions
affecting the child's legal status, medical care, education,
extracurricular activities, and religious instruction."
Pierrette Bouchard / Laval University targets Ken Wiebe &
Father's Groups in "School Success by Gender's" Hit List
BC's Betty Hinton stands up for fathers & families against the
heinous Hedy Fry's "Status of Women"
The research and publication of this
study were funded by Status of Women Canada’s Policy
Research Fund of Status of Women Canada. This document
expresses the views of the authors and does not necessarily
represent the official policy of Status of Women Canada or
the Government of Canada, March 2003
<of Paul Martin>
is funding Radical Feminist groups, to attack all
"Pro Fathers Web Sites" for Hate Crimes, as well as Men who speak out about
abused men and abused children around the world. These include web sites in the
United States, Canada, and over seas. The dubious claim is that these websites
promote hate crimes, with the help of Foreign Governments.
The report called
"School Success by Gender, A Catalyst for the Masculinist
Discourse," by Pierrette Bouchard, Isabelle Boily, and Marie-Claude Proulx, says
that the research investigates the advocacy discourse focusing on boys and men
during the decade between 1990 and 2000, as reported in the Canadian and
international press. The report's title gives no hint about it's real content.
The report claims that their objective is to explain the dynamics of this
discourse, using the school drop-out theme, which is their field of research, in
order to identify other themes that authors link together: suicide, child
custody, violence perpetrated by women, etc. The report actually contains a "hit
list" of Canadian and international organizations and internet websites that do
not appear to support the federal government feminist orthodoxy.
The research is based on articles published in Canadian, French, American and
Australian daily newspapers and mass circulation Canadian magazines. The report
enumerates any group that questions feminism and/or promotes egalitarian reform
of Family Law.
The report goes on further to say that as a result of the new issues raised by
so-called 'masculinists', a number of general recommendations for protecting the
gains that women have made. They stress the urgency for women to "take
ownership" of the Internet and demand federal funding and legislative changes
that would bring anti-feminist views into the category of criminal hatecrime.
The Status of Women Canada (SOW), and Gender Feminist Groups, are seeking to
suppress all voices of dissent, while advancing their own political agenda at
taxpayer expense. At the Hadley inquest, Deborah Sinclair made a comment about
seeking mre federal funding to investigate media was covering men's issues. This
reprot may be it. Nothing much is new in the report, it's the expected radical
feminist view that men be considered "insignificant sperm donors" and a source
of court-ordered labour.
The report also demands that whenever possible, the release of gendered data be
accompanied by contextual analyses". Presumably, that is so that facts that
contradict a feminist agenda can be explained away.
and finally, they list people and groups targeted. Their hit list:
a.. BC Fathers Ken Wiebe, creator of the BC Fathers Web site.
b.. Michael Jebbett, Director, Victoria Men's Centre. Joseph Maillo John Hedlin,
retired social worker.
c.. Association, Parent's Coalition of B. C. Todd Eckert, President.
d.. Kamloops Parents of Broken Families, Mickey MacMillan, Founder of the Men's
Alternative Safe House in a private house on Seymour Street.
e.. MERGE (Movement for the Establishment of Real Gender Equality): Ferrell
Christensen, professor of philosophy, University of Alberta.
f.. Alberta Men's Resource Centre Chris Cavenaugh.
g.. Family of Men Support Society Earl Silverman.
h.. Men's Educational Support Association (MESA) Gus Sleiman Manitoba.
i.. Men's Equalization Inc.Ontario.
j.. National Alliance for the Advancement of Non-Custodial Parents (N.A.A.N.C.P.)
/Alliance Nationale des organisations pour l'entraide Des parents Non-Gardiens(A-ONG)Jason
Bouchard.
k.. Canadian Committee for Fairness in Family Law James Hodgins
l.. Canadian Men's Parenting Association
m.. Children for Justice Frank Verkey Dale Cherr
n.. Coalition of Canadian Men's Organizations J. Kirby Inwood
o.. Divorce and Defence Strategies Canada (DADS Canada) Stacy Robb, President
p.. Equal Parenting of Durham (EPD) Peter Meier Ron Dovey.
q.. Ex-Fathers Lloyd Gorling.
r.. Fathercraft Communication Glenn Cheriton
s.. Fathers Are Capable Too (F.A.C.T.)
t.. Fathers After Rights Equalization (F.A.R.E.) Brett Peters.
u.. Fatherz for Justice - Ontario.Rick Morrison, Paul Nelson Robert McKinnon,
Joe Lopez, and Steve Jackson.
v.. Fathers' Group - Owen Sound Graham Jordan
w.. Fathers Helping Fathers Tim Ready, Founding President.
x.. Fathers' Rights Brantford.
y.. Fathers' Support Group - Nepean Cathy Gardner.
z.. Fathers With Rights, Armand Massicotte.
aa.. In Search of Justice, Ross Virgin, President.
ab.. Kids Need Both Parents, Chuck Farrauto.
ac.. Mending Fences Support Services for Men Inc. Scott Elliott.
ad.. Men's Divorce Centre Terry Bissessar,
ae.. Men's Health Network, Glenn Cheriton, Ottawa Coordinator.
af.. Ontario Centre for Men Alan Roth.
ag.. Single Fathers of Niagara Alan Roth.
ah.. Single Fathers Network of Ottawa Robert Gagnon.
ai.. Windsor Men's Forum Bob Cartlidge.
aj.. Toronto Men's Clearinghouse Greg Barowski
ak.. Entraide Pères-Enfants Séparés (ENPES). Jacques Dupuis Claude Bouchard.
al.. Groupe d'entraide aux pères et de soutien à l'enfant (GEPSE) Yves Coutu,
President Jean Lanthier.
am.. Groupe d'action Des Pères pour le Maintien Des Liens Familiaux (GAPLMF)
Norman Levasseur, PresidentRéal Proulx, Vice-President Sylvain Gélinas,
Secretary.
an.. L'Après-rupture Gilbert Claes, CEO Jean-Claude Boucher, President Serge
Ferrand.
ao.. Association Masculine d'Entraide pour la Famille (AMEF) Jacques Pettigrew,
President
ap.. L'A.M.I. (Association masculine irénique) Roger Fatta, Founding President.
aq.. Organisation pour le Respect Des Liens Familiaux Jean-Dominique Riché,
Founding President.
ar.. Organisation pour la Sauvegarde Des Droits Des Enfants Ricardo Di Done,
President Germain Dulac, professor of sociology, McGill University Jeffrey
Asher, professor of social studies Glenne F. Cartwright, Department of
Educational and Counselling Psychology, McGill University.
as.. Men's Legal Defence Fund Mark Wickam.
at.. Réseau Men Québec Guy Corneau, Network founder.
This is just the Canadian list. It also appears that they are going on an
international attack as well.
This report appears to be another feminist attack upon A Joint Committee of
the Senate and House of Commons report. That Committee held hearings across
the country on the issue of custody and access Divorce Act reforms. The
Committee did not fully-accept the feminist arguments that men are dangerous and
abusive and that mothers should always have sole custody of children.
The Committee report,
"For the Sake of the Children"
released on December 9, 1998,
shocked many feminists with recommendations that there should be shared
parenting following the divorce so that a child will have involvement from both
parents. At present, the mother customarily is given custody with the
father, usually having access to his child or visitation rights -- such rights
being carried out depending upon the mother's inclination. Feminists wish to
retain this lopsided status quo that simply does not match modern family
realities. It does generate millions of additional dollars for lawyers though,
because the current Divorce Act places both divorcing parents under legal threat
of losing their children. Despite gender-neutral language, several factors
conspire to ensurre that it is most often the father who loses his children, and
that is what SOW wishes to defend.
The report also recommended a mandatory
90 day notice if one parent wishes to move away from the former spouse and that
support payments would be adjusted to facilitate continued visits.
Another recommendation was that there be
compulsory mediation for parents at the time of the divorce in order to develop
a suitable child sharing plan. This latter recommendation has worked very
well in some jurisdictions in the US and in the province of Alberta.
SOW is attempting to silence any egalitarians who support Shared Parenting
and Family Law reform. They use baseless accusations of "hate mongering" to
oppress freedom of speech. Radical feminist-socialist pet theories regarding
social engineering have been found wanting, and now just declare other
viewpoints off limits.
Dick Freeman
Freedom Fighter
'Masculinists' lashing back at feminists, May 31, 2003
Publicly funded report says men's groups inciting hatred
Feminists fret the tables have turned. But
have they?
A report funded by the Canadian government finds "masculinists" are
orchestrating a backlash against feminism and blame women for
oppression and discrimination against men, reports the National
Post.
According to the paper, the report's authors claim "masculinists"
portray men as victims and link feminism with boys' poor performance
in schools, male suicide, loss of male identity and discriminatory
divorce and child-custody laws. It further concludes that "masculinists"
aim to discredit feminism and challenge the gains made by women in
education, work and in family life.
"A process of leveling the power relationships of men over women is
taking hold, not only to mask continued inequality but also to
attack some of the gains made by the women's movement," reads the
report.
The report blames the media for spreading the "masculinists
misinformation" and notes news articles that evolved from discussing
girls' "triumphant breakthrough" in the 1990s to focusing on boys'
"malaise."
Who authored the report? Self-described feminists.
"I have a feminist perspective, but just because I am a feminist
does not mean that I am incapable of seeing that boys are having
certain difficulties," Pierrette
Bouchard, the report's main author told the National Post.
Bouchard
is a professor in the education department at Universit? Laval. Her
two research assistants were contributing authors.
The authors recommend an organization be set up to monitor the
websites of men's groups who they imply are "inciting hatred"
against women, and suggest women's groups team up to counter the "masculinists."
Bouchard defines "masculinists" as "activists within certain men's
groups."
According to the National Post, men's groups cited in an appendix to
the report feel "smeared."
Ken Wiebe, owner of the
website www.fathers.bc.ca
, said it was set up as a resource to help
fathers gain equal footing in divorce courts. He denied that it
promotes hatred of women.
"There is no question that I have very little patience for
feminists, especially the radical variety of feminism here in
Canada," he told the paper. "But I have a wife, I have daughters.
This notion that because we are opposed to the feminists' political
agenda, that that somehow equates to a dislike of women, is just
propaganda. That's some kind of smear campaign."
Another organization on the report's "hit list" is the Canadian
Committee for Fairness in Family Law in Ontario.
"I think there is a serious need to look into why the government is
funding this," said Jim Hodgins, the committee's representative.
Bouchard deflected the criticism.
"In conducting this research, we found attacks on feminists on a lot
of sites. We were only reflecting what we saw on their sites," she
told the paper. "Nor do I put all men in the same basket. Not all
men are like those I identified in the report."
Feminists, Masculinists, Blacklists, June 4, 2003
by Neil Seeman
Researchers for
Status of Women Canada have drawn up an enemies’
list, and I’m on it. The list of prominent purveyors of "masculinist
discourse" is posted on the ministry’s Web site.
"The goals of the masculinist discourse are to regain lost
privileges and to stop the women’s emancipation movement," the study
reads. Laval University researchers Pierrette Bouchard, Isabelle Boily, and Marie-Claude Proulx are so nonplussed by us masculinists
that they moot the possibility of slapping us with hate-crimes
charges.
I found out about the newly issued blacklist after receiving an
e-mail from Jeffrey Asher. He’s also on the list. Asher used to
teach a popular men’s studies course until he was dismissed in 2000
on account of what he called a "feminist managerial putsch." I know
this because I wrote an article for the National Post three years
ago about Jeffrey’s fight for due process.
As far as I can tell, the only reason I’m on the list is because
I’ve written a couple of articles about discrimination toward men,
and toward male academics in particular. Several journalists and
academics and researchers are on the list, including 10 citations
for reporters at the feminist-friendly Toronto Star. In fact, the
column you are now reading is doubtless an example of "masculinism,"
since it takes seriously the idea that men -- like women -- can be
victims of discrimination, too.
It fell to the Policy Research Fund, a branch of Status of Women
Canada, to mine media databases for examples of masculinism. The
Policy Research Fund was created in 1996, because the ministry felt
that "good public policy depends on good policy research."
For this particular project ("School Success by Gender: A Catalyst
for the Masculinist Discourse"), the researchers canvassed a "corpus
of 612 newspaper and magazine articles." They then proceeded to code
12 subcategories of masculinism, identifying, for example, articles
that "discuss fathers who claim to be oppressed because their
custody rights are taken away," or those that attempt to explain
male malaise by reference to "such themes as the loss of the male
identity or the quest for a new identity, the consequences of
redefining traditional social roles or pressures to redefine them."
It’s hard to treat this earnestly as an academic enterprise, and
harder still to imagine that Ottawa commissioned it using taxpayers’
dollars. But the real gut-thumper lies in the chief recommendation:
hate-crimes charges. "We also recommend that consideration be given
to whether legal action can be taken under Section 319 of the
Criminal Code."
Let us stop to consider the import of this recommendation. It
advocates the monitoring of men’s groups’ Web sites for possible
violations of Section 319. That section subjects to imprisonment
everyone "who, by communicating statements in a public place,
incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement
is likely to lead to a breach" and everyone "who, by communicating
statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes
hatred against an identifiable group."
What this counsels is the criminalizing of mainstream dissent.
Feminists have long complained of the "white, male establishment."
(Some have gone further; Germaine Greer wrote that "to be male is to
be a kind of idiot savant, full of queer obsession ... doomed to
aggression and injustice not merely towards females, but towards
children, animals, and other men"). Should it now be criminal for
fathers’ groups and other aggrieved Canadians, men and women among
them, to grouse about the "feminist establishment" on obscure Web
sites? And should journalists be cowed into silence, afraid to cover
"men’s issues" for fear of landing on a blacklist?
Journalists are paid to investigate controversies -- to explore, for
example, "masculinist" assertions that there are fundamental
differences between the sexes, or that boys and the "masculine"
culture must be valued. It is one thing for an academic to take
umbrage at these assertions. It is another thing, a dangerous thing,
to criminalize these thoughts and to immortalize the names of
would-be offenders on a government Web site.
Neil Seeman
Phyllis Schlafly & Stephen Baskerville on KRights Radio,
February 14, 2006
"The Family
Courts are a bunch of second rate hangers-on
... build each other's businesses through
referrals...Family Law is a <parasitic> self-sustaining
Industry"
our domestic laws, both provincial and
federal, delineate freedom of expression (or
"free
speech") in a manner that is somewhat
different than the approach taken in the
United States.
...
...
could in fact lead to criminal charges.
Outside of the criminal realm, Canadian
defamation laws also limit freedom of
expression
The university community tells us that at
least one of the
Status of Women university profs is not just a run of the
mill Communist... she's a self professed MAOIST!!!
The difference we're told is that a MAOIST believes in shooting
her opponents.
FYI, we're told by female friends that
we need to expand our vocabulary into the pro-family
"First Wave Feminists" of the 1800's who fought for women's
equality and the anti-famiy
"Second Wave Feminists" of the 1960s who were the
anti-marriage "Femi-Nazis" who are typically the Marxist
Lesbians who are now maintaining control of our government
offices at the Courts, the Schools, and the University's
faculties of Law and Women's Studies and Social Work..
These are the evil SOWs who have created the
doctrines of "justified" deceit, lying, and theft in the Family
Courts to make "Reparations" for "wrongs done to women" over all
centuries since civilization began, and leave women with
all the financial power, and men with none.
We say it is Hedy
Fry, and these
"Second Wave Feminists" /
Status of Women /
Women's Studies types that need to be eradicated from tax
funded positions and be forced to make Reparations to the
thousands of Fathers and their families whose lives who have
been destroyed by them since the sixties. We need also the
restoration of the
Enticement & Seduction provisions of Common Law which these
SOWs had struck by Statute.
More:
Ken Wiebe of Victoria put on "Hit List" by Hedy Fry's Status of Women,
SOW
Having been put on a "Hit List" by
SOW. Ken sued
SOW's Pierrette
Bouchard for Defamation. He lost.
The Judge said in effect that even though
SOW's material was
incorrect, was published in newspapers across Canada, is
damaging Ken's consulting career, and is used to script
Government Policy,
Bouchard and
SOW were not found
culpable for Damages, because, the Judge said, the Readership
knows or ought to know
SOW is not a reliable source, and what
SOW writes is "just
an opinion". (For Contrast see
Testimonials: Prior, Byron:
Sexual Abuse by Public Officer)
As
of spring of 2010 SOW
is holding Ken liable for Court Costs and Damages for having
lost his case in Court. They are expecting him to pay
around $70,000. To stay abreast of this see
www.fathers.bc.ca and
come to a
CourtWatch Meeting during Ken's proceedings.
Note: "Court Costs" is the same device your lawyer
has probably used to trick you into abandoning your kids to the
SCP...... "as
a father you have a ninety something percent probability of
failure if you pursue
Joint Custody
in Court....., so you better cut your losses and avoid adding to
your Bill the Court Costs and the SCP's expenses."
Your are then trapped by Consent. We want to see you withEqual
Parenting
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.
World Health Organization (WHO) gags unbiased DV studies, demands
falsified reporting on Violence Against Women
".... The Steering Committee of the WHO Study agreed that interviews
with men should not be included ..."
"In situations where very low levels of violence are documented or
there are results that are otherwise not expected, the findings should
be discussed with key informants and different community groups before
being widely disseminated."
If you don't want to go nuts in the Family Law Industry, you'd
better prepare yourself to recognize
Peck's previously
undescribed psychological class of what he calls "Evil" people.
"M. Scott Peck, M.D. <Psychiatrist> wrote a most important book for
our times,
People of the Lie, The Hope For Healing Human Evil, published in
1983 by Simon & Schuster. It’s a study of human evil. Peck said he
chose the title “because lying is both a cause and a
manifestation of evil. It is partly by their lying that we recognize
the evil.”
Peck’s analysis of the Mylai massacre, its massive cover-up and the
deceptions made by our government in the Viet Nam war should not be
missed for its lessons for us today."
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.
Tax Exempt
Rockefeller Foundation
& Rockefeller Family backs Global Taxation and a Global Soviet
Government
"Some even believe we are
part of a secret Cabal
working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing
my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others
around the world to build a more integrated global political and
economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I STAND
GUILTY, and I AM PROUD OF IT",
World Health Organization (WHO) gags unbiased DV studies, demands
falsified reporting on Violence Against Women
".... The Steering Committee of
the WHO Study agreed that interviews with men should not be included
..."
"In situations where very low levels of violence are documented or
there are results that are otherwise not expected, the findings should
be discussed with key informants and different community groups before
being widely disseminated."
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"
Hester Lessard, UVic Feminist Law Prof:
Heterosexual View of Parenthood must be ignored
"Trociuk is .. a
disheartening endorsement of biological concepts of parenthood
... flawed .... it legitimizes a heterosexual view of the family. ..
It must be ignored."
Send Robinson (right) cries while being supported by his partner Max
Riveron. Robinson claimed "stress" caused him to steal the
jewelry he intended to give his boyfriend. Robinson
continues to practice law in BC.
"In Ontario
alone, the names
Cornwall, Prescott,
and London became
synonymous with
"respectable" pedophile
rings -- lawyers, doctors, police officers
and
Catholic clergymen -- that for decades
preyed on society's most vulnerable
boys."
"It’s a funny thing about free speech:
It can’t be just for your political friends. If freedom means
anything, it is the one valuable gift you have to give to your
worst enemies, in order to keep it for yourself."
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.
Canadian
children as State Property and merchandise for sale in the
lucrative 
