
News Area Home
Abella, Judge Rosalie, SCC Ahmadinejad, Mahmoud ACT UP! Homosexual Activists Agenda 21, Earth Summit Augustine of Canterbury, RIP 604 Armenian Genocide Bailey, Alice: Lucifer / Lucis Trust Barbie, Klaus: Vatican Assassin BCMCF = BC Ministry of Children & Families BCHRT = BC Human Rights Tribunal BCTF = BC Teachers "It's OK to be Gay" Bilderberg Group Blavatsky, Helena: Theosophiy Bouchard, Pierrette: Laval University Bretton Woods Bryant, Michael: ON AG Buford, Bob; Peter Drucker's Evangelist Camp Fyrefly Cantwell, Dr. Thomas: Waterford Hospital CAS = Children's Aid Society CBA = Canadian Bar Association CFR = Council on Foreign Relations CCE = Chicago Climate Exch, Cap & Trade COR = Club of Rome: Ten Regions Cotler, Irwin: "Parents have NO RIGHTS" CPS = Child Protective Services Codex Alimentarius Craig, Dr. David of Newfoundland Creme, Benjamin: Herald of Maitreya Cross, Pamela: Feminist Lawyer Crowley, Aleister: Luciferian Freemasonry CUPE = Canadian Union of Public Employees Dewey, John: Hegelian Communitarianism Dobson , James: Focus on the Family Drucker, Peter: Global Nazism Edward VIII The Traitor King EU = European Union Fabian Society, "Wolves in Sheep's' Clothing" Fawkes, Guy the Villain, 1605 Fry, Hedi & SOW Gehring, Amy Georgia Guide Stones: Depopulation Gothard, Bill: "Basic Youth Conflicts Goudge Enquiry, ON Graham, Bill: Pedophile Parliamentarian Hall, Manly: Magic, White, Gray, Black HELP = Human Early Learning Partners Hertzman, Clyde: World Bank Consultant Hickman, Judge T. Alex, NL Houle , Francois / Univ. Ottawa Speech Crimes Loyola, Ignatius of: Jesuits' "Society of Jesus" IMF = International Monetary Fund Ingram, Heather, Teacher-Student Sex Ireland, YWCA, NOW Lessard, Hester: "Trociuk ..must be ignored" Lucis / Lucifer Trust Kinsey, Alfred: Pedophilia & Falsified Reporting McCartney, Bill: Promise Keepers Cult McLachlin, Beverly McLellan, Anne: Joint Custody Machiavelli, Niccolò "The Prince" Matthews, Bill of Newfoundland Maximux Inc. Monsanto GMOs & Food Mount Cashel Orphanage, NL Morgentaler’s Order of Canada NAMBLA = N.Am. Man-Boy "Love" Assoc. NAWGLA = N.Am. Woman-Girl "Love" Assoc. Ng, Mass Murderer Charles Chitat Obama's Fake Birth Certificate Obama's Muslim Faith OECD = Org. Economic Cooperation, Dev. Orr, NFLD Judge David Pechaluk, Ashleigh: Lesbian axe-murderer..children Pike, Albert: Luciferian Freemasonry Ramsay, BC Judge David: Pedophile Rathenau, Walter Ratzinger, Joseph, AKA "Nazi Pope" RIIA = Royal Institute of International Affairs Robinson, Svend: BC lawyer, Thief, "Hate" Crimes Rockefeller Foundation Ruddy, Raymond: Vice Chairman, MAXIMUS Russell , William: "Scull & Bones" to US Sanger, Margaret / Planned Parenthood Sgro, Judy: Fast-Tracked Immigration Sharpe, John: Kiddie Pornographer Shaw, BC Judge Duncan Kiddie Porn Simms, Mary Woo: BCHRT Cheif Skull & Bones, 322, Yale Smalley, Gary & Steve Arterburn Smith, ON Dr Charles: Falsified Death Certs Smithson, James : Smithsonian Institution Solana, Javier Southin BC Judge Mary, Pedophiilia Strong, Maurice: Global Warming Fraud Trudeau, Pierre: Pals with Gorbachev & Castro Themis Inc. UNESCO World Heritage Properties UNSC = United Nations' Security Council Verichip = Positive ID, RFID Surveillance von Hagen, Gunther: "Body Works Warren, Rick, Winkler, Mary: Homicidal Mom WCC = World Council of Churches WTO = World Trade Organization Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus WHO gags unbiased DV studies Weishaupt, Adam: Illuminati Founder Williams, Danny Winkler, Mary News - 2009 News - 2008 News - 2007 News - 2006 News - 2005 News - 2004 News - 2003 News - 2002 News - 2001 News - 2000 News - 1999 News - 1998 News - 1997 News - 1996 News - 1995 |
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 |





Real Fathers for Justice - News



|
2006-08-29 <Canadian> Lesbians lose their battle for foreign
marriage to be legalised - Britain - Times Online
"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. |
|

2005-06-15 Mom imprisoned for '89 abduction
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
More.... |
|
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.

|
Methods |
Motives |
1.
Poison (80%)
2. Shooting (20%)
3. Bludgeoning (16%)
4. Suffocation (16%)
5. Stabbing (11%)
6. Drowning (5%) |
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 |
|
|
2006-09-27 Don't expect the CCP to go quietly;
"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.
2006-09-21 Women's groups face funding cuts; <Save our
families from Femi-Narcissism! GO TORIES!!> |
"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
|
|
2005-06-11
Society must defend traditional wedlock - Marriage Supporters tired of
being silenced, Michael Coren
"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." |
|
w ww.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." |
|
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
2004-xx-xx Iowa's HF 22 ... the awarding of joint physical
care of a child.
"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." |
| |
|
THE OTTAWA SUN
By Robert Fife
September 23, 1998
Bureaucrats thwart child custody reform
CREDIT: By ROBERT FIFE
Ottawa Bureau
A backroom power play is under way that could dash the dreams of
tens of thousands of grandparents and divorced fathers.
With the tacit approval of higher-ups, faceless bureaucrats are
attempting to thwart reforms to the child custody and access
system. This is a story of how the bureaucracy can influence
decision-making and neuter our legislators.
Since April, non-custodial parents and grandparents have counted
on a joint Commons-Senate committee to right the wrongs in the
1968 Divorce Act. The all-party committee was set up to respond
to a groundswell of male anger after Parliament passed tough
laws in 1997 to deal with deadbeat dads. The Senate had refused
to pass those amendments unless the government promised custody
reform for the majority of fathers who faithfully pay child
support but are shut out of their children's lives just the
same.
The justice department, led at that time by Allan Rock, didn't
give a hoot about these parents but was forced into a child
custody study to get the deadbeat dads bill adopted.
The hearings have shone a light into the dark corner of divorce
where children are pawns in the war of the sexes. Fathers
bitterly complained the Divorce Act is used by their ex-wives as
a weapon to punish them. Many men spoke of being denied regular
access to their children and paying heavy legal bills to enforce
access orders. Fathers tearfully relived stories of judges
denying them access to their kids based on accusations of sex
abuse or violence levelled by former spouses, without a shred of
evidence.
This summer, bureaucrats set to work on a first draft of the
final report to be tabled Nov. 30.
Liberal Roger Gallaway, the committee co-chair, was
flabbergasted when he saw the draft in mid-July. It was supposed
to be a summary of the evidence heard to date. Instead, the
draft contained conclusions and recommendations that would have
delighted the radical National Action Committee on the Status of
Women (NAC).
Gallaway, a chain-smoking giant with an independent streak, was
convinced officials with a feminist agenda were trying to dilute
his committee's efforts to put some fairness back into the
system.
Missing from the report were key recommendations that judges
demand solid proof of child abuse in custody cases and levy
sanctions against parents who make false accusations. Left out
or diluted were fines for custodial parents who obstruct
court-ordered visitation rights and deny legal access to
grandparents.
The report was cleverly watered down to make it seem as if the
committee was acting to address the concerns of divorced dads.
About 75% of the proposals fell within the purview of the
provinces.
In other words, bureaucrats wrote a report that made it seem
like Ottawa was doing custody reform when it was shifting
responsibility elsewhere. Even more troublesome was the fact the
report urged the hiring of more costly lawyers and social
workers.
Nor did the report reflect the depth of anger and emotion that
the committee witnessed from traumatized fathers.
Gallaway fears the committee has been set up and he's warning
the public that promised changes may be derailed by the
bureaucracy. This is not paranoia in a city where bureaucrats
wield more power than elected MPs, who, in theory, are supposed
to have a substantial role in making laws.
"If you believe the committee system is real, you probably also
believe that professional wrestling is a real sport," says a
frustrated Gallaway, whose independence will undoubtedly cost
him advancement within the Liberal party ranks. "But I didn't
come to Ottawa to kiss anybody's ass."
Gallaway is putting up the good fight. Let's hope this
not-so-gentle giant can beat the system.
Robert can be e-mailed at
bfife@sunpub.com Letters to the editor should be sent to
editor@sunpub.com
Copyright 1998, Canoe Limited Partnership. |
|
CHRIS COBB, Edmonton Journal September 8, 1998, Southam
Newspapers, Ottawa
The federal Justice department is attempting to dilute
recommendations from the emotionally charged parliamentary
committee on custody and access in divorce cases, says the
co-chairman of the committee.
Ontario MP Roger Gallaway says despite considerable evidence
that amendments are needed to the 1968 Divorce Act, the Justice
department is attempting to tame the all-party Senate-Commons
committee which is due to report to Parliament by Nov. 30.
Gallaway would not say how Justice officials are attempting to
influence the committee's work but indicated he is unhappy that
the testimony heard during weeks of hearings across the country
is being given short shrift.
"The Justice department would prefer some refinements to the
status quo and that's not acceptable," said Gallaway. "This
whole thing revolves around whether we are going to have more of
the status quo or whether we are going to fundamentally change a
system that most people agree is broken. We have to put some
fairness back into the custody and access system."
He says when members of the committee meet later this month, he
will attempt to get consensus on several specific
recommendations. Among the recommendations Galloway wants:
*Parliament to tell judges that both parents in a divorce must
be granted access to children unless it can be proven that one
parent is unfit.
*Parliament to tell judges they must reject accusations by one
parent of another unless the accusations are proven. *An
acceptance by courts that it is in the best Interests of
children to have regular visits with both parents.
*Immediate penalties for custodial parents who obstruct
court-ordered visitation rights granted the other parent.
*A strict curtailing of the role in custody cases of social
workers, psychologists and similar specialists whose services
can cost thousands of dollars for parents in custody battles but
whose reports can be ignored by courts. Gallaway is adamant the
committee will force changes to the Divorce Act which he says is
unfair to many parents and grandparents and not serving the best
interests of children.
"People told us." said Gallaway "that they go into court actions
where there were all sorts of allegations of abuse or violence
but none of it was ever substantiated.
"Then child agencies become involved and there is a big state
mechanism in place where these agencies move in and the father -
it's usually the father. though not always - is told that he
cannot see the children until the investigation is over which
can be a long time. Then the father gets pressured into
admitting his guilt to make life easier so we never know what
the reality was. These are areas the committee has to deal
with."
Gallaway says the committee has to make clear that one parent
should not be excluded from the life of a child on the basis of
an allegation.
Ottawa Citizen |
|
|
|