"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!!!
"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."
OTTAWA, March 5, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com)
- Canada's new age of sexual consent, raised to 16 from 14, was
signed into law on Feb. 28 after passing in the Senate by a
narrow 3 votes.
As reported last December by
LifeSiteNews.com, the Conservative Government's Bill C-2, the
'Tackling Violent Crime Act', passed the House of Commons on
November 28, 2007. This bill included a provision to raise the
age of consent for sexual activity from 14 to 16. At 14,
Canada's age of consent was among the lowest of Western nations,
where it typically varies between 16 and 18.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper had threatened
to call an election if Bill C-2 wasn't passed in the Senate by
March 1, 2008. Even though the Liberal dominated senate
complained there was not enough time to meet this deadline, the
possibility of giving Harper an opportunity to launch an
election over the issue pushed them into action.
Nineteen senators voted for the bill, sixteen
voted against, while thirty-one senators - all Liberals but one
- abstained from the vote, and another twenty-seven didn't show
up at all.
In an interview with the Winnipeg Free Press,
senior cabinet minister Vic Toews said it was satisfying to see
Bill C-2 become law, and that his government's decision to
pressure the Liberals to pass the bill or go to the electorate
was the right one.
"Most of the measures in the legislation had
Liberal support during the last election campaign, and it should
never have taken this long to get them into law," Mr. Toews
said.
Roz Prober, co-founder of the Winnipeg-based
children's rights group Beyond Borders, told the Free Press,
"Common sense has prevailed. Raising the age of sexual consent
from 14 to 16 is a huge protection for children. People were
stunned to see Canada was so far behind the eight ball on the
age of consent."
National Vice President of REAL Women of
Canada, Gwen Landolt, told LifeSiteNews.com that she was
delighted to have this legislation passed, although she would
have preferred to see the age of consent raised to 18 rather
than 16, to bring it in line with other legal standards in the
Criminal Justice System, such as the legal age for sodomy.
She said the bill was "overwhelmingly
supported by Conservative MPs, most of the NDP caucus, as well
as the Attorneys General of all provinces, but the Liberal party
had resolutely refused to support raising of the age of consent
because of political pressure from homosexuals."
A Newfoundland Supreme Court justice in St.
John's has ruled that a libel-related section of the Criminal
Code of Canada is unconstitutional, and contravenes the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms.
At issue in the decision, rendered Friday and
publicly released on Monday by
Justice Lois Hoegg, is whether the Crown can prove that a
subject knows potentially libelous statements to be false.
Prior claimed a public justice official had
raped his sister and made her pregnant in 1966. However, a
decision released Monday by Hoegg says that Prior's sister told
police she didn't know the official — who is not named in the
decision — and had not been raped. Prior made his
allegations in flyers and on a placard that he wore in public,
the decision notes. Subsequent to the court proceedings, he has
also posted videos on the internet about his claims.
Prior's lawyers, Derek Hogan and Sean Montague, argued that
Section 301 of the Criminal Code contravenes the Charter of
Rights.
Hoegg agreed.
"I find that it is not justified, in our free and democratic
society, for the Crown to use the heavy hammer of the criminal
law against a subject for publishing defamatory libel when the
Crown is not able to show that that subject knows that his
statements are false," Hoegg wrote.
"As the case law aptly establishes, the expression of truthful,
unpopular or even false statements deserve protection unless
expressed in a violent manner."
Section 301 states:
"Everyone who publishes a defamatory libel is guilty of an
indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding two years."
Hoegg noted that the Crown had not charged Prior under
Section 300, which holds that a person "who publishes a
defamatory libel that he knows is false is guilty of an
indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding five years."
"Presumably, if the Crown felt it could prove
Mr. Prior knowingly published defamatory libel, it would have
charged him under Section 300," she wrote in her decision.
An official with the provincial Justice Department said the
Crown is now considering an appeal of Hoegg's decision
Connie Fogal on The Alex Jones Show"Canadian Martial
Law"
Connie, we love you, but you're wrong on this
one....
And like many Americans,
Alex doesn't seem to know the
British Civil War
against the "Divine Right
of Kings" had already been fought and won in Britain a
century prior to the American Revolution. In this respect,
the Americans were going over old ground.
The Americans in their Revolution were sadly without
the purely Protestant view of ridding their country of Globalist
Rome. Instead the American Revolutionaries had along with
the Protestants, the Humanist and Masonic ideologies which were
in then in process of becoming "Illuminated" or "Luciferian".
What is ridiculous in the
Proroguing of Parliament, is that
Dion's "Three Stooges" are saying to Canadians that if ever
there is a minority Government, the minority Parties may
coalesce, pretend they are not separate Parties, but one
"Party", and displace the majority Party that WAS elected.....
totally BIZARRE!!!
The Governor General's role seems to have played out well here.
As the Queens Delegate as Constitutional Monarch, her role is to
assess the Trustee's performance in stewarding the Assets of the
Commonwealth, and if the Beneficiaries / Electorate is calling
for an Election, to
Dissolve Parliament.
It seemed pretty clear at the time
Dion's "Three Stooges" where demanding the Governor
General give THEM the reigns of power, and that Canadians did
NOT want another Election. None was called. For a
young and inexperienced party, Harper's
CPC has handled the Stooges' outrageous storming of
Parliament extremely well.
For many Canadians, it's a term they're not
familiar with but have come to know all too well in the last
week: proroguing Parliament. But just what does it mean?
Proroguing Parliament is a lot like rebooting your computer
after you've finished working. You're essentially starting with
a clean slate uncomplicated by all the programs you may have
been into before you hit that restart command. It's the
period between two sessions of a legislative body, although it
rarely happens just weeks after an election has been held.
It means all the MPs who were elected last October 14th will
remain in place, but any unpassed bills or motions - like the
controversial economic statement that started this mess - will
be non-existent. In effect, when the session starts again,
in this case in early January, it would be as though the
Conservatives never brought in the document and they get a
second chance at presenting a new one. Finance Minister
Jim Flaherty is expected to do just that, bringing down an early
budget.
The Inquiry into
Pediatric Forensic Pathology in
Ontario, commonly known as the
Goudge Inquiry, was created to
address serious concerns over the
way criminally suspicious deaths
involving children are handled by
the Province of
Ontario in
Canada. By
2005, the existence of serious and
disturbing errors in several
criminal investigations into
suspicious deaths involving children
had been confirmed. While there
appeared to be significant problems
in the entire system, the majority
of cases being re-investigated
involved those for which
Charles Randal Smith, of the
Hospital for Sick Children in
Toronto, had provided his expert
opinion.
In response to a shockingly large
number of
wrongful convictions (for
murder,
sexual assault, and
infanticide, to name but a few),
the provincial government directed
that an inquiry be held to determine
the state of the
Forensic Pathology system in
Ontario. The goal of this inquiry
was to come up with suggestions to
improve the system, which the
province was capable of
implementing, in order to ensure
that these errors would not be
repeated.
Justice Stephen T. Goudge was
named as commissioner.
...
His report was released on October
1, 2008.
Goudge inquiry expected to urge sweeping reforms for child
autopsies, September 30, 2008
An inquiry into flaws in Ontario's system of investigating
child deaths is expected to recommend major changes in how the
provincial coroner's office operates while also possibly
pointing the finger at key individuals.
Commissioner Stephen Goudge arrives for the first day of
public hearings in an inquiry into the work of discredited
pathologist Dr. Charles Smith, on Nov. 12, 2007. Commissioner
Stephen Goudge arrives for the first day of public hearings in
an inquiry into the work of discredited pathologist
Dr. Charles Smith, on Nov. 12, 2007.
The public inquiry, headed by Ontario Court of Appeal Justice
Stephen Goudge, was launched after it emerged that
Charles Smith, formerly the province's chief pediatric
pathologist, had made grievous errors in 20 child autopsies
between 1991 and 2001. His mistakes led to wrongful criminal
convictions and accusations against parents and caregivers who
were accused of abusing or killing their children.
The
inquiry, which is to deliver its final report Wednesday, is
expected to offer a far-reaching analysis of how the province
handles criminally suspicious child deaths and how the system
broke down under Smith's leadership, several people familiar
with the inquiry and the field of pathology said Tuesday.
"We
are all interested to see what will come out and be his
recommendations," said Chitra Rao, medical director of the
regional forensic pathology unit at Hamilton General Hospital
and an associate professor at McMaster University medical
school.
"One problem throughout all of Ontario is that we are
understaffed and overworked. What the inquiry may suggest is
that there be a pay increase so that they may attract more young
people."
Staff shortages have been blamed for a lack of oversight in
pediatric forensic pathology, which uses lab tests and autopsies
to try to unearth the facts surrounding suspicious child
fatalities.
Accreditation
lacking
Rao also anticipated the report would recommend that the
province's chief forensic pathologist shoulder more
responsibility for investigating cases of suspected foul play,
with Ontario's coroners — doctors who examine the scene of a
death, but have far less specialized training — carrying less of
the burden.
"Everything shouldn't lie on the coroner's side," Rao said.
Dr. Charles Smith sits on the stand as he waits to deliver
testimony at the Goudge inquiry in Toronto on Jan. 28, 2008. Dr.
Charles Smith sits on the stand as he waits to deliver testimony
at the Goudge inquiry in Toronto on Jan. 28, 2008. (Adrian Wyld/
Canadian Press)
The inquiry's report is also expected to touch on how forensic
pathologists are recruited and accredited as well as other
issues.
Until this year, there was no system in Canada to certify
forensic pathologists. Doctors practising in the field, like
Smith, generally did a four-year residency in general pathology,
followed by a one-year fellowship, but did not need to pass
licensing exams.
As of next year, all newly graduated forensic pathologists in
Canada will have to have some form of certification, while
senior practitioners will have to pass an as-yet-undetermined
examination process, Rao said.
The inquiry is likely to find that the lack of proper
accreditation meant that, in some cases, the doctors tasked with
identifying a cause of death weren't fully trained in how to do
so.
In his testimony at the inquiry, Smith admitted he had had very
little experience in criminally suspicious cases and had never
trained with a certified forensic pathologist. Nevertheless, he
still managed to rise to the top of the profession in Ontario.
The report may also point the finger at individuals, with former
Ontario chief coroner James Young a possible target for some of
the criticism, a physician familiar with the coroner's work who
asked not to be named said Tuesday. Under Young's leadership,
there was precious little oversight of Smith's work.
Smith, who worked at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children but
functioned under the Chief Coroner's Office, said he felt his
job was to help prosecutors nail child abusers and not to
provide impartial scientific evidence on what caused a child's
death.
"I honestly believed it was my role to support the Crown
attorney," Smith testified at the inquiry.
Dubious conclusions
The Goudge inquiry was launched in April 2007 after a review
by Ontario's chief coroner of 45 criminally suspicious
children's deaths in which Smith had done, or consulted on, the
autopsies.
The review found that in 20 instances between 1991 and 2001,
Smith had made mistakes leading to dubious conclusions of
criminal wrongdoing. Thirteen of those cases resulted in
criminal convictions.
The revelation was all the more shocking because Smith was seen
as "a world-renowned pathologist, who was considered to be at
the top of his field," the Chief Coroner's Office said in
submissions to the inquiry last year.
Smith
has apologized repeatedly for his errors, telling the inquiry in
January that "I have come to appreciate mistakes that I made,
and I am sorry for them. … I do accept full responsibility for
work."
support climbed onto the roof of NDP
Leader
Jack Layton's constituency office to protest a lack of
response from
Jack Layton, NDP "No Dads Party" on issues surrounding child
custody and access post divorce.
"Mr. Layton has once again decided to remain 'obtuse'. Claiming
in media reports he was unaware of our group and the issues we
stand for. The group which advocates for equal parenting
rights for both adults and children says that they have received
a cold shoulder from Jack Layton and decided
it was
time to take action when reports from other members began coming
in about Layton's refusal to discuss Equal
Parenting issues.
Equal
Parenting may be the hot plate issue heading into the fall
session in parliament and the subsequent election as there is
currently a
Federal Private Member's Motion (M483) on the order paper
to support a shift to presumptive equal parenting. An omnibus
survey from February 2007 shows
over
79% of Canadians support federal legislation for presumptive
equal parenting. " What we're hearing, even from
other members of the NDP party, is that
Jack Layton will
advise his MP's not to support this motion,
although
they would if given
freedom
to vote their conscience and the
will of their constituents," says Kris Titus, National
Coordinator for F4J Fathers 4 Justice Canada."
"2008-08-08:
Greetings Liberators from Vancouver BC.
After unrolling a huge banner that read
"No Dads Party", Plywood
Man And Spidey made themselves comfortable while
Mr. Incredible descended to the ground to watch over the
superheroes who intend to stay on the roof in protest for 4
days. It was not long after that many people began to gather to
get a glimpse of our heroes who were occupying the roof to
encourage NDP support of motion -483 and to spread our message
of equality far and wide. Police also arrived in short order and
were attempting to encourage our brave activists to end their
protest.
Shortly after lunch the ETF (Emergency
Task Force) arrived to gain control of the situation.
Mr. Incredible was soon after whisked away from gathering
reporters and taken into custody. Spidey soon after descended to
the ground and gave himself up. Plywood Man remained and
continued in his protest with a police negotiator attempting to
talk him down for 4 hours. I have been informed that at times
there were 80 to 100 people gathered to witness the event as it
unfolded. After 11 1/2 hours the protest was brought to a halt
with the ETF releasing several flash bombs as a distraction,
tackled plywood Man to the ground with a show of force, taking
him into custody.
Our f4j Canada Ontario team members rocked today folks and put a
great deal of their hearts and soul into today's action. Each
and everyone of them who participated and helped out deserve our
up most gratitude. Bravo F4J Ontario, you Rock.
Our superheroes are currently being held overnight and are
expected in court at 10;00 am August 09/08 - at 440 Young Street
(Toronto). All Ontario supporters in our cause are encouraged to
show their support by attending. Your support is crucial. To all
others I would humbly ask that you show your support by flooding
the police station with your calls of support and by contacting
you elected representatives and encouraging their support of
motion - 483 - 4 equal parenting. I have enclosed with this
message as an attachment a letter to the Ontario police sent
this evening by our vice president Hal Legere. The contact
number for the police detachment is listed in this attachment.
Also this monumental action may now be viewed on our action site
directly
here
There are links to the many media coverage this action received
as well.
I cannot begin to express how proud I am of these brave
individuals and those that helped them.
SASKATOON – Maurice Vellacott, M.P Saskatoon-Wanuskewin has
tabled a
Private Members Motion (PMM-483) which proposes changes to
the Federal Divorce Act to enshrine the principle of Equal
Parenting during and after divorce.
Fathers 4 Justice Canada (F4J Canada) has supported such
legislative changes since 2003 and believes that such change is
long over-due. To
educate and gather popular support from fellow
Canadians for this important legislative action, F4J Canada has
launched a cross-country tour with the support and assistance
from local groups and company sponsors.
F4J’s cross Canada campaign arrives in Saskatoon this Friday,
August 22, before moving on to Regina on Saturday. The F4J
Superheroes will be stopping at Diefenbaker Park at the WAM (We
Are Many) arts and environmental festival that opens Friday at
noon and will have many big name entertainers there. After the
festival opening ceremonies, the F4J Superheroes at 12:30pm will
be meeting up with Saskatoon-Wanuskewin MP, Maurice Vellacott at
the Diefenbaker Park at the south-east corner of Ruth Street and
St. Henry Avenue.
Mr. Vellacott welcomes all his constituents, Saskatoon residents
and visitors to stop by and visit with him and the F4J
Superheroes, at Diefenbaker Park, at the south-east corner of
Ruth Street and St. Henry Avenue, during the WAM festival this
Friday, August 22, from 12:30pm through the early afternoon.
Children and adults will receive bracelets promoting truth,
justice and equality, temporary tattoos with a message about
M-483
and the opportunity to have their picture taken with some of our
now famous Everyday Superheroes and the F4J Barney Mobile.
Pre-addressed/postage paid postcards will be available for all
who want to support M-483 and equal parenting.
“We
invite all concerned Canadians to join with us and make their
support known and visible in spreading the message that the time
has come to act,” said
Vellacott.
M-483
is currently scheduled for its first hour of debate in the House
of Commons on Wednesday, October 8. For further
comment, call (613) 992-1966 or 297-2249
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 
OTTAWA, March 5, 2008 (
Our f4j Canada Ontario team members rocked today folks and put a
great deal of their hearts and soul into today's action. Each
and everyone of them who participated and helped out deserve our
up most gratitude. Bravo F4J Ontario, you Rock. 
