Thursday, August 20, 2009

The Failure of the Canadian Courts






By Jeffrey Asher
18th August 2009

To our elected Representatives,

Feminist jurisprudence, antagonistic to the family, dominates Canadian criminal and family courts. As a result of these state - sanctioned policies, fathers – who have committed no fault - are routinely ejected from their homes and the lives of their children on nothing more than a spurious and often vindictive accusation.

Without mercy, decent fathers are sent to prison cells without due process and in violation of constitutional protections. Without credible evidence of wife accusations, and deprived of a legal opportunity for defence, judges routinely impose restraining orders. Fathers typically squander hundreds of thousands of dollars in a futile defence, which should have benefited their children and allocated to their old age.

Judges routinely deprive fathers of the work of their lives, in founding a home, income and a family. Fathers and children are deprived of mutual care and love, their lives irreparably shattered. Many fathers, deprived of the care and love of their children succumb to alcoholism, depression and suicide. Few dictatorships function as ruthlessly in tearing the family asunder.

These arbitrary criminal measures, aimed exclusively against fathers, presume guilt before due process, and result in injustice contrived by a hostile and manipulative wife. These arbitrary measures, founded in feminist jurisprudence, are systematically enforced by the police and Crown Attorneys. Feminist politics contravene every just law enacted in the Western democratic heritage.

Jeffrey Asher
FathersCan (Ottawa)

Ottawa women's shelters overwhelmed by more than 50 requests a day: report

More propaganda promulgated by the MSM. My letter to the editor follows with further comments below.

Shelley:

re: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ottawa+women+shelters+overwhelmed+more+than+requests+report/1901825/story.html

The self righteous outrage at this affliction only women seem to suffer is only greater than the credibility gap of those involved in its production. These figures are never audited and no politician dares to suggest they ought to be looked at with closer scrutiny to verify them.

The academics involved in these stories have a vested interest in more tax dollars going to shelters and to keep funding the billions involved in this industry nation wide including the hundreds if not thousands of studies done nationwide to find the "cure" by these same academics. How come the cure isn't available? Simply because the treatment isn't designed to cure it - as then all these proponents would be unemployed. No cure will be found for any disease if 50% of the problem is ignored - that being the other party whether same sex or hetero. Did you know lesbian IPV was greater than hetero? How can that be when they are both female?
Violence by anyone against another is a serious business but these shelters and their advocates defy credibility with their notion of the massive victimization of women. How many abused men do they serve. Zero, None, Nada. As someone who was emotionally, physically and financially abused by a woman, who, when the time was right for her, waltzed out the door to the local shelter as part of her game plan to incite further abuse within the family court system. I am a cynic when it comes to the efficacy of such reports.

Men do call these shelters for help so presumably some of these calls are from the gender who has no where to go. Men can not get help from tax supported emergency shelters anywhere in Canada and if they want to escape they have no where to go that will accept children. Of the over 500 shelters in Canada not one accepts men alone or with their children. Most studies show DV is pretty much equal between genders but men are told to "suck it up" because your a man. I'm a man who withstood it for 14 years and to quote from one of my favourite movies "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore." More men should be filing Human Rights Complaints against the discrimination because there is not one politician in the land with the gonads to fight this extremely egregious propaganda. It casts a pall over those people who are actually suffering from violence rather than differences of opinions between intimate partners.

Would you believe the so called science of the Duluth Wheel, used by all these shelters, insisting all men are perpetrators and all women are victims created with a sample size of 11 mostly self confessed abused women. It defies credibility and logic but is one of the foundations of new wave feminism which permeates the "believers" in the operation and advocacy of these shelters. We all know what happens when ideology trumps logic.

Mike Murphy



OTTAWA — In Ottawa each day more than 50 calls are made by abused women seeking shelter.
Last year, Ottawa’s seven women’s shelters received more than 18,600 phone calls for service.
These statistics are among the findings found in Hidden from Sight: A Look at the Prevalence of Violence Against Women in Ottawa. The report, released on Monday by the Ottawa Coalition to End Violence Against Women, paints a picture of abuse and sexual violence within relationships and homes.

Of the women seeking shelter, the vast majority will be turned away from the city’s over-crowded shelters.
In 2007, 613 women and 486 children fleeing domestic abuse situations were sheltered in Ottawa. However, 5,150 women were turned away because the shelters were full, according to the Community Foundation of Ottawa, which last year released Vital Signs 2008.

It was the alarming results of the Community Foundation report that prompted the Ottawa Coalition to End Violence Against Women to gather their statistics together to understand better violence against women in Ottawa.

Women’s shelters, sexual assault/rape crisis centres, counselling services, police and the hospital have always collected statistics on violence against women separately. Hidden from Sight brings this data together. The report consolidates data from 16 local agencies.

“We’ve been talking for years about the low level of awareness of what is really going on. So we’ve presented the data together for the first time,” says Holly Johnson, Professor of Criminology at the University of Ottawa and advisor to the project.

“The figures are staggering, especially when we consider that many women do not come forward for help. Therefore, they are not even counted in these statistics. As well, disturbing new trends are emerging, such as the numbers of men charged with forcible confinement of women partners.”

In 2007-2008, a total of 606 sexual assault cases were reported to Ottawa police. In addition to that startling number, Statistics Canada reports that only one in every 10 sexual assaults is actually reported. Prof. Johnson said we can predict the number of sexual assaults is closer to 6,000 in one year.

Serge
August 20, 2009 - 12:58 PM
Ms. Shelley Page,
• Ottawa has a population of 1 282 500 habitants ( 870 250 for Ottawa only). Let’s say we accept the fact that we have about 6000 abused women (613 in shelters and 5150 refused for no vacancy in these shelters as written in your article). It comes to a Domestic Violence ratio of 0,0047% a lot less than 1%.
• Concerning phone calls, 18 600 calls for a total possibility of 1 174 072 = 0,0145 % (0,0213).
• Since Juges in our justice courts find 68% of Domestic Violence cases not founded, how many of these calls ended in condamnation? Even more, if Courts consider 68% of these claims not founded, how many men and fathers falsely accused and destroyed ? Where are shelters for these fathers ? Where is the money for it ?
• Holly Johnson is a Professor of Criminology at the University of Ottawa. Professor Holly Johnson’s primary research interests include sexual violence and intimate partner violence with criminal justice responses, and methods of measurement. She was principal investigator of Statistics Canada’s first national survey on violence against women and is a coordinator of the International Violence Against Women Survey. She is also working about «Feminist theory and gender theory».
Obviously her belief is that domestic violence is only a men business. So how can she be impartial about it ? All statistics (from Statistics Canada as well as from Institut de Satistique Québec and about 130 other scientific documents across the world) report a 50-50 rate of violence among men and women. Did she explore the possibility of Domestic Violence perpetrated by women ? Where? How many of them ? 10 000 falsely accused fathers in Quebec and destroyed every year is it Domestic Violence ?
Did she only went to Los Angeles, California this year, on June 26th, to share with specialists on Domestic Violence Murray Strauss, PhD, Deborah Capaldi, PhD, Don Dutton, PhD, Daniel O'Leary, PhD or Sandra Stith, PhD and others her views about the subject. She would have realized that her datas don't correspond with the last research.
In California, she would have had the opportunity to talk to Errin Pizzey Founder of the Domestic Violence Shelter Movement which views are completly at the opposite to hers.
Feminist lobbies gave all sort of false datas for the past 30 years. Infortunately, journalists didn’t take enough time to verify these statistics, how they were collected, by who ?. They should have.
No doubt about it, Domestic Violence exists, both ways, and we will not correct the situation if we are one side blinded by feminist lobbies.


Denis Pakkala
August 20, 2009 - 9:18 AM
Women's shelters spread misandry and do not address the very significant problem of female abusers and male victims. These shelters should be taken over by the goverment and offer services to ALL Canadian citizens, without gender discrimination.
National Family Violence Legislative Resource Center Policy Statement on Family Violence
“Reports from the WHO (Archer, 2006) also make it clear than in many countries around the world, particularly where women have little political or socioeconomic power, women represent the much larger share of IPV victims. However, the most reliable population of surveys indicate that in Western industrialized democracies such as the United States and Canada, where they enjoy higher status, women engage in physical aggression at rates comparable to men (Archer, 2000; Fiebert, 2004; Straus & Gelles, 1990) and are as likely or more likely to be the initiators (DeMaris, 1992; Morse, 1995; Dutton et al., 1999; Straus, 1993; Williams & Frieze, 2005).”
“Shernock’s (2005) analysis of over 2000 IPV incidents in Vermont revealed that men were categorized as perpetrators 3.2 times more often than women on the initial police report, but subsequently arrested 9 times as often. At issue is the extent to which this pattern of gender bias reflects flawed “dominant aggressor” guidelines and assumptions about IPV based on discredited sociopolitical theories of patriarchy”
“Victimized males do not have access to services because of the assumption that they are only minimally impacted by IPV, if at all. This assumption, however, runs contrary to an overwhelming body of research evidence. A significant minority of IPV-related physical injuries, between 25% and 43%, are incurred by men (Archer, 2000; Laroch, in preparation; Mirrlees-Black, 1999; Straus, 2004; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), and men are the victims in nearly a quarter of intimate homicides (Rennison, 2003)”
Mike Murphy
August 20, 2009 - 9:15 AM
The self righteous outrage at this affliction only women seem to suffer is only greater than the credibility gap of those involved in its production. These figures are never audited and no politician dares to suggest they ought to be looked at with closer scrutiny to verify them. The academics involved in these stories have a vested interest in more tax dollars going to shelters and to keep funding the billions involved in this industry including the hundreds if not thousands of studies done nationwide to find the "cure." Violence by anyone against another is a serious business but these shelters and their advocates defy credibility with their notion of the massive victimization of women. How many abused men do they serve. Zero, none, Nada. As someone who was emotionally, physically and financially abused by a woman, who, when the time was right for her waltzed out the door to the local shelter as part of her game plan to incite further abuse within the family court system I am a cynic when it comes to the efficacy of such reports.
Men do call these shelters for help so presumably some of these calls are from the gender who has no where to go. Men can not get help from tax supported emergency shelters anywhere in Canada and if they want to escape they have no where to go that will accept children. Of the over 500 shelters in Canada not one accepts men alone or with their children. Most studies show DV is pretty much equal between genders but men are told to "suck it up" because your a man. I'm a man who withstood it for 14 years and to quote from one of my favourite movies "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore." More men should be filing Human Rights Complaints against the discrimination because there is not one politician in the land with the gonads to fight this extremely egregious propaganda. It casts a pall over those people who are actually suffering from violence rather than differences of opinions between intimate partners.
Mississauga Dad
August 20, 2009 - 1:20 AM
And in the whole country there are how many shelters for abused men - NOT A SINGLE ONE!!!
How many government dollars are available for programmes for abused men - NOT A SINGLE ONE!! Yet government statistics consistently and clearly show that the number of abused men is very nearly the same as that of abused women and is rising much faster than the number of abused women.
I am an abused father. My wife abused me verbally, psychologically, and physically over a number of years. She threatened to kill me in front of a CAS worker.
I have never abused my wife in any way. I worked every day to support her and my children. She hired a housekeeper so she wouldn't have to do housework. The kids were enrolled in a private school from the time they were 2 1/2 so they wouldn't be at home during the day. My wife then enrolled them in before and after school daycare so that the kids would only be at home when I was. I made the children's lunch the night before schooldays. I cooked supper for them at night. I spent the entire weekend, every weekend looking after our children and doing inside and outside chores. In 18 years of marriage my wife never once did my laundry. We were never wealthy - she felt she was 'entitled' to this lifestyle. She always refused to get a job of any kind.
There was ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE I could go for help or support. I could not leave the house because of my children. When this information was brought up by my lawyer and well documented in Family Court during divorce and custody proceedings the judge literally sat back in his chair and guffawed, saying "Ha. Ha. Ha. You look like a pretty big guy to me. You still look pretty healthy to me. I don't think she meant it."
Then to add to my abuse he ordered ME out of the house, gave custody of the children to my wife and ordered me to pay huge amounts of support based on "attributed" income.
Yes, there is a need for shelter and support for abused women - I don't deny that or begrudge that - BUT there is a much bigger need for some funding for support programmes and shelters for abused fathers and husbands.
Maybe if a few dollars could be made available to support abused men there wouldn't be over 2000 suicides a year by divorced and separated fathers and husbands who are abused not only by their partners but also by the laughable "Family Justice" system.
Paul
August 19, 2009 - 8:25 PM
All summer I followed a blog about domestic abuse which stated over and over again the issue was gun control. I would suggest people in the domestic violence industry should support the removal of the gun registry to look for additional funding.
People keep forgetting there is only so much money and people that live in the same circles that seek funding for shelters are also the same people that pushed for the gun registry.
Given the current political climate both conservatives and liberals could find common ground making Canadian citizens winners.
Paul
August 19, 2009 - 2:50 PM
All summer I followed a blog about domestic abuse which stated over and over again the issue was gun control. I would suggest people in the domestic violence industry should support the removal of the gun registry to look for additional funding.
People keep forgetting there is only so much money and people that live in the same circles that seek funding for shelters are also the same people that pushed for the gun registry.
Given the current political climate both conservatives and liberals could find common ground making Canadian citizens winners.
T.M.
August 18, 2009 - 6:38 PM
To Ms. Muonde: You have my respect and appreciation for helping women through the most devastating times of their lives. You have a front-line view in a sickening war.
My commentary is NOT a quibble about inflated numbers. It is a criticism against those groups who wilfully present information in deceptive manner, so as to abuse the community's trust, with the sole purpose of profiting from poorly allocated tax dollars.
Those tax dollars have to be used for services to people who require them. Instead, they are wasted on these illiterate and innumerate reports and the salaries of those who produce them. Shame on Shelley Page and the Citizen for foisting the distortion on the public 2 years in a row.
And, Ms. Muonde, if it were up to me, I'd be funding you, not them.
Concillia Muonde , SASC OTTAWA
August 18, 2009 - 5:50 PM
The level of ignorance our society has on the realities of violence against women is appalling. The significance of the numbers of women who are turning to shelters says more about the society we live in. Here are the questions we should all be asking: Why do we allow violence against women in our community? What responsibility are we taking to make sure no one needs a shelter? What are we doing everyday to prevent violence against women? If we seriously ask ourselves these questions, we will not be arguing about the numbers being inflated, or women faking abuse and so forth and so on.
Violence against women is everyone’s problem, we all need to act.
T.M.
August 18, 2009 - 3:24 PM
This one-year follow-up is very interesting. It clearly shows that neither the loudest activists on the issue of violence against women, nor the shelters themselves, have done anything at all over the past year to help their clients.
Just a year ago, these same numbers were shown in their proper light, as criticism rained down on the "Vital Signs" report.
A look at this year's report reveals the same abuse of mathematics for the sake of sensationalism and renewed funding for the report writers.
"It is estimated that in a single year the 7 shelters collectively receive over 18,600 phone calls for service, averaging just over 50 calls per day in Ottawa." What Shelley Page and the report fail to point out is that there is no central phone number for a woman to call when she is seeking shelter! If all the shelters are full, one person will make 7 calls (at least) in one day, and be "turned away" 7 times.
A simplest fix to actually HELPING women would be to establish a single phone number. This same solution was proposed by sensible critics of "Vital Signs", yet nothing was done. All of the recommendations included in this year's report are concerned with the funding for more data collection and more reports.
It's time for the governments to use our tax money to help women in need, rather than self-perpetuating women's organizations who help nobody.
mt
August 18, 2009 - 1:15 PM
It is sad how uneducated so many posters are on this issue. The truth of the matter is, prostitutes and drug addicts also need a place to lay there heads. They have children too and they may also find their way into abusive relationships. As to whether or not the aggressors are immigrant men, I am sure some are, but the reality it, Canadian men are awfully good at abusing women. The numbers for violence against men by women: VERY low. Seriously, all this information is out there. Am I the only one who can read?
Michel
August 18, 2009 - 12:27 PM
I cannot help but wonder about the so-call priority of our elected officials... on one side, we have women shleters turning away vulnerable individuals, because they don't have the financial resources... on the other hand, we have politicians wasting millions of dollars on the gun registry...
truthfulness
August 18, 2009 - 6:04 AM
I can't believe people imagine living in a shelter with all its risk (bad ones ) to be fake , peole who decide to go to shelter are either homless or have no choice (and no money at all and no family to run away to ) which means they deserve to be in, I don't want to say bed bugs and addictd people go there with their drugs, sniffing and drinking just on the door of the shelter but the truth is they do, no mother will ever accept to go unless she is abused realy bad
Bruce
August 18, 2009 - 2:38 AM
I wonder how many shelters could have been built with the $2 BILLION wasted on the failed, useless Firearms Act?
JayPea
August 17, 2009 - 9:32 PM
Out of interest. How many assaults against men by women?
afterfostercare
August 17, 2009 - 7:07 PM
How many of these children end up in foster care? Why does a victim parent in an abuse situation have to lose their child because the "failed to protect their child" or because the child was exposed to abuse. Why does the law not apprehend the abusing partner, regardless of their sex and take them into a group home.

Vellacott calls for Canadian Bar Association to play constructive role in equal parenting debate

Maurice Vellacott, MP
Saskatoon-Wanuskewin

For Immediate Release August 20, 2009
OTTAWA – MP Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon-Wanuskewin) today called for the Canadian Bar Association to play a constructive role in the unfolding debate on equal parenting following divorce, in response to negative tones raised at the annual meeting of the CBA being held in Dublin, Ireland.

Echoing Justice Minister Rob Nicholson’s statement at the conference that best interests of the child must indeed be paramount in family law, Vellacott pointed out that “the central problem being addressed in my Private Member’s Bill is quite simply that ‘best interests of the child’ are not defined in the Divorce Act.”

“It’s like having a car without an engine and a steering wheel, in which the only way to move the car is with lawyers pushing and judges supposedly steering, all of which is done at great expense to divorcing parents and taxpayers,” he continued. “It’s simply not fair to Judges, taxpayers, parents, and least of all the children of divorce,” he added.
“The unsubstantiated views voiced by a few CBA members at the conference are not constructive” Mr. Vellacott noted in reference to calls made by Meg Shaw reportedly on behalf of CBA to reject Bill C-422.

“It’s time for a reality check. First, Canadians overwhelmingly support shared equal parenting according to polls. Secondly, social scientists have long confirmed that this arrangement is generally the optimal outcome for children as well as parents. Third, children themselves prefer continuity of relationship with both parents and associated family. Fourth, all political parties agreed 10 years ago in the “For the Sake of the Children” report that shared equal parenting was the way to go. Fifth, all indications point to growing non-partisan consensus in this parliament that it’s time to address commitments made by all parties a decade ago.”

“Let me state for the record that Bill C-422 reflects extensive input from the Canadian extended divorce community, whose members well understand the realities of family law through trial by fire. In many ways, it is they who are the experts, and I also call upon all Members of Parliament to accord them the long overdue status as primary stakeholders in this complex issue,” Vellacott emphasized.

Vellacott noted, “Working with the Canadian Equal Parenting Council, a coalition of 40 organizations, we have developed legislation that not only defines decision criteria for the best interest of the child, but also faces up to the contentious issues of child abuse and inter-partner violence. It represents a solid down payment for long overdue reform in family law.”

Vellacott concluded, “I now call upon Mr. Kevin Carroll, the incoming president of the CBA, to join us in constructively refining the legislation. This is not only for the sake of the children, but ultimately for the sake of all Canadians.”
– 30 –
For more comment, call Maurice Vellacott at (613) 992-1966; (613) 297-2249; or contact Prof. Edward Kruk, M.S.W., Ph.D. at edward.kruk@ubc.ca; 604-822-2383, lawyer Karen Selick at karen.selick@sympatico.ca; 888-877-2154 (fax) or Toronto family law lawyer, Gene C. Colman at 416-635-9264.

Canada needs judges, justice minister says ~ But apparently not Dads

Nicholson is in the news but has apparently back peddled on the statements by O'Neil in the following story with respect to PMB C-422. I will provide my own analysis and opinion as we read through the missives.

Firstly it is clearly nice for a lobby group like the CANADIAN Bar Association holding a convention offshore in another country to get the Justice Minister of Canada to provide a key note address. Secondly how should one view a person who is a member of this same lobby group pandering in the manner he did. Thirdly, I thought there were laws preventing this kind of potential corruption when politicians deal with lobby groups, especially also being a member of the same group. Does the Minister of defense consort with and provide personal opinions from the defense contractors association? On the surface is does appear innocent but probe deeper and I think you will find a change in the law such as C-422 proposes may do lawyers out of some business. Has Nicholson been "played" as a sap by his brethren? It wouldn't be the first time a politician has suffered such a malady.

Inasmuch as my heritage is Irish I do hold this country in high esteem. You do have to ask yourself, however, how do you get the highest justice official in the land to travel to a foreign country at tax payers expense, including men who pay the vast majority of same, and categorically state he does not believe his own gender is equal when it comes to parenting?

He touts the undefined "In the best interest of Children" which means just about anything to the specific judge dealing with custody orders. Its like mom and apple pie. Nicely stated, poetic and morally of the highest order but elusive - except for apple pie. When you eat it you know if its good or bad and when its good - its the best. We all know not all moms are good just as not all dads. In IPV things are pretty much equal between genders with Lesbians having a higher rate. I note one female lawyer indicates an old canard which means how could we ever give men equality as they will abuse unprotected children.

“Will you stand up for children and oppose this private member’s bill?” asked Meg Shaw of Kelowna, B.C.

Shaw, in her question, said Vellacott’s bill “seems appealing,” but said that experience in other jurisdictions shows that a shift in focus would mean children wouldn’t be adequately protected.

Does she refer to feminist shrieking in Australia? Shaw as usual cites not one credible source for this comment.

What gets overlooked is the mom is the biggest abuser and killer of children in the USA and OZ.

I remain befuddled by this kind of political posturing concerning our children but cynical to the core. Politicians are chameleons and change as often as it is necessary to get re-elected. After all it isn't principle its popularity. After the article I will show a letter I received from this same Minister carefully crafted as only professional letter writers in the upper echelons of power can achieve. They are good at what they do and Minister's rely heavily on their craftsmanship - or is that craftspersonship?

Canada needs judges, justice minister says

Peter O’Neil, Europe Correspondent, Canwest News Service Published: Monday, August 17, 2009

Canada's Justice Minister Rob Nicholson speaks during Question Period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa June 8, 2009.

Chris Wattie/Reuters Canada's Justice Minister Rob Nicholson speaks during Question Period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa June 8, 2009.

DUBLIN -- Canada needs more judges, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said here Monday while taking sometimes critical questions from the country's legal community on the Harper government's tough-on-crime agenda.

Mr. Nicholson was speaking to the Canadian Bar Association at its annual meeting in Ireland's capital.

"As I point out to my colleagues, the country keeps getting bigger, the issues are getting more complicated, and you know there are more demands" on the justice system, Mr. Nicholson told CBA members.

"We need to have more judges."

The minister, who was being asked about the shortage of family court judges, acknowledged that there was a particular problem in the Canadian North.

He noted that a bill passed last year was the first piece of federal legislation to increase the number of judges since 1991.

Mr. Nicholson was referring to an amendment to the Judges Act to increase by 20 the number of provincial and territorial superior court judges across the country as part of a plan to reduce court backlogs and case delays.

Mr. Nicholson also said Monday he doesn't support a backbench Conservative MP's private member's bill that would shift family law in Canada to give fathers more rights in custody disputes. He won a cheer from CBA members for saying he supports the current principle in Canada's Divorce Act that the interests of the children must prevail.

Liberal MP Brian Murphy, vice-chairman of the House of Commons justice committee, said he was pleased with the minister's declarations on both issues.

Mr. Murphy, who is attending the CBA annual meeting, said Canada needs more and better-trained judges, particularly in areas such as family law and in complicated areas like internet crime.

Several lawyers who grilled Mr. Nicholson on other matters, such as the government's new policy on clemency for Canadians facing the death penalty in foreign countries, were less satisfied.

The minister said he'd pass on CBA's objections to that policy, which was described Sunday as unprincipled and inconsistent, to Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, whose department issued the policy statement.

He also wouldn't say whether the government would accept a Federal Court of Appeal ruling Friday ordering Ottawa to make diplomatic efforts to repatriate accused terrorist Omar Khadr from the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay. The CBA has been pushing Ottawa to return Mr. Khadr to Canada.

My letter to the editor of the National Post:


The Canadian Bar Association is a powerful Lobby Group. Many of its members sit in Government, indeed in Cabinet, but yet they can freely lobby the government even in foreign countries. Here we have a member of the bar, flying to Ireland at tax payers expense, who is also a Cabinet Minister, being lobbied by his colleagues to not enact a private members bill that will ultimately cost them some business.

Heaven forbid that parents would have equal shared parenting rights on cessation of their marriage and spoil the average $25,000.00 these highly paid individuals receive from the average client, who can afford a "National" convention in the homeland of my ancestors. Ireland does appreciate the business, however, as their economy is one of the worst in Europe. The CBA knows how to bargain for the sweetest deals it can get.

These politicians who are lawyers, and there are many, and these lawyers who are all members of this lobby group called the Canadian Bar Association, tout the best interest of the child mantra which has no legal definition. They use it but don't subscribe to it. The best interst of the children is to have both parents in their lives pre and post divorce if they are fit. The legislation discusses fitness.

Do not let the CBA fool anyone. In practice these lawyers will abandon any client who runs out of the money they line their pockets with. Ask anyone who has been through family court and suddenly found they do not have the money to finish. Their lawyer opted out of the case and to hell with the best interests of the child. It is a canard. They are in it for the money not the children.


M. J. Murphy



http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=1901879

Letter to the Editor - National Post 19/8/09

http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=1906660

Playing politics with our kids

National Post Published: Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Re: Children Should Be Top Priority In Divorces: Minister, Aug. 18.

It was comforting to see Justice Minister Rob Nicholson's response [ "I believe ... that the best interests of the child are always paramount"] to one of the lawyers of the multi-billion dollar divorce industry who was luxuriating in the hotels of Ireland for the Canadian Bar Association's "national" meeting.

The current divorce system results increases child suicide, drug usage, teenage pregnancies and poverty while lowering educational achievement. It is clear that the current system is structured to be more in the lawyers' best interests than those of our children.

It is time to stop playing politics with our kids.

Brian Jenkins, Mississauga, Ont.

The letter via email I received from Mr. Nicholson.

fromMinisterial Correspondence Unit - Mailout
sender timeSent at 08:57 (GMT-04:00). Current time there: 10:28.
tomike.murphy@nospam.ca
date12 August 2009 08:57
subjectCorrespondence from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Dear Mr. Murphy:

Thank you for your correspondence concerning family law.

I regret the delay in responding. I sympathize with the difficult situations that may arise as a result of separation or divorce, particularly when children are involved. As Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, I am mandated to provide legal advice only to the federal government. I hope you will understand that, for this reason, I cannot comment on specific cases, or intervene, or otherwise become involved in matters of a private nature. Family law in Canada is an area of shared jurisdiction.

The federal, provincial, and territorial governments have the common goal of creating an improved, less adversarial family justice system across Canada. I would like to assure you of the Government’s commitment to making the family justice system as fair as possible for all concerned. While the federal government indeed takes the lead in proposing ways to achieve this goal, addressing these issues is a collaborative effort with the provinces and territories.

The Government supports a child-centred policy that will encourage parents to fulfill their responsibilities to their children in a way that will promote their children’s best interests. I particularly note your comments regarding gender equality in the family justice system. As you may be aware, the Divorce Act directs the court to make decisions on parenting arrangements based only on the best interests of the child, which is the core principle of family law.

Custody and access may be awarded to either parent, regardless of gender, or to both parents jointly. The Act does not favour either parent in making this determination. Your suggestion that the Divorce Act should be amended to make shared custody presumptive has been noted and will be given every consideration. However, the courts already have the discretion under the Act to order that custody be shared if they consider it to be in the child’s best interests.

Similarly, there is nothing in the Act that prevents parents who can agree on shared custody from making that arrangement for their children. As set out in the Act, the best interests of the child must take precedence in all court decisions involving custody and access. When making a decision about a particular case, courts must assess the means, needs and other circumstances of the child based on the facts brought before them. A parent’s past conduct cannot be taken into consideration unless it directly affects his/her ability to act as a parent.

Although the Divorce Act is a federal law, the provinces and territories are responsible for implementing it. I note that you have already sent a copy of your correspondence to the Honourable Chris Bentley, Attorney General of Ontario, who is responsible for the administration of justice in your province and the appropriate authority in that regard. I also note your support for Bill C-422, An Act to amend the Divorce Act (equal parenting) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

As you may be aware, Bill C-422 was introduced into the House of Commons by Conservative Member of Parliament Mr. Maurice Vellacott on June 16, 2009. As a Private Member's Bill, it will be debated in accordance with the rules of the House of Commons for Private Members' Business. Please be assured that the Government of Canada is committed to working with the provinces and territories with a view to resolving the many complex issues that arise both during and after separation and divorce.

Thank you again for writing and sharing your concerns.

Yours truly,

The Honourable Rob Nicholson

This is truly a well crafted document and as a former "crafter" of same when I was in public service I am impressed. It gives lots of information but is, as usual, non-committal. It describes split jurisdiction and then passes the buck to the Province. The Provincial's do the same thing in reverse. We have a federal law implemented by the provinces by federally appointed judges working in provincial court houses. These same judges receive a federal pension on retirement. Interesting federation we have don't you think. It almost appears as though it was specifically designed to be able to blame other politicians at other levels for the problems. It sometimes makes me wonder why we need a federal system at all if all they do is pass the buck and transfer wealth. I am being just a tad rhetorical on that point.

Here is an update AKA as "spin doctoring" from the Minister's PR apparatchik. Note she states
"strong families are the foundation of our society" yet our families are failing and children suffer the consequences at alarming rates. Look at the negative social outcomes for children in single family female homes. It is appalling. The best interest of the child mantra is carefully crafted "spin". If they really believed this better care and resources would be assigned to prevent family breakdown and save families from destruction at the very hands of the lawyers Nicholson was pandering to. They love the adversarial system pitting one parent against the other with children as the prizes. It is a dysfunctional and utterly morally bankrupt method of child disposal. In 90% of court ordered cases the children become chattels of mom allowing control by mom of dad for the rest of his natural life if he doesn't commit suicide.

The comments made by the Minister were taken out of context and editorialized in the report by Mr. O’Neill on August 18th. Mr. Velacott’s private member’s bill on the issue of equal parenting, Bill C-422, is being reviewed, but the Government has not taken a position at this time.

Children require love, attention, a safe environment, and financial support. Most children want and need contact with both their parents, even after a divorce. For this reason, our Government supports a child-centred policy that encourages parents to exercise child-rearing responsibilities in a way that will promote their children’s best interests.

We believe that strong families are the foundation of our society and that the best interests of the child are paramount. Our Government is committed to promoting positive outcomes for the entire family during separation or divorce.

Thank you,

Pamela Stephens
Press Secretary / Attachée de presse
Office of the Minister of Justice / Cabinet du ministre de la Justice
and Attorney General of Canada / et procureur général du Canada
Tel/tél (613) 992-4621
Fax/tél (613) 990-7255
pamela.stephens@justice.gc.ca