Judge orders boy, 11, to live with father he hates and hasn't seen for four years

Its easy to see where the sympathies of this paper are given the headline. We never get enough information on the complexities of these cases but it does stand out to me this is a serious case of Parental Alienation. The mom has gone out of her way to deny the dad access and why would a son hate his father so much.   Even an abused child seeks love from the abuser. It appears the mom was playing the odds in that they mostly win in custody battles but it backfired probably because the dad had enough money to stay in the fight.

It will be of great interest to see how the boy thrives - or not.  I suspect as time passes the dad will ensure he has contact with the mom but if it were me I would ensure the 11 year old stays away long enough to remove the programming of hatred.  It is emotionally abusive of the mom to have treated her own flesh and blood to hate the father.MJM

By Jonathan Petre
Last updated at 5:27 PM on 24th January 2010

• Comments (171)

A boy of 11 has been ordered to leave his mother and move more than 100 miles to live with the father he hates.

Appeal Court judges accepted last week that the boy was thriving with his mother, enjoying a life full of activities.

Yet they still ruled that he should live with his father, whom he has not seen for nearly four years.

Experts said the judgment reflected the emphasis the courts were now putting on the role of fathers and on the need for children to have contact with both parents. The boy’s parents split up before he was born and the father has been striving to win access for years.

He works in the City of London, lives in a £1million Stockbroker Belt house,  has remarried and has two more children, who are educated privately.

He said he would also send the boy to private school. The mother, a professional woman, had said she was happy for the boy to have contact with his father – when he was ready to do so.

But the Appeal Court upheld an earlier ruling at Coventry Crown Court, where Judge Clifford Bellamy said he was unconvinced that the mother really wanted contact to resume.

The appeal judges called the boy’s feelings of hate for his father ‘irrational’ and said he would suffer long-term emotional and behavioural problems if they were not reunited.

Judge Bellamy said ‘no stone had been left unturned’ to re-establish contact between father and son, but even indirect attempts through gifts and Christmas cards had failed utterly.

Despite the father being ‘devoted’ to his son, the boy was stubbornly resistant to ever seeing his father again.
The judge added that the mother’s arrangements for the boy to have extra-curricular activities every day of the week left no space for his father, adding: ‘All of this strongly suggests that, in truth, the mother has no real wish to see contact restart.’

Judge Bellamy said she had ‘significant influence and power’ over the boy.

He added that the animosity felt by the boy would quickly disappear once he was living under his father’s roof.

The boy’s guardian, an expert appointed to provide an independent view of his best interests, told the court: ‘I feel pretty ferocious in protecting him. Never have I come across such a strong sense of fighting for a child.’
But the judge said she had become too emotionally involved in the case and lost her sense of objectivity. 

At the appeal, Lord Justice Thorpe said it was the third time recently that the court had upheld properly reasoned decisions in favour of fathers.

Miranda Fisher, of London solicitors Charles Russell, said later that the activities of groups such as Fathers 4 Justice had tipped the balance – and courts were taking a tougher line on parents who denied contact between their children and their ex-partners.

She explained: ‘Twenty or 30 years ago it was not the normal expectation that fathers should be involved in looking after the children. Now more mothers have full-time careers and fathers are increasingly wanting to share in caring.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245603/Judge-orders-boy-11-live-father-hates-seen-years.html#ixzz0dpjfzH5Z

National Post editorial board: Women's Studies is still with us

Posted: January 26, 2010, 3:00 PM by NP Editor

Editorial

If the reports are to be believed, Women’s Studies programs are disappearing at many Canadian universities. Forgive us for being skeptical. We would wave good-bye without shedding a tear, but we are pretty sure these angry, divisive and dubious programs are simply being renamed to make them appear less controversial.
The radical feminism behind these courses has done untold damage to families, our court systems, labour laws, constitutional freedoms and even the ordinary relations between men and women.

Women’s Studies courses have taught that all women — or nearly all — are victims and nearly all men are victimizers. Their professors have argued, with some success, that rights should be granted not to individuals alone, but to whole classes of people, too. This has led to employment equity — hiring quotas based on one’s gender or race rather than on an objective assessment of individual talents.

Executives, judges and university students must now sit through mandatory diversity training. Divorcing men find they lose their homes and access to their children, and must pay much of their income to their former spouses (then pay tax on the income they no longer have) largely because Women’s Studies activists convinced politicians that family law was too forgiving of men. So now a man entering court against a woman finds the deck stacked against him, thanks mostly to the radical feminist jurisprudence that found it roots and nurture in Women’s Studies.

The equality protection before and under the law, granted to all Canadians regardless of race, sex, creed or origin, has been eroded because feminist legal scholars convinced the Supreme Court to permit preferential treatment for “traditionally disadvantaged groups,” chief among whom, they contend, are women.

Over the years, Women’s Studies scholars have argued all heterosexual sex is oppression because its “penetrative nature” amounts to “occupation.” They have insisted that no male author had any business writing novels from women’s perspectives; although, interestingly, they have not often argued the converse — that female writers must avoid telling men’s stories.

They have pushed for universal daycare and mandatory government-run kindergarten, advocated higher taxes to pay for vast new social entitlements and even put forward the notion that the only differences between males and females are “relatively insignificant, external features.” All other differences are said to be the result of patriarchal brainwashing. So the only way to ensure gender equality is to turn over all education to the state, where professionals can ensure only unbiased instruction.

In sum, there would be little of rational worth left even if Women’s Studies were to disappear. Yet despite all the handwringing by the programs’ supporters, are the worst elements of Women’s programs really disappearing or just being renamed? Are the professors different? Has the basic philosophy behind the program changed? Has the curriculum been altered?
In most cases the answer is no. Little has changed but the nomenclature.
While we’d like to cheer and say “Good riddance,” we’re certain such celebration would be premature.

 http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/26/national-post-editorial-board-women-s-studies-is-still-with-us.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage#ixzz0dlhirGHp

Jan 26 2010
3:07 PM

Premature what?
by Tossed Salad

Jan 26 2010
3:23 PM

Let me get the popcorn this is going to be good. The nonsensical loons will be out in full force. Of course we know not all wimmin are like that we have Sassie Lassie. You loons couldn't carry her jock strap, err, perhaps I should rephrase.
by Sassylassie

Jan 26 2010
3:39 PM

What a delightful article, sadly the feminists' decided being a stay at home mom had no  merit and to do so denoted "Low intellect" and "Low brow" thus many women felt obligated to work to boost their self esteem. The feminists help expand the ethos of a "Fatherless society" combine their demended ethos with cradal to to grave welfare they've succeeded in spreading their anti-male propaganda so efficiently there are children who have never had a male role model to look up to we call those communities ethnic ghettos. The damage their demented agenda did is astrynomical but they'll never admit mia culpa, why should they the government panders to these groups for acceptance.
Tossed got a rain coat the spit is going to fly.
by Skulldug

Jan 26 2010
3:39 PM

I was lucky to have been raised surrounded by strong, gentle, capable women. It never even entered my mind that they could be somehow less of a person than me until I began to hear the radical feminists bleating that women needed "special" status, protection, opportunity etc. Their entire movement degrades real women and classifies them as roughly equivalent to baby seals.
These vindictive females should all be charged with hate crimes, even though their target is the last acceptable bigotry in Canada. At least, that's what my Mom, sister and aunties say.
by Aidanist

Jan 26 2010
3:41 PM

I'm not a fan of women's studies, but I do like accuracy: the Charter is the reason judges must consider disadvantaged groups and women specifically, not women's studies advocates or professors. There are two separate sections of the Charter that protect some affirmative action measures and specify gender as something that cannot be discriminated against.
Also, there are few Women's Studies authors that have preached the "all sex is rape" philosophy, and I think the only one who got any traction was Mackinnon - and even she is misquoted by her opponents.
I don't really agree with the rest, and I think your editorial over-generalizes their support for new programs or the difference that support might make (who cares what they think anyway?), but I just thought those inaccuracies might need clarification.
by Peter Alward

Jan 26 2010
3:44 PM

Hold it! What about the Ivory Tower? Are you now telling us that professors have real impact on Canadian society, (albeit malevolent impact)?  Or is it just those uppity women who know where the key to the Tower door (gate?) is hidden?
by Tossed Salad

Jan 26 2010
3:52 PM

Thanks Sassie I got it along with the popcorn. Knowing you would be commenting on this I had it at the ready.
by Rectificatif

Jan 26 2010
4:04 PM

First, news from the war zone.
 This week, CBC radio in Alberta is running a series on 'domestic violence'. Said series started off cautiously, with a social worker who claimed, correctly, that the vast majority of the cases that "went through the justice system" were of male violence. But he did not report that the vast majority of male victims of (female) spousal abuse *do not report it to police* which is why only the female victims get to court in the first place.
  Then, today, a female police officer referred to all putative victims as "she." Said police officer then admitted, with pride, that she was the child of a mother murdered by an abusing father, and that she had entered the policing role, essentially, to avenge her mother. Oh, that's a useful bias, isn't it, especially for the 50% of actual abuse victims who are fathers, not mothers.
  Secondly, I wish to commend the NP for its restraint, especially in the language it uses. To refer to "Women's studies scholars" and even to "feminist professors" is to err on the side of elaborate courtesy.
  In actuality, there's no such thing as "scholarship" among the feminists. Every bit of these "studies" and even the novels that reflect it, is blantant cherry-picking of data to construct an anti-male world view, with the awowed aim of "seeing the word through feminist eyes."
  Finally, a sampler of the more subtle effects. Calgary Herald ran an editorial yesterday exploring the virtues of unisex education in the middle schools. Said editorial explored ways in which boys might be taught in all-boys classes. We currently know, for fact, that many boys are disadvantaged in our grossly feminized educational system.
  As an example of sex-segregated education, it said that the boys might learn "art" and "drama" better in unisex classes.
 That's right, folks. Female teachers, crudely anti-male, better able to teach your sons how to do the female-identified subjects better.
   So, would it even occur to the editorialists that there is virtue in the male-identified subjects? Or, how persistent and systemic anti-male policy really is?
by hunter902

Jan 26 2010
4:10 PM

Lol...glad there's at least one media outlet that isn't afraid to put the truth out there. I could get on board with "Womens' Studies" if it were something that brought to light the many women who have achieved extraordinary goals. But to excorciate almost all men to somehow elevate their superiority ABOVE men is doing a grave injustice and disservice to all men and women of all generations. Long ago, the movement ceased to be about equality, and turned into a man-hating extravaganza.
Going thru university, my daughter said she was glad to have taken the course, but appreciated the fact that she didn't have to subscribe to the man-hating subtext in the course because of the way she was raised to believe all people were equal. I asked her if she thought others in the class were prone to thinking the same way, and sadly she remarked that most bought into how they are still "victimized" by men in anything they try and do.
At one point, when a class discussion around the sins of men became far too brutal for her, she stood up and asked them all if their fathers, brothers, uncles, and grandfathers were to be included in this group of horrible men. Apparently, it got very quiet in the room. I told her then that I couldn't be more proud.
Womens' Studies as it is now serves to keep women as victims, rather than encourage them to be strong and tolerant, as they who create this, pretend it to be.
by BWA

Jan 26 2010
4:17 PM

It is sad to see how malignant the feminist movement has become.  It started out to achieve something good for women and achieved it.  I think the biggest cause of the malignancy was the rise of liberalism in the Trudeau years that began to feed this tumor with government funding.  When the money started flowing the "screech-hags" of hate and intolerance saw that they could turn their cause into an industry of victimology and male bashing.  When you push a cause beyond "saturation point" you have to keep pushing the envelope to keep it in the public eye.  This is why the feminist ideology has become so distorted.  This is the reason most young women today are not interested in the the stuff that the feminist movement is promoting.  Indeed they have caused a lot of damage and now we have to pick up the pieces and try to bring back some sense of balance.  Perhaps we should end all funding to these groups and start male studies in the high schools and universities!

by justcommonsense

Jan 26 2010
4:18 PM

Women's Studies are not disappearing or even changing that much.  But take a look around you.  The new role models for young women are not the feminists of old.  They are Brittany Spears, Amy Winehouse and Lady Ga Ga.  Women's Studies are drowning in a sea of irrelevence and the only thing keeping them going are the aging tenured professors who have their jobs for life

by littlerunninggag

Jan 26 2010
4:21 PM

"The feminists help expand the ethos of a "Fatherless society" combine their demended ethos with cradal to to grave welfare they've succeeded in spreading their anti-male propaganda so efficiently there are children who have never had a male role model to look up to we call those communities ethnic ghettos."
Did you actually just say that feminism causes 'ethnic ghettos'?
Can you please explain how feminism causes poverty within ethnic minority groups?  Bonus points if you can manage it without sounding incredibly bigoted.
by Rectificatif

Jan 26 2010
4:40 PM

Aidanist is a sceptic here (I won't say Denier!). But Aidanist does not take it all in.
 The word "rape" may not be associated with the word "sex" in the McKinninist fashion, as often as the editorial suggests. However, ALL sex is associated, by Women's Studies, with POWER. And ALL power relations are COERCIVE. And the male has more physical power than the female, and then, there's "penetraton." And therefore, the idea of rape is implicit in all of heterosexuality in all of feminist ideology. At best, having sex with a man is a sort of condescension to passion and to males.
 Secondly, Aidanist might not appreciate the genesis of these "studies." They come from lesbian authors, not "feminist scholars." They are very often taught by lesbian faculty. If not, they are taught by lesbian-compliant faculty -- even by males who are selected for their ideological subservience to anti-male ideology.
  And therefore the bias is not only anti-male, it's anti-heterosexual; and millions of young women go through these "studies."

 All humanities curricula, whatever the discipline, contain what's called "theory," in essence, a training in the examination of culture as ideology. Said "theory" classes give GROSS priority of place and of authority to feminism, much of it clearly anti-male. And millions of young women go through this.
  Aidanist must view the film (or play) "Oleana" by David Mamet. Mamet's language is highly stylized and so the film seems stiff and un-real; however, the situation that his play posits is not only real, it happens on campuses every week.

by seekingtruth

Jan 26 2010
5:24 PM

I need a good laugh, where's mel and icon?

by ScndVrs

Jan 26 2010
5:30 PM

Rectificatif is right about "Oleana." See it.

by Tossed Salad

Jan 26 2010
5:56 PM

seekingtruth said:
I need a good laugh, where's mel and icon?
******************************
Still crying in their beer from last weeks loss in the election in Massachusetts.

by arbyburns

Jan 26 2010
6:56 PM

aidinist -
*I'm not a fan of women's studies, but I do like accuracy*
Well, then, Aiden, you won't like what's below...
*the Charter is the reason judges must consider disadvantaged groups and women specifically, not women's studies advocates or professors. There are two separate sections of the Charter that protect some affirmative action measures and specify gender as something that cannot be discriminated against.*
Nothing at all in the charter says that it must `favour so-called disadvantaged groups' - as, of course, the second clause you cite would put paid to any such Women's Studies-fostered `reading into' the CoR.
As it is, judges disregard the Charter outright, as much as they apply it, in their version of `judicial activism' (i.e. judicial autocracy).
A few years ago, for instance, the SCOC ruled that law could ban `third-party' advertising during election time, even tho. such a ban was explicitly contrary to the CoR.
Their reasoning?  It was all for `electoral fairness'.
In other words, a completely made up `right to electoral fairness' trumped the rights in the Charter, as you say, `that are actually there.'
Some Osgoode Hall student just got a fail, i'm afraid.
Read more: network.nationalpost.com/.../national-post-editorial-board-women-s-studies-is-still-with-us.aspx
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

by Denis Pakkala

Jan 26 2010
11:57 PM

Fantastic editorial and absolutely accurate.  Rectificatif, as always, provides a further indepth analysis and insight.
The end of "women's studies" or discriminatory feminists is nowhere in sight.  These programs are being re-labelled as "gender studies" with the same misandrist academic bias.
Cutting funding to all feminist special interest groups (SOW) and media outlets (CBC!) would be a good start.
The radical feminists recently have become less vocal in defense of their privilege, they are avoiding debate altogether.  There is far too much research (ignored by the msm) that exposes their bigotry.
Judges, Lawyers, Politicians, Police, Social Workers and Teachers are all trained in the feminist ideology that women are victims of men.
We are witnessing the demise of a moral, ethical and just society.  Why aren't more people speaking out?

by MikeMurphy

Jan 27 2010
12:06 AM

I did a blog post awhile back based on Barbara Kay's appearance on the CBC Radio show 'The Current' discussing this very thing.  Barbara so out classed the Toronto Red Star reporter, also on with her, the host had to arrange to get another feminist ideologue on later that week to counteract Barbara's forceful and correct views.  The link to the radio interview  is here: www.cbc.ca/.../20100112.html

"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent."
Catherine MacKinnon

"Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism."
Catherine MacKinnon" Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10
Wednesday, January 20, 2010

The Rebranding of Women's Studies Courses in Academia
An interesting discussion occurred on the CBC's The Current radio show recently between the host and two journalists.

In the radio interview Barbara Kay will argue these courses are recruitment mechanisms into an ideology of feminism. The Toronto Star Reporter, Catherine Porter will whine about women not being representative in positions like partners in law firms and that same old argument Parliament. She will posit these courses are designed to get fresh ideas so women can have it all, a career, motherhood, vacations and maybe even a husband. Barbara will describe it as the Utopian ideal. Marxism was one of those same Utopian ideologies from whence feminism came.

What Porter fails to realize is women can have these things but only if they get a partner who will look after the children and is prepared to make the same sacrifices as a man by working long days and commuting great distances. The other option is to stay single and get a nanny or not have any children at all. There are choices but what Porter really means is lets just appoint a certain number of women to these positions (the old quota game) so they don't have to do it on merit and then they can have it all. Nothing much has changed in the feminist song book despite the much larger proportion of degrees granted to females over males. Its still an entitlement mentality and women deserve to be placed on a pedestal.

Recruiting feminists must be losing its appeal at Canadian Universities so the resident feminist faculty are trying to lure new recruits by new marketing techniques.  When a business wants to refresh its product it assigns the
"New and Improved Label". The professional feminists in academia are re-branding, re-positioning and trying to attract men too would you believe.  They aren't necessarily pushing masculinity mind you but if you are male and gay you may just qualify as part of the "gender" portion of the re-branding.  If you are a transsexual or transvestite you qualify. Have you seen the label they use for the gay community now. It is LGBT or is an initialism referring collectively to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. You all may qualify for study along with women.  That opens up to a larger more inclusive audience - doesn't it? If you are a male - does that increase your interest?

At McGill University in Montreal the new branding in March 2009 gives us the name
McGill Institute for Gender, Sexuality, and Feminist Studies (IGSF)
"The McGill Institute for Gender, Sexuality, and Feminist Studies (IGSF) examines social perspectives on women and women's contributions to society."

You see the emphasis is on women but it is hoped the new name will attract more men and women of different sexualities and diversities.

Here is a sampling of these courses:
WMST 200 (3) Introduction to Women's Studies . Offered in the: Fall
This course introduces students to theoretical positions and topical issues in the broad, interdisciplinary field of Women’s Studies. This course aims to demonstrate how “women” is applied as a social and political category imbued with certain, yet contested meanings depending on place and time, and cannot usefully be considered a self-evident effect of biology. Students are introduced to a great variety of analytical tools and topical intersections that will enable them to entangle seemingly natural and obvious truth claims regarding the meanings of gender, sex, sexuality, and feminism in contemporary societies. In addition to key academic texts, we will look at online material, view films and podcasts, and discuss news stories on matters such as gay marriage, sex trafficking, ‘hook up’ cultures, and creative new reproductive strategies.
Elisabeth Engebretsen
MWF 1:35-2:25 pm

WMST 301 (3) Women's Studies Current Topics 1 . Offered in the: Fall
Topic for Fall 2009: Queer Cultures: Gender systems and sexual meanings in a modern, global world
(Prerequisite: WMST 200 or PHIL 242 or permission of instructor.)This course explores alternative sexual and gender expressions cross-culturally, with an emphasis on the modern, global period, and ethnographic accounts of same-sex sexuality and non-normative and trans-gender forms. We examine how sexuality and gender intersect with formations of modern nation states, colonialism, religion, race, and ethnicity worldwide.
The course literature emphasizes accounts of people’s lived experiences in different yet intersecting cultural locations, through examples of identity formation, coming out practices, non-normative families incl. same-sex marriage, rights and recognition, and the globalization of queer identity and culture.
Elisabeth Engebretsen
MW 10:05am-11:25 am

The question remains - what do you do with a degree in women's studies after its all said and done? The purpose of the re-branding is to attract more students to keep the programs alive. There are only so many tax supported professional feminist jobs out there and with government cutbacks on the horizon they will be fewer in number.
by Les Bolschitt

Jan 27 2010
12:08 AM

Tooooo funny.
"Women’s Studies scholars have argued all heterosexual sex is oppression because its “penetrative nature” amounts to “occupation.”

Did anyone tell homosexual men about this?

When do they set up the dildo registry?
by MikeMurphy

Jan 27 2010
12:21 AM

@by Aidanist Jan 26 2010 3:41 PM
'I'm not a fan of women's studies,'
________________________________
Where is your white charger and shining armour oh chivalrous one.

My research into feminism clearly shows we are ruled by a very large number of eunuchs (the so-called Patriarchy) who actually take their orders - more than less - from their wives. We do not see legislation like shared parenting, despite the majority of Parliamentarians being  male, because they are afraid of feminist backlash, not to mention bar associations who perceive they will lose business by not having the adversarial court room to pit parent against parent and bleed the financial heritage of the fought over children from their parent's pocket books.

Bar Associations have their own feminist divisions who get tax money to lobby against this kind of legislation. I always find it an interesting perspective to see my tax dollars going to rich lawyers to lobby against legislation that would be in the best interest of children.

Such is life in the feminist socialist utopia of Canukistan.

 http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/26/national-post-editorial-board-women-s-studies-is-still-with-us.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage#ixzz0dlifurfp
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

Is there Official Liberal Government bias against men and fathers in Ontario

This is related to an earlier post here. It will assist you with background.

from Mike Murphy sender time Sent at 14:53 (GMT-05:00). Current time there: 16:04. ✆ to mcsmin@mcys.gov.on.ca, lbroten.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org cc David Orazietti , MPP Sault Ste. Marie dmcguinty.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org, cbentley.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org bcc date 26 January 2010 14:53 subject Ontario Children's Aid Societies and Misandry I

The Honourable Laurel Broten
Minister of Children and Youth Services and
Minister Responsible for Women’s Issues
M-1B114, Macdonald Block
900 Bay Street
Toronto ON
M7A 1N3

My Dear Minister:

The Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies is having a conference outlined in part below this March, 2010. I have published a two authored article on several of my blogs on the  merging of  feminist Ideology and child protection.   The violence against women sector (VAW) would have you believe all men are abusers and all women victims when DV  is pretty much equal between genders. I will be dealing with the issue of gender bias barring battered men from tax supported shelters in a Human Rights Complaint later this winter or early spring.

Given males can still vote and constitute at least 49% of voters in this province a backlash may emerge when not only the appearance of bias is evident but the actual practice of same emerges from such an alliance as seems to be in the making.

I would respectively request a response given this Association of CAS`is a Government Tax supported lobby group, however it might occur directly or indirectly, and it has already started criticizing you for possible budget cuts, as yet, unannounced, and this move to align itself with feminist ideology may make it more politically incorrect for your male cabinet colleagues and caucus, already ducking or acquiescing to the feminist lobby at every turn to undertake difficult decisions in the not too distant future. The Katelyn Sampson death was a classic example of misplaced priorities where a young girl was killed by a drug addicted female prostitute who received the child from her drug addicted mother aided by the Ontario court system.  Minister Bentley`s response, while wearing his white ribbon, a symbol of female oppression at the hands of the patriarchy,  was to further target men. I found the misplaced logic very Interesting but not surprising.

I would want your official views on this apparent merging of ideology and child protection. I would also ask if your views are the same as your predecessor, Deb Matthews, in that you will not be providing men with access to DV resources, including shelters. I understand you have access to at least $208,000,000.00 for women based on Matthews numbers but there is no equivalent for males.  This does not include the money set aside exclusively for females in legal aid which is in the 10`s of millions.

The published postings follow.

Yours truly,


Mike Murphy
Sault Ste. Marie ON  P6A 6J8
Promote Bill C-422 Equal Shared Parenting
cc Dalton McQuinty, Premier, David Orazietti, MPP, Sault Ste. Marie, Chris Bentley, AG

Female School worker accused of sexual exploitation

My comment left on the Sun Site:

January 26th 2010, 1:39pm  

Its interesting the self righteous indignation when a female is named for degenerate behaviour but no one think its inappropriate for a male. We have a several layered legal system and it should be consistent. We either name everyone charged or we don`t.  I`ll lay odds of 100-1 she gets a much lighter sentence than a man would with the same charge. It is one of the tiers of the legal system in Canada which has many eunuchs in positions of responsibility including judges, lawyers and politicians.MJM  

By CALGARY SUN

Last Updated: 26th January 2010, 11:32am

• Story
• Comments

 

Oilfields High School in Black Diamond.

(Photo by NADIA MOHARIB/Calgary Sun)

Charges of luring, sexual exploitation and drug trafficking have been laid against a 39-year-old woman working at a Black Diamond school, the RCMP said Tuesday.

The Black Diamond resident, "is charged with respect to her alleged actions with two separate male individuals, both of whom were students at the school at which she was employed," said RCMP spokesman Sgt. Patrick Webb.

"These charges were laid after an extensive investigation which involved interviews of over 30 potential witnesses and consultation with the Crown to ascertain the most appropriate charges," he said.


"The allegations center around extensive phone and text messaging contact between (the woman) and each of the males, starting with one in the fall of 2007 and the other in late 2008.

"At no time was there any physical harm to the victims."

Tanya Marie Cossette, of Black Diamond, faces charges of sexual exploitation, of luring a child and of trafficking Cannabis.

Cossette was arrested and has been released to appear at Okotoks provincial court on January 29, 2010.

The Turner Valley RCMP asks anyone who may feel they were victimized as well, or anyone who feels they may have information about these incidents to call the detachment.

http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alberta/2010/01/26/12616976.html#/news/alberta/2010/01/26/pf-12616976.html

Ontario Children's Aid and Misandry

Many men will attest to have seen a bias by CAS Protective Workers who are, it would appear, 95% female, and some stridently feminist in their ideology. I can certainly speak to it, and can also say the local Algoma CAS and its sister organization Algoma Family Services, who deal with child mental health issues, have both shown me they care little about fathers. In one case a worker completely ignored my requests for help on the telephone and declared a conflict of interest so she could get out of providing service to me. I went over her head and finally got a supervisor to do her job. Algoma Family Services must consider "Family" as being exclusive of a father.

This following excerpt is the info Susan, below, refers to from the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies (OACAS) web site. Given the Ontario Women's Directorate is involved, meaning strident feminist ideology (psycho babble)  is at play, (male is abuser - woman is benign) you can bet the CAS seems to be putting into the public domain what has been their operational practice for some time. Dads and men don't matter.  All of this brought to all men by your own tax dollars. It matters not that women are the single largest abusers of children and in the USA and Australia the largest cohort to kill and maltreat children. Ideology trumps both science and logic.

The list of speakers on the web site will emphasize this conference is not balanced. It is clearly designed to imbue the corporate culture of Children's Aid Societies with the stamp of "officially" being full partners with Feminist ideological constructs based more on quackery than science. This will open them up to both liability and disgrace given, as mentioned previously, the safest place for a child is in a two parent biological family or with their biological dad. See my article here based on USA comprehensive government statistics going back several years. In all cases it shows the most likely person to kill or harm a child is the single mother or the single mother and her boyfriend/new husband. Back links to the government site are provided.  If this becomes official it will make for an interesting Human Rights Issue as the agency entrusted to protect children is in legion with the feminist lobby who support the people most likely to perpetrate harm on our youngsters.


We get what we pay for and we get what we deserve with those whom we elected. The current Liberal regime in Ontario have lost their way and the tax supported agencies we support are giving them the middle finger while they criticize them for anticipated budget cuts to CAS' across the Province.  They say "don't bite the hand that feeds you" but if CAS' align themselves with feminist ideology, politicians who are mere eunuchs now will be less likely to cut as severe. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned and we know who rules in most men's lives. 

Those speaking are some of the largest recipients of tax payer dollars for their "so-called" research which relies largely on a pseudo psycho-social feminist dogma not science. Any awards they receive are from those involved in the incestuous closed looped system all focusing on the quackery associated with the Duluth Wheel school of psycho-babble. 

Michael J. Murphy
Father, Man,  Family and Children's Rights Advocate

Critical Connections: Where Woman Abuse and Child Safety Intersect

The Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies in partnership with the Violence Against Women sector, Children’s Aid Societies, the Ontario Coroner’s Office, Child Welfare Secretariat and the Ontario Women’s Directorate invites you and your colleagues to share your knowledge and experience. The Critical Connections Symposium aims to promote increased awareness of the impact of woman abuse as it relates to the safety and well being of children and families; build and showcase collaborative programs and identify trends, new programs and research. This event will feature internationally recognized keynote speakers, highlight collaborative programs in Ontario and launch an “ideas and practice guide” for service providers.

When: March 9-10, 2010
Registration begins in late January. Early registration special rate: $175
Where: Doubletree by Hilton, 655 Dixon Road, Toronto
Who should attend: member agencies management, staff and board members; management and staff from the Violence Against Women sector, government, police, health and education. Professionals working with women and their children experiencing abuse are invited to attend.

http://www.oacas.org/criticalconnections/
By Susan Longley


Please note concerns regarding  upcoming Ontario conference. (see OACAS web site). 

A frightening trend in North American child welfare practice  is the growing alliance between child welfare services and those promoting anti violence against women (i.e. VAW sector).

This alliance has resulted in an increased denigration of male parents and general deterioration in efforts to address the best interests of children. The deeply rooted gender biased ideology of the latter sector remains deeply troubling and in complete  contradiction to male parents attempts to engage with child welfare services involved with their  children. This concern needs to be urgently addressed, partly to maintain service integrity but also to maintain an ethical stance towards families in general.

Publish Post

Male parents are frequently already marginalized from participating in services for their children. There is now an  increased propensity to isolate men even more so from their children's lives. There remains a blatant contradiction between child welfare services who adopt the polemic and platitudes of the VAW sector. The child welfare mandate remains to enhance family life VAW sector is completely contradictory and opposed to such values. 

It has become recently popular for child welfare services and VAW services to adopt certain kinds of inter agency protocols. These protocols are an embarrassment to child welfare practice in Canada. Blatantly unprofessional and academically dishonest theses protocols reflect misandric nonsense rather than legitimate protocol. These so called protocols must be abandoned and exposed for what they are. There are least two CASs in the Toronto region (see Peel CAS protocol with VAW sector)) have adopted such protocols. These agencies are allegedly family service agencies with no endorsement to promote such anti male rhetoric.

A review of these protocols disclose an incredulous gender bias which can only be described as sexism of the worst order. These professionally distasteful protocols are  written in total sympathy with VAW expectations with no accountability to the general public or their respective agency mandates. They contradict not only good social work practice but remain contradictory  to ethical guidelines established by their governing body  OASW.

These so-called protocols allege to address issues related to inter agency service provision and cooperation between public agencies but are in fact nothing more than an ideological treatise intended to alienate men further from appropriate child welfare practice.

These protocols refuse to acknowledges domestic violence in families other than that of men against women. Women remain the perpetual victim and men always the perpetrator. Any mention of domestic violence refuses to acknowledge  women 's violence against men. Programmes sponsored by child welfare services for children exposed to domestic violence ultimately define the perpetrator as male.

These protocols never hold women accountable for any acts of child abuse or inter personal violence. The identification of child abuse only mentioned in regard to men.  Any child welfare programmes delivered to "children exposed to family violence" refer to men only. Women are never identified as initiators of any domestic violence even when a so-called family agency is involved.

The suggestion that women may make false complaints regarding domestic violence in order to gain an upper hand on custody and access matters is not acknowledged. That women may fabricate or even lie is considered anathema.  The fact that women account for the majority of child abuse in not even mentioned. That VAW services and child welfare services advocate becoming increasingly involved in controversial custody and access matters remains extremely repugnant. The suggestion that child welfare services become more intrusive regarding access arrangements between children and their fathers is an outright abomination.

 Please find a copy of a recent letter sent to Jeanette Lewis, Director of  the provincial OACAS (see web site) outlining my concerns regarding an anticipated conference involving Provincial Child Welfare Services and Violence Against Women Services. The purported agenda is to build understanding and cooperation between the two sectors. My cynical view, as previously suggested, indicates an alternate agenda. The VAW sector is given a further opportunity to impose a particular ideological gender politic on child welfare services.

"I notice with trepidation an anticipated 2010 Toronto conference co sponsored by Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies , The Ontario Women's Directorate and various Violence Against Women programmes. The theme of the conference being the "Intersection of Women Abuse and Child Welfare Services."

I was immediately troubled by the tone and wording of the conference details included in the call for papers especially given the propensity for child welfare services in Ontario and in general North America, to adopt a value preference embracing the practice of a certain feminist political and ideological agenda. A social work practice that has increasingly marginalized services to men and boys and a priori assumptions regarding male perpetrators and female victims.

I have outlined a few  of my concerns.
As many researchers have pointed out gender feminist theory has its limitations and family service agencies in particular must always be ethically accountable in providing services to both men and women especially where "best interests" of children are involved. One can already anticipate the usual presenters invited to provide discourse at such matters. It would be extremely naive to expect genuine debate or rational presentation between the sectors involved.  I will assume the usual feminist rhetoric and platitudes will rule the day.

Some academic  integrity needs to be maintained  and that the conference must reject any ideological and gender biased, misandric unbalanced research which has tended to place a certain anti male spin on issues related to woman abuse, child custody and other such politically charged issues.

There has been a long term feminist advocacy in this province (highlighted in proposals of the provincial domestic violence death review  panel and its recommendations ) to have child welfare services acquiesce to the values and political ideology of the violence against women sector.

This is viewed by many as a regressive and extremely ill advised road to go down. It is appears regressive for child welfare services in general, especially since their services have already become suspect for aligning themselves with principles that reject a family orientation and men in particular. Any child welfare services must be dispensed with fairness and remain gender neutral in practice.

I am concerned that any dialogue between CAS and VAW sectors becomes a mere "smoke screen" for advocating CAS become more feminized in their social work practice at the expense of academic and social work integrity. Not that the two sectors cannot collaborate on occasion and cooperate when appropriate in providing in shared client advocacy.


It seems vital and important to acknowledge the value differences between the two sectors and reject the propensity to gloss over the obvious political and ideological conflicts. It is imperative that these conflicts be clearly acknowledged and identified. This remains especially so in reference to mutual  protocols regarding advocacy and support of woman's issues especially those issues related to custody access and the interaction between service providers regarding male clients and families in general .  It appears to me that the mandates of  the two sectors are severely different and are grounded in often opposed ideological principals. Just a few issues regarding the two sectors come to mind.

Definitions of Abuse and Victimization:

More stringent definition of abuse and victimization in general are required by both sectors. The CAS social workers remain accountable not only to the clients, the best interest of the child but also the court system especially when wards of the court are involved. What is considered abuse in the VAW sector cannot always be validated in the CAS sector.


CAS are obliged to involve male fathers and partners regardless if they have been identified as so called perpetrators or offenders.

 Validation 

The feminist principle of "validating" the "stories" of violence against women and children has always been troublesome for social workers in the CAS sector. Not to deny supportive advocacy for all clients (a basic social work value)  CAS social workers have always had to depend on not only "clients narratives" but also collaboration efforts to seek alternate sources of  information. The VAW sector do not require such gender neutral language of exploration and context for service. It appears that a higher standard of accountability and transparency is required.

Gender Bias / Male Clients and Partners:

Gender biased practice has been generally the order of the day. Given the long history of feminist advocacy many would argue that CAS have acquiesced far to willingly to certain  feminist theory at the expense of gender neutral practice. This must be recognised and the matter dealt with in an honest and forthright manner. Children's best interest require addressing issues with both parents where possible.

CAS social workers when in court regarding children's interests must prove that they have attempted involved both parents (and even other partners as defined as parents ) Fathers and or partners in a parenting role can never be ignored in CAS social work. The issues regarding custody and access assessments during divorce remains a highly contentious one, as do the issues related to counselling of couples where violence has occurred. Protocols regarding children's access to both parents where domestic violence is disputed also remains highly contentious. These issues must be debated within the reality of both male and female experience.

Academic Research and Domestic Violence Findings:

The academic literature regarding domestic violence has and continues to be long dominated by a certain type of feminist ideology and both the  CAS and VAW sectors have been very much influenced in their practice by certain political views. This must change. The literature is much more divergent in findings and recommendations for practice than previously acknowledged. This is particularly so when discussing woman abuse and domestic violence. The divergent literature has always been available but to many practitioners who accepted certain dissident views were quickly rejected ostracized or threatened.

A modest appeal to Richard Gelles article January 2007 Family Court Review sums up these concerns regarding academic integrity with succinct clarity. Need I mention Don Dutton's "Rethinking Domestic Violence."


These are some of my concerns regarding the two sectors having authentic dialogue. This can only be achieved with honesty and respect. Some would also claim an appeal to rational discourse mixed with a modicum of intellectual integrity can also help. 


Regards Susan

B.C. cops sorry for injuring man in mistaken arrest

I've been making comments on the corporate culture of the London, ON Police Service led by a leading Canadian misandrist Murray Faulkner in the London Free Press. This is a classic example of the corporate culture in many Police departments across the country.

If you are male and have been accused by a female you are guilty before charged but in this case you are tried, convicted, sentenced,  and punished before trial and you are just plain guilty for being a man. The idiot cops had the wrong residence and the wrong person.

What if the allegations made against the other man are not even true?MJM

CTV News Channel: Vancouver police apologize

Police in Vancouver are investigating after a man wrongfully accused in a domestic dispute claimed he was beaten.

Watch:  http://watch.ctv.ca/news/#clip258387

Yao Wei Wu suffered injuries after Vancouver police mistakenly arrested him at his East Vancouver home, Thursday, Jan. 21, 2010.

CTV.ca News Staff

Date: Fri. Jan. 22 2010 10:48 AM ET

Vancouver Police are apologizing to a man who was injured in an arrest last week -- in what ended up being a case of mistaken identity that was further complicated by language barriers.

Nine days after the incident, Yao Wei Wu still bears the marks of the cuts and bruises to his face, legs and torso. His left eye is swollen shut. On Thursday night when he spoke to CTV B.C., there was still blood spattered outside his front door.

In the apology statement issued Thursday, police said they knocked on the wrong door while investigating allegations of domestic violence.

Police say on Jan. 12, two plain-clothes officers responded to a 911 call by a woman who said her husband beat her, and she was concerned for the safety of their baby.


The officers went to a home in southeast Vancouver, but did not realize there were two separate suites in the house.

The statement says the officers knocked on the wrong door and spoke with Wu, who does not speak English well.
The statement says Wu, 44, tried to close the door but police forced their way in, believing a woman in the suite had placed the 911 call.

The police statement does not describe how Wu sustained the injuries.

Wu told CTV B.C. he understood the men when they identified themselves as police, but said they yanked him from his home and beat him as soon as he opened the door.


He alleged they asked for his name only after they beat him.

He showed reporters a torn white T-shirt he claims was ripped during the incident.

Wu was arrested and taken to hospital, where Cantonese speaking officers were called in to translate. They eventually sorted out the mistake.


"The VPD regrets any inconvenience or trauma this may have caused the family," the police statement said.
Police told CTV B.C. that they will launch a "full and thorough investigation."

Police say they eventually did find the correct suite and charged a man with assault.
With files from CTV B.C.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100122/mistaken_identity_100122/20100122?hub=TopStoriesV2

Vancouver police change story on arrest that saw innocent man injured

 

 

By GERRY BELLETT, Vancouver Sun   January 22, 2010 6:32 PM   Comments (105)

 

 

 

 

More Images »

 

Vancouver Police Chief Jim Chu Friday retracted a statement issued Thursday, Jan. 21, 2009 that an innocent man, Yao Wei Wum was injured because he had resisted arrest by police officers investigating a case of domestic violence.

Photograph by: Augustine Siu, Ming Pao Daily Vancouver

VANCOUVER - Vancouver Police Chief Jim Chu today retracted a statement issued Thursday that an innocent man was injured because he had resisted arrest by police officers investigating a case of domestic violence

"I want to make it perfectly clear that we do not stand by those statements," Chu said.

Yao Wei Wu, 44, who lives in Southeast Vancouver was confronted at 2:20 a.m. by two plainclothes police officers called to the residence where a woman was being attacked by her husband.

The officers in their haste to help the woman had gone to the wrong basement suite, said Chu.
According to an initial police media release, Wu's injuries came because he "resisted by striking out at police and trying to slam the door."

Chu said the statement was "premature" and an investigation was underway to determine what happened.
On Thursday evening Chu attended Wu's residence and apologized for the injuries and trauma suffered by he and his family.

He also apologized for the initial statement and the "further discomfort this may have caused,"

"We empathize with Mr. Wu and his family. Regardless of the fact we were rushing to the scene for all the right reasons an innocent man was arrested and injured in the process," said Chu.

Another issue to be dealt with is whether the officers identified themselves as police before the confrontation and whether the "force used in the arrest was appropriate," said Chu.

Chu said the investigation is being undertaken on behalf of the Office of Police Complaint Commissioner.
Once the officers discovered they had the wrong man a suspect was arrested and is facing charges.
The two officers involved are on their regular days off.

Chu said police investigators would be meeting with Wu later Friday for more information on the incident.
"I want to say how seriously we are taking this matter and how deeply sorry we are to Mr. Wu for what happened."

CHIEF CONSTABLE JIM CHU'S FULL STATEMENT:
JANUARY 22nd, 2010

Last night I went to the home of Mr. Yao Wei Wu to apologize personally and on behalf of the Vancouver Police Department for the injuries and trauma he and his family have experienced after he became the victim of mistaken identity.

Around 2:20 yesterday morning, our officers went to his residence in response to a domestic assault call. The officers were told the caller was a woman with a baby and that her husband was on scene and was assaulting her.

The officers were initially told this crime in progress was at an address in East Vancouver. Later on, the caller clarified that she resided in the basement suite and the entry was in the back.

So as you can surmise, our two officers arrived at the right address but knocked on the wrong door.
In our initial media release we said that Mr. Wu resisted arrest and was injured in the process.

I want to make it perfectly clear this morning that we do not stand by that statement.

This was information that was premature and released as fact when in reality only the current investigation into the matter can determine the details of what happened.

We regret any further discomfort this may have caused Mr. Wu.

We empathize with the Wu family and how upsetting this incident must be for them.

Regardless of the fact that we were rushing to the scene for all the right reasons, an innocent man was arrested and injured in the process.

We are very sorry for that.

Other police officers arrived at this location and a suspect was arrested in the domestic violence call. We expect charges will be laid in this case.

Our investigation into what happened with Mr. Wu will examine the chain of events including the dispatch call, the issue of whether we properly identified ourselves as police and whether the force used in the arrest was appropriate.

The Office of the Police Complaints Commission will oversee the investigation.

I will say once again in closing, how seriously we are taking this matter and how deeply sorry we are for what happened to Mr. Wu.

THE INITIAL ERRONEOUS VANCOUVER POLICE STATEMENT
Police Apologize
2010-01-21

Vancouver Police have formally and personally apologized to a 44 year old city man who was arrested in a case of mistaken identity.

In the early morning hours of January 21, 2010, two plain-clothes VPD officers were responding to a 911 call of a domestic incident. They were told by dispatch that a woman called to report that her drunken husband was hitting her and she was concerned for the safety of their baby.

The officers responded to a southeast Vancouver home, but didn't realize there were two separate residences in the house. Unfortunately for all involved, they knocked on the wrong door and encountered a middle-aged man who didn't understand English very well and would later say he didn't realize the men at his door were police.
The man resisted by striking out at the police and trying to slam the door, but the officers persisted in the belief that there may be a woman and child inside who could be in danger.

The man was arrested and received minor injuries to his face in the process. Police called for medical assistance and the man was transported to VGH as a precautionary measure. Cantonese speaking officers were also called to explain to the family why the police had made this mistake.

The VPD regrets any inconvenience or trauma this may have caused the family.
In related information, police did respond to the correct suite immediately after, where they met the complainant who said her drunken partner had hit her in the back of the head following an argument and then fled.

Police located the man nearby and arrested him for assault.

Click here to see more photos of Yao Wei Wu

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun