Scandal taints fathers' rights group — Debate

Message #2

Louise Malenfant's reaction
to the letter by David Shackleton to
Donna Laframboise from the National Post (message #1)

From: Louise [malenfant@powersurfr.com]
Sent: April 23, 2001 12:59
To: David Shackleton
Cc:[not shown]

Hello David,

Your recent letter to Donna Laframboise was forwarded to me, and I feel the need to respond.  This entire story concerning the sexual controversies around ecmas edmonton have exposed a rather troubling phenomenon, in my view, that does not speak well of the family rights movement.

I thought that this movement was about establishing equality and fairness in family law, and ending the cannabalization of the paternal family in this country.  This goal is large and difficult, but I now understand why it has been so difficult, if the leaders in this movement see nothing wrong with the idea of associating controversial views about sex in childhood with this goal.  The entire book written by Christensen is troubling, and very few in our society would support his intentions there.  He argues that all porn and the desires that underlie them are good and natural, but purports to eliminate any arguments against the free flow of porn in our society.  Yet his book nimbly tip toes around the problem of adult sex with children, so of course, the book fails in its objective, as this is the problem most of us have with libertarian views on sex.  As for his belief that we are hurting kids by denying them sex, that they should have sex and masturbate freely without adult interference, that even providing them with porn has merit in order to counter society's disapproval of sex and nudity, and that even coercing children into sex is no worse than denying them sex - all of these views are anethema to most people in our society.

The thought that this story has exposed the fact that several "leaders" in the family rights movement are not only tolerant of these views, but actively encourage them, is a sad commentary on the competence of this movement.  It is no wonder this movement has gotten no where, since the criticism that we are tolerant of early introduction of sex to children is actually a true criticism.  These odd views that are held by only a very small minority of the population, is the likely reason why the average middleclass victim of the family courts are staying away from the movement in droves.  We certainly dillute the main message of fairness in family law when we anchor this effort with these controversial minority opinions about sex in childhood.

Anyone who believes that advocating the early introduction of sex to children is a good thing for the movement, has no idea was a public relations disaster this association is for the movement in the long run.  Childhood is over when sex starts, and children who engage other children in sex have likely been awakened by an adult who taught them how its done.  Those in the movement who actively support early childhood sex will never get the time of day from the government, childwelfare, and other system people, and no one will convince me that the normalization of childhood sex is the way to go for the movement.  Every falsely accused man I have ever represented was horrified at the very idea that anyone would believe they would want sexual congress with their own child.  Certainly, no falsely accused would want to be associated with the idea that sex in childhood is a good thing.  While ecmas edmonton showed itself to be naive about the harm caused by associating with these views, the bigger shock is certain father's rights leaders have come out in support of associating these controversial ideas with the movement.  This is, in my opinion, a dereliction of duty, and it is a big mistake, as media will not give those leaders the time of day again.  We have enough issues to contend with without adding these controversies to the cart, and I now understand why this movement gets no where in influencing the people with the power to change things.

 

Louise Malenfant

Family Advocate
Parents helping Parents

David Shackleton's response (message #3) to the letter shown above