Note: The links to the Alberta Report's website that are identified in this page no longer function. It is hoped that the articles identified here can shortly be scanned and then posted at the website of Fathers for Life.
This issue of the AR is one of the best ever. We just got it from the post office. The Fatherless Society web page contains a little bit more information about it. Not all of the articles in this issue will show up in the on-line edition that will be posted within a few days. It may be worth your while to check the news stands to buy a copy of this issue. Look for it on the AR web site in a few days <http://albertareport.com>. You'll love it. Now, if only it were possible to get Time Magazine to publish stories like that! Der Spiegel does. How can Time Magazine and MacLean's be shamed into doing the same?
Cover Story "GLOBOCOP -- if you think war criminals are the real targets of Lloyd Axworthy's new world court, think again." The photo on the cover of the June 29, 19998 issues of the AR is a montage of Mr. Axworthy in the uniform of the "NWO police" -- New World Order police. The first page of the cover story shows a cartoon of Joan Grant- Cummings (President of NACSOW) in the robe of a judge, banging her gavel. (She doesn't like that abbreviation it seems. Understandably, they are more likely to use NAC (is that pronounced "nag"?), but I like the technically correct NACSOW sooo much better.)
The concern is expressed that Canada is squandering its souvereignty. In the US, there would be similar concerns if it weren't for the requirement to ratify such generosity in the Senate. You US brothers better watch it so that Hillary doesn't get hubby to give it all away via administrative orders. He seems to do that a lot lately.
------------------
Page 29 of the AR contains a story about Bonny Ambrose, the award-winning teacher who was dinged with a two year sentence for criminal mischief, because she falsely alleged that a police officer raped her.
The poor dear, she got locked up in the psychiatric ward of the Edmonton Remand Centre, just as she began her sentence (did she complain about the food and throw a tantrum?). She is not happy in a cell that has a cement floor, a mattress "only a quarter of an inch thick," with no human contact (how did she relate her unhappiness?), three 15 minute recesses/day and having her food shoved through a door.
I wonder, does she even remotely think of what would have happend to the alleged rapist if her allegation would have stuck? Nevertheless, the article implies that a miscarriage of justice may have taken place and that evidence in the care of police was interfered with. Well, it boils down to a case of she said, he said. If there was miscarriage of justice, what's the big deal? Which of the radical feminists said that men falsely accused of rape and serving time after they are convicted can somethimes gain from the experience. In the name of equitable justice for both sexes to make sure that women get their due share of everything, why not a little injustice? After all, the ratio of incarceration for men and women is still 100 : 1. Can't women too sometimes learn from the experience of being falsely convicted?
-------------------------
On page 32 of the AR is an article by Candis McLean "Who's the boss?" and explains that in many troubled families it's the child. Why should that surprise anyone? Spare the rod and spoil the child. In Calgary they now have a battered parents discussion group, comprised almost exclusively of single mothers who are being held at ransom by their children "Give me my allowance, or else!" and, "No I won't dry the dishes. F... you! You think I'm grounded? F... you!" Unfortunately, it isn't just verbal assaults that bothers these poor and powerless halves of what should be full sets of parents. Many of them have been threatened with and experienced serious bodily harm at the hands of their children.
At any rate, an anonymous Calgary assistant school principal is quoted as saying " [problems with children bossing their parents are] particularly common with single parents," although it isn't mentioned that in all likelihood it is *only* single mothers who have the problem of not being capable to control their children, and that on account ofsingle mothers out-numbering single fathers by a ratio of 12 : 1, the problem is definitely another example of discrimination against women.
---------------------------------------
Page 37 contains a book review of "Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences: The Red Queen & The Grand Scheme" by Judith A. Reisman, The Institute for Media Education, Arlington, Va, 326 pages; softcover; US$24.95. "No man of our century may have contributed so much to the public acceptance of his own private disordered imagination, and harmed America and all of its citizens, as much as Indiana University Sexologist Alfred C. Kinsey... America's pioneering sexologist practised what he preached." The review provides some intriguing accounts of how to bias research. Not only that, but it is stated that the 1,800 children used in the experiments most likely were children in Nazi death camps on whom the experiments were performed.
Dr. Reisman is quoted: "There [must] be a full and open investigation into Kinsey's fraudulent data and its impact upon lawmakers, the military, the church, the press, the academic world, the family and all our institutions." Well, If someone applies some common sense, it is amazing what they'll come up with. That reminds me of good old Sigmund. How many test subjects did he report on, 18 or so? But we are still living with the consequences of that too.
-------------------
Page 7 has an article describing Ottawa's plans to give Indian bands authority over settlements, giving them in effect "Souvereign divorce courts."
If only the faceless vast multitude of the non-Indian population could be so lucky. The souvereignty wouldn't only provide for the administration of our existing laws by natives, but it would allow them to draft their own laws. Does that mean that the Indians will get formal authorization to take the law into their own hands? Will it stop at divorces?
-----------------
Then there is "The Hotel Child Welfare" on page 11. "A dearth of foster homes for teens points to a bigger problem." Although the budget of Alberta Family and Social Services (AFSS) was never affected by the Klein cut-backs, it appears that they can't get enough foster parents to take care of troubled teens. Prospective parents say that they fear anything from violence to false accusations of physical and sexual abuse. Yeah, that's a problem all right, isn't it? It's funny though. It seems that the people who are complaining about the lack of foster parents, are the very people who instilled the fears in foster parents in the first place: "...the B.C government now conducts courses for foster parents to warn them that they are not allowed to enter a child's room, even to seize contraband like drugs or guns, because of the child's [?] right to privacy." The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is said to come into play in all of this and that causes foster parents not to want to put their own children at risk on account of a foster child whom they have no way of controlling (let's just hope that their own children accuse them of the same things that foster children can and do).
---------------
Joe Woodard has an interesting article about the hate-crime allegations that were made against Social Credit candidate Dykstra in the Edmonton MCClung provincial by-election "The charge of the hate brigade -- Offend gays at your own peril."
John McKellar, national director of HOPE (Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism) is quoted, in response to radical gays' criticism of HOPE's full-page ad in the Toronto Globe and Mail which condemned the Supreme Court for "imposing bathhouse morality on the churches and in the living rooms of the nation" and which suggested that HIV-carriers andAIDS patients should be "registered, treated and minitored" and for demanding that homosexual youth organizations should be "prohibited from disseminating their propaganda into the school systems."
John McKellar stated: " The Chief [Ontario] human rights commisioner is gay activist Keith Norton. The law firm [Ursell and Corbett] filing the complaint are gay activists, and complainant [Phillip Shea] is gay. This isn't protecting someone's human rights. It's just another assault by the Pink Triangle Brigade [see note below]. Fag-commander Norton, fag-lieutenants Corbet and Ursell, and fag Shea want to expell any other opinion from the public debate, and they'll use the commissionto do it," and "...I won't acept a country that allows a legal elite to lord it over everybody else."
It seems that he has a point. It sure doesn't look like the right of freedom of speech will be upheld by the gay "jurocracy". There is a precedent that was used to object in the deportation hearing of Erwin Sillips (https://fathersforlife.org/sillips.htm). It was called "reasonable apprehension of bias, on account that the judge holding the hearing may be compelled to find for his employer (the Immigration Board) in fear of retribution if he allows Erwin Sillips to remain in Canada." Could it be possible that John McKellar has reason to have a "reasonable apprehension of bias in the gay jurocracy?" Naw, that's not possible, is it?
The article mentions that, when McKellar and Campbell have to face their gay-activist-adversaries (alone, because the Globe and Mail hasn't been charged), they'll not be allowed to present "scientific data regarding homosexual promiscuity, disease pathologies, substance dependency or suicide rates." In late May, Ernst Zundel, a man who's in denial of the Holocaust, was denied the use of actual data (apparently honest data -- not pertaining directly to the issue of the Holocaust) by the Ontario Human Right Commission. The OHRC ruled that the truth of any public communication is irrelevant in determining its hatefulness. Now that's what I call expressing true feelings, feelings that are more important than the truth, and making it a legal precedent to boot that establishes it as a point of law which from now on will make it impossible (unless overturned in a higher court) to ever again obtain justice based on what justice used to be based on in Canadian courts: the truth. The truth is officially dead, kaput, finished, dicarded and disregarded, to be displaced by warm, fuzzy "feelings" that can be bent whichever way an individual case is deemed to demand by a jurocracy that has lost its objectivity.
The article concludes with something that's even more frightening and horrifying. Last month, B.C. Attorney General Ujjal Dosanjh stated that he intends to make it a criminal offence to be in "possession" of hate material, never mind any attempts to distribute it. Which should concern anyone.
What might he consider to be possession? What if one memorized something, say, from a book like Hitler's Mein Kampf. It would be legal to do that for educational purposes, but one would have to prove that the purpose for possessing the book is educational. Is the "hate material" that a person would memorize, or remember reading, then in his possession? Could anyone be criminally prosecuted for what he thinks? That would be *worse* than 1984, much worse.
Will Ujjal Dosanjh announce next that he intends to introduce torture that will force people into liking him, just as was described by Orwell in 1984? We'll pretty well have to stick around just to find out what will happen next. There doesn't seem much else to motivate anyone to stay here; unless it is to hear what Ujjal Dosanjh has to say about the rampant discrimination against minorities in Ontario when he speaks to school children in B.C.
