Fatherlessness, in "the best interest of the child"
Does a child have the right to have its father in its life and to bond with him?
Fathers have equal and equitable rights to be fathers?
On the preceding page I recounted some of the results of inquiries into the right of a child to have a father. Before I show the next stage in the discussion that evolved out of that, I will quote a commentary by Eeva Sodhi in relation to a case of criminal abandonment of a newborn child in freezing cold weather.
From: R&E Sodhi [email@example.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 7:10 AM
Subject: Of men, women and freedom of choice
Toronto Globe and Mail
"Man hopes to prove abandoned baby is his" By JAN WONG AND GAY ABBATE Thursday, January 30, 2003 Print Edition, Page A20
Though she denied being pregnant, she knew that she was:
"The last time he [Mr. Wallace] saw her was two weeks ago. They bumped into each other on the street, as was their habit. As usual, she was clutching her belongings in green garbage bags. She told him she had just been to a clinic and had had a blood test.
"She said, 'I'm having a baby girl.' I said, 'What?!' She said, 'Yeah.' "
When he learned that the child had been born and left to die he told the hospital and the CAS:
"I would like to see the kid," he said anxiously. ... "Okay," he said resignedly. "But I would like to see the kid."
Notice how a man who thinks that he is the father cannot see the child until a DNA test is done. Or maybe never if the child has already been adopted.
On the other hand, notice how men who think that they are not the father are ordered to pay child support both before and after the DNA test is done, no matter what the result. Also notice that often the man is not even allowed to have a DNA test done to prove that he is not the father. On the other hand, a man can be forced to have a DNA test done just because the mother, or the government, insists on it.
Even more revealing is the previous article the day before by the same reporter:
"A newborn on the cold streets Homeless woman and her boyfriend lived a volatile life of poverty in Toronto" By JAN WONG Wednesday, January 29, 2003 Print Edition, Page A1 [quotes are arranged by subject and are out of sequence]
"But they [CAS] only asked him questions about Ms. Clark, Mr. Wallace said. They wouldn't let him see the baby."
By exposing the double standard vis-a-vis parenthood, this article also demolishes all the politically correct assumptions about the "power and control" dogma:
"... Mr. Wallace [is] as placid as Ms. Clark is volatile."
"Yesterday, he was also concerned about Ms. Clark. He hadn't even known that she had been arrested. Asked why he liked her so much, he stared out from under the brim of his baseball cap. "She's nice to me sometimes," he said. ... "She'd fight with me. She'd say, 'Oh, you can't sleep with me any more. See you later.' Mr. Wallace knew better than to stay. He's a small-boned man, a scant 5 foot 4, with size 6 feet. Ms. Clark is 5 foot 9 and apparently quite strong."
"Mr. Wallace said Ms. Clark didn't hit him all the time, "only when she was mad." Last June, for her 41st birthday, he tried to buy her a cake. "But she was mad at me. She didn't want one.""
"Mr. Wallace said he always tried to take care of Ms. Clark. He gave her the sleeping bag she used, for instance. And whenever he could afford it, they'd go to motels together." [Note that she got twice as much as he did. "He said he received about $300 a month from the government; she received twice that amount."]
Thus, women are seen to be twice as deserving as men, yet men are expected to pay.
If the two of them had pooled their money together they would have been able to rent a room somewhere, even outside the city. But, that again, was obviously her choice: "... he said Ms. Clark always refused to sleep in a shelter. Ms. Lawless, the Fred Victor director, confirmed that information. For his part, Mr. Wallace preferred a roof over his head. Sometimes, though, to keep Ms. Clark company, he'd sleep with her in the plaza outside City Hall. Or at least, he tried."
"Life hard for woman suspected of leaving girl in cold" By JONATHAN FOWLIE AND VICTOR MALAREK Tuesday, January 28, 2003 Print Edition, Page A18
"She didn't trust many people," said Mr. Kierstead, explaining why she chose to live on the streets, even while she was pregnant. "She didn't want to go into a shelter."
One source said officials had tried to get the woman housing, which she had refused. She had also denied she was pregnant, the source said."
Then comes the spin:
"No place to go"
By JOHN S. ANDREW Thursday, January 30, 2003 Print Edition, Page A18
Kingston -- "How ironic that just days after newborn baby Mira was abandoned by a desperate homeless woman virtually on the doorstep of Toronto City Hall, the city's Planning and Transportation Committee has recommended to council a bylaw that would make it even more difficult to locate homeless shelters where they are needed most" (New Shelter Bylaw To Go Before Council -- Jan. 29)".
She was not "a desperate homeless woman" without any support. All the evidence points that she had the choice, which she exercised when ever she felt like it, not only to go to a shelter, but she had also had offers of help to rent her own place. She chose to stay on the streets, just like she chose to have the child on the street and leave it to die. According to Mr. Wallace, she had seen a doctor. She even knew the sex of the child in advance.
Every woman has the choice either to be a parent or not be a parent. She can dispose of the fetus by having an abortion, she can kill the newborn and claim post-partum depression, she can give the child to adoption at any time during the child's life, she can even give the custody to the father after separation. As a rule, the father cannot have custody unless the mother throws the child away. A father cannot even see the child unless the mother, or the system, agrees. Men are told that parents are responsible for the maintenance of the child, women are told that others are responsible if they don't want to be.
This, according to our political and legal systems, is gender equality and in the best interest of the child.
RR 1 McDonald's Corners
Ontario, K0G 1M0
To help understand the origins of the spin that's being put on this, have a look at Manufacturing Concern, by Jim Boyce. Consider also what Aristotle had said:
But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same.
In the same vein it could be said, "What difference does it make whether an ideological government rules the media (e.g.: the PRAVDA (Truth) during the regime of the USSR) or the media and the government are ruled by an ideology (as in the "free" West)". The result is the same."
Mothers' culpability in serious and fatal child abuse cases
Nevertheless, to cure any notion that the media bias in the Clark case (which is no more than a consequence of an all-pervasive and dominating social bias) is an isolated instance, have a look at the summary of such cases that Canadian Senator Anne C. Cools presented in one of her speeches to the Senate:
Child Abuse and Mortality
Speech by Senator Anne C. Cools
to the Senate, Tuesday, November 7, 1995
The sexes have equitable rights and obligations? Not at all, they are not even considered equally culpable for crimes of equal severity! It is the manufacturing of concern that does it.
Judicial bias, discrimination and discretion nullify case law
It is very important to recognize that there is very little in the law that calls for such rampant discrimination although invariably, as time goes by, the wish emerges in the judiciary to make the blatant bias in judicial discretion the rule and to have it imbedded in and firmly supported by the law, and that is even though we all are ostensibly equal before the law. Many men don't understand or refuse to accept that. It should therefore not surprise anyone that the man who originally asked for the information summarizing Senator Cools' speech on the changing definition and interpretation of the doctrine of "the best interests of the child" is fully aware of the discrimination prevalent in jurisprudence but fails to recognize the futility of finding case law that can be applied to correct that bias.
Senator Cools identified the evolution of the law from giving a child the right to have both parents in its life to where the child becomes the sole property and an adjunct to a mother without having any right to a father. Children may have fathers, provided the mother of a given child wishes any man she picks to be the father du jour for the child, regardless of the wishes or inclinations of the
natural father of the child.
Women are far more likely than men to recognize the discrimination inherent in the judicial system. Therefore men such as the one who expressed his displeasure with the explanations I offered of what makes all of that discrimination come about are not very likely to catch on and to admit that equitable justice affecting the sexes will not come about until the politics of sex become equitable. Only then will political pressure force the judiciary to live up to the letter of the law.
I don't understand what the problem is. Either a child's right of access to its parent is or is not enshrined in case law, statute law, European Law, Convention (in the case of a European child), United Nations Declaration.
It is a shame to bury this simple point in masses of tangential copy. The issue is too important to be muddied.
The second point is this. Either Cools found this right was nowhere enshrined, as I found, or she did not. I wish I had access to her.
In response to that, I returned another commentary to elaborate on the workings of all of that:
The relative weight of case law vs. judicial bias
In jurisprudence anywhere, it matters little whether a child's right of access to its parents is or is not enshrined in case law. What matters are the outcomes. The outcomes are determined not by case law but by judicial bias and discretion. Ideology, not justice or case law, forms the outcomes. Social engineering by judiciary activists, not case law, is what is used to expunge and disfranchise fathers, and to dismantle the traditional nuclear family.
In relation to my summary of the state of the outcomes in child custody cases and of the right of children to have and to bond with fathers, you stated that "It is a shame to bury this simple point [of whether or not case law gives children the right to have, or to bond with, fathers] in masses of tangential copy. The issue is too important to be muddied." We are in agreement with respect to the issue of the law being important in that regard, but I find that too many people attach far too much importance to case law.
How and by what judicial bias is influenced
The law, case law or not, is nothing more than a consequence of history, including historical and current social prejudices. Call them social trends, if you wish. As social prejudices change, so does the interpretation of the law, and, if necessary, the law will be re-written to conform to prevailing social prejudices held and now increasingly promoted by the judiciary. However, far more importantly, outcomes in individual cases do not so much reflect objective decisions by judges as they do present judicial bias reflected in judicial discretion, very often in blatant disregard of and even quite openly contrary to existing case law.
If social prejudices change for the better, then the law and the administering of it will change for the better. If prejudices change to the worse, then the law will change to the worse as well depending on what we use as a point of reference. Remember, there are no more absolute truths, there are only perceptions, and the perception of present judiciary activists is that the family and the role of men in it have outlived their purpose and that their existence can no longer be justified. You pointed out as much in the many articles to which your prior response identified the links (appended in the original message, but it would not be fair to show all of those links here, as they would reveal the identity of the individual pointing them out).
Case law will do absolutely no good when judges, time and again, use their discretion to twist justice into just so many pretzels and they can do that with impunity, as they are accountable to nobody but themselves and to the politically-correct conformity they impose on themselves. Judicial hearings are nothing other than theatre plays in which guilt is predetermined before the play even begins, plays that proceed according to a predetermined script of whose direction the accused have no idea, although they have the mistaken notion that case law (snippets and pieces of other judicial plays performed previously) can be used to re-write the script of the play into which they were dragged to perform predetermined roles with predetermined outcomes and destinies.
Who are the real law-givers, our elected representatives (legislators or lawgivers) or the judges (ostensibly administrators of the law)?
In Canada, perhaps more so in Canada than elsewhere, the power to create laws rests with the judiciary (first and foremost with our Supreme Court justices), not with our legislators. What has been created in Canada is for all intents and purposes a tyranny by the judiciary. Our Supreme Court and federal justices (roughly 1,500 of them) are being appointed by our elected leader, currently prime minister Jean Chretien. The appointments are made in a secretive process and make a mockery out of any pretence that we have a separation of governmental powers. That, too, is part of a deliberate plan of which the re-writing of the Canadian constitution was a big and important part. Identical trends in social engineering are at work throughout all of the developed nations and in the lesser developed nations that are being controlled and influenced by the former often through economic blackmail. Canadian judges are not being appointed according to their ability to mete out justice impartially and objectively but according to the extent to which they proved helpful as activists who advanced the well-being and power of the judiciary, with feminist women judges being routed on the fast track to career success.
To a considerable extent that is true everywhere, although most developed nations were not stupid enough to formally hand the legislative powers of their elected legislative assemblies over to their judiciaries. However, just because the formal handing-over of legislative powers did not officially take place elsewhere, that does not mean that it is not at work to identical or almost identical extents elsewhere. All it means is that in other nations it can still be hoped, however irrational that hope may be, that legislators still have the power to put their judiciaries back onto the right path of equitable justice.
Our sleepy legislators, even those of the ruling party, are slowly waking up to the fact that their powers of being law-makers (legislator means law-giver or law-maker) were usurped by the judiciary. Now that the horses have bolted, they are trying to close the barn door and attempt to gain back some of the powers that once upon a time were theirs.
|2003 02 04|
Supreme Court Act
An act to amend the Supreme Court Act to restore law-making powers to Parliament
Mr. John Bryden (AncasterDundasFlamboroughAldershot, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-349, an act to amend the Supreme Court Act. (Full Story Excerpt from the Hansard)
More power to attempts like that. It is high time that Canadian citizens will once more be protected from the depredations caused by the social engineering done by the Canadian judiciary.
The planned destruction of the family
Unfortunately, and that is also part of the agenda, legislators anywhere are driven by the same anti-social ideology that the judiciaries promote and entrench. Furthermore, to determine right from wrong requires absolute standards of reference. In our relativistic moral universe, right and wrong are no longer valid concepts. All that matters now is what is politically correct and that our lives are being forced into the ruts of political correctness. Family- or father-friendly case law is nothing more than a minor obstacle that is easily overcome through politically-correct judicial discretion. In addition, the members of the judiciary see themselves as the only people qualified to determine what is good for the masses, no matter how much the masses may wish to disagree with the aims of the judiciary.
The judiciary activists and social engineers network very tightly on an international basis. They are driven by an anti-conservative and family-hostile ideology, which, in essence, is Marxism transformed into radical feminism.
Contemporary (or second wave) feminism has aptly been described as "Marxism without economics," since feminists replace class with gender as the key social construct. Of course, what society constructs can be deconstructed. This is the feminist project: to abolish gender difference by transforming its institutional source the patriarchal family. Certain streams of the Gay Rights movement have taken this analysis one step
farther. The problem is not just sexism but heterosexism, and the solution is to dismantle not just the patriarchal family but the heterosexual family as such.
F.L. Morton & Rainer Knopff in
The Charter Revolution & The Court Party (p. 75)
Note: If the term "radical feminism" (a.k.a. Marxist- or socialist-feminism)
is somewhat new to you, you need to expand your knowledge. After all,
radical feminism, the currently controlling faction of feminism, governs
just about everything that is happening in your life. See,
Carey Roberts column
Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness.
His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism.
Carey Roberts' best-known work, his exposé on Marxism and
radical feminism, is not necessarily easy to find, but
this link will help with that. (Some of the URLs for the article
series appear to keep changing. For that reason the identified link
leads to an Internet search for the series. The first or second link in
the return list will most likely lead you to the series.)
The business of the Law
Far too many people labour under the illusion that the prevailing social prejudices can be controlled or that a new and better direction for them can be dictated by jurisprudence. They often think that the emotional and financial devastation they experience at the hands of the judiciary is the result of errors in jurisprudence and judicial procedure, and that, if only enough and the right kind of case law is found and brought to the attention of the judiciary, the right form of justice will without doubt be meted out and past judicial errors be corrected. Instead, it is social prejudices by judiciary activists that drive and control jurisprudence, regardless of what is prescribed by case law, because that is the nature of the judiciary, to promote itself and its agenda of planned and deliberate family destruction at any and all costs. It has been that way for a long time, but never has the judiciary been as powerful as it is now, because the judiciary maneuvered to remove the few and largely inadequate checks and balances that once upon a time were in place.
The one great principle of the law is to create business for itself.
Dickens, in Bleak House, Chapter 39, p. 1
Dickens actually mentioned "the one great principle of English law...", but that modifier can be safely omitted. Lawyers and the depredations they engineer are the same the world over. Dickens wrote about estates and inheritances that needed to be divided and transferred from deceased owners to the right survivors. Think of the vastly greater extent of the subject matter he could write about today. Today inheritances no longer matter all that much. The dividing takes place while all the players are still alive, and after the "business of the law" takes its due share of the spoils, there truly is little and often nothing left to transfer to survivors or subsequent generations. I often wonder what Dickens would have made of that.
Most politicians are lawyers, and judges are lawyers, too, but they are better politicians than most lawyers. Therefore judicial outcomes are controlled by the politics of political correctness, not by justice and definitely not by our legislatures, most certainly not by the "archaic" conservative sentiments of the predominantly conservative masses. The political world climate will not become family- or father-friendly again unless the winds of political correctness once more blow into the direction where they promote and nurture family values.
Men, family-men, and especially expunged family-men, are the Jews of the third millennium. They must get used to that or work to change it. No matter how much case law anybody finds to support his case, it will be ideology and not case law that decides his fate. If the driving force, the ideology motivating the judiciary, is changed to become family- and father-friendly, it will be found that case law, the very case law that presently exists and proves to be of little help in bringing about equitable court decisions, will miraculously begin to work to the advantage of families, their fathers and their children.
Speaking of judicial persecution of identifiable minorities [which men and boys are, because they comprise about 48 percent of the world population], Hitler could not have succeeded with his plans for solving the "Jewish question" without the active cooperation of the German judiciary. To that extent his collaborators in the German justice system created the system of People's Courts. The same was done under Stalin to eliminate the kulaks. Under Mao, the Chinese People's Courts were used to eradicate the intelligentsia.
In all three of those totalitarian systems there was more than enough case law to assure any target of persecution objective justice, but what was the good of that when equitable justice fell victim to political correctness and when case law meant nothing anymore?
Feminist jurisprudence aims at destroying the traditional nuclear family
The judiciaries of the "free" West are working hard to eradicate the traditional nuclear family, so as to create the social reality that Marx and Engels had called for, the fatherless society. To expedite that end they created their own versions of People's Courts, the family courts and, at least in Canada, also the human rights tribunals.
Judicial activists in judiciaries who deliberately ignore case law, and not case laws that should guide the judiciaries, are the primary and controlling agents of social change. No extent of case law will have the least influence on that.
Justice has little do do with the truth. Justice is politics in action. Justice is not a mathematical equation in which the right kind and the right amount of case law serves as so many counters. Case law serves only to provide convenient excuses for the trend in the evolution of justice, because only the "right" kind of case law is made to count. In that regard, justice is more like an accounting spread sheet intended to prove with the right "facts" that a specific .COM stock is a superior buy. Lastly it is always judicial discretion that counts, and that follows the path of political correctness:
families are out,
socialism and free love are in, and men are the losers.
There was more exchange of opinions in the discussion thread, but nothing much was added to illuminate to what extent case law can be used to influence the anti-family and anti-male bias affecting judicial discretion. While many activists pursue the elusive, volatile and ever-changing case law in the hope that the judiciary can be trapped into a position where its very own rules can be used to force it to make objective decisions and to mete out equitable decisions for the sake of families, their fathers and their children, the manufacturing of concern and its impact on precedent-setting cases to make women inculpable regardless of the severity of their transgressions against others in society continues unabated.
To pin down case law is like trying to pick up tadpoles with chop sticks.
There's no town 'square' here, man
By Colby Cosh, 2003 02 03, Report Newsmagazine
Judge: Right to an attorney a multiple choice.
It depends on "who"
[in the case of an accused woman afflicted by schizophrenia] is speaking to the arresting officer at the time of an arrest. Equitable justice loses and the violent criminal, a woman, wins.
None of this means that the search for case law should cease. It is necessary, but, as the article identified in the preceding link shows, no matter how intensive the search for case law is, it will not change the pro-female and anti-male judiciary bias unless the politics of sex force the judiciary to be objective. It would seem that pro-female case law is being created far faster than it can be found, and there is little in any of it that will do men, children, mothers and families any good.
The bias in the judiciary is no accident. It is deliberate, and it will be a long time, many years, before it will change for the better.
In Canada, the separation of the powers of the branches of government became obliterated when the Canadian Constitution was re-written and "brought home", with the deliberate aim of establishing the power of the judiciary over all else. The American Constitution still guarantees an extent of separation of powers, but in all practicality, with not only Supreme Court judges but even District Court judges reading into the Constitution what they wish to read into it, the separation of powers is no longer in effect to the same extent as it once was and is becoming more and more eroded.
That trend in social evolution is becoming more and more apparent in all developed nations. And why not? Judiciary activists in all nations of the "free" West are networking intensively to normalize the whole world so that in the end only the judicial bureaucracy but not a single elected government will determine the attributes of the New World Order, the fatherless, global socialist totalitarian state, a global socialist gynarchia.
Once upon a time, and that was even incorporated in the very original declaration of the United Nations, the aim of governments and their judiciaries alike was to further the traditional nuclear family.
The "family" in all ages and in all corners of the globe can be defined as a man and a woman bonded together through a socially approved covenant of marriage to regulate sexuality, to bear, raise, and protect children, to provide mutual care and protection, to create a small home economy, and to maintain continuity between the generations, those going before and those coming after.
It is out of the reciprocal, naturally recreated relations of the family that the broader communitiessuch as tribes, villages, peoples, and nationsgrow.
Dale O'Leary, The Gender Agenda, p. 24,
original source: Allan Carlson,
"What's Wrong With the United Nations Definition of 'Family'?"
The Family in America (August 1994), p. 3
Just because many see that view as "dated", and even some so-called men's rights activists do, that doesn't mean that 10,000 years of evolution of civilization pursued the wrong goal, and nobody should labour under the illusion that 10 millennia of human evolution can be dismantled and discarded during the course of just a little more than a single generation without causing wide-reaching, damaging consequences.
Out of the families as described by Allan Carson also grows civilization. Destroy the families and all of civilization ceases to function. That is what Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx called for in no uncertain terms, so that the fundamental cause of all class struggle would be eliminated. Their legacy is being promoted now through the gender agenda that is being driven by radical NGOs through the machinations of the UN and brought into effect in individual nations through the back door, often without any debate or votes taking place in elected assemblies. That is what radical feminism is doing to us, and therefore radical feminism is nothing but communism under a different name and no less destructive.
From the website of the
The Soviet Story:
The film tells the story of the Soviet regime and how the
Soviet Union helped Nazi Germany instigate the Holocaust.
“The Soviet Story” is a story of an Allied power which helped the Nazis
to fight Jews and which slaughtered its own people on an industrial scale.
Assisted by the West, this power triumphed on May 9th, 1945. Its crimes were
made taboo, and the complete story of Europe’s most murderous regime has
never been told. Until now…
DVDs of the documentary can be
purchased through Amazon.com, but the documentary is also accessible
See a review of
the documentary on the soviet holocaust
or democide, the definition of democide being the extermination of a
people by its government. It is estimated that during the height of the
men comprised 98 percent of the 8-million people that were being exterminated
in just two years, 1937 and 1938.
In case anyone still should have any doubts about any of this, let him look at the hair-raising case-law examples in relation to child support and alimony cited and analyzed by Eeva Sodhi.
See also: Family Law Table of Contents
Child Support and Alimony
Some [hair-raising] Case Law Examples
By Eeva Sodhi
- From Marxism to Feminism: The planned destruction of the American family
Statement of Bill Wood
FC-8 Hearing on Waste, Fraud, and Abuse July 17, 2003
TESTIMONY FOR THE [US] WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE
The planned destruction of the family was part of the communist agenda from its inception by Karl Marx and Frederic Engels. It became government policy in the USSR in about 1917. It was so successful in the USSR that it threatened to destroy society in the USSR. Curiously, while in the 1940s the USSR took steps to repair the damages its family-hostile policies had caused, American communists imported the Soviet agenda for the planned destruction of the family into the USA. It has been and continues to be promoted by left-leaning liberals in the West ever since.
When it was determined that this type of class warfare directed at the family was a complete failure, the Soviets worked quickly to restore the traditional nuclear family in the 1940s. Shortly after this, the NAWL (National Association of Women Lawyers) began their push for adopting these failed Soviet policies in America. Americas version of family law has adopted much of the early Soviet failed version of class warfare, while adopting new and more insidious Gramscian versions with gender, cultural, and social warfare components.
From Bill Wood's testimony to the
Ways and Means Committee
- Feminist Jurisprudence: Equal Rights Or Neo-Paternalism?
by Michael Weiss and Cathy Young
Cato Policy Analysis No. 256 June 19, 1996
The White Rose
Thoughts are Free
Posted 2003 02 02
2003 02 03 (Installed headings and bookmarks for index, and elaborated on the conclusion)
2003 02 04 (added reference to Bill C-349, an act to amend the Supreme Court Act, so as to restore some of the law-making powers that our legislators once had)
2003 04 20 (added entry for child-support and alimony case-law examples)
2003 05 02 (added reference to Family Law Table of Contents
2003 08 01 (added reference to From Marxism to Feminism: The planned destruction of the American family)