Abuse ... and abuse of power
A clear picture of the Ontario Progressive Conservative party is emerging. Mike Harris has no sense of direction. He does not know what "conservative" means. This is shown by many pieces of legislation passed by his government that increase state intervention and centralize power contrary to conservative philosophy. His main concern is to remain in power.
The PC's are aware that there are less votes to be gained on the right of the political spectrum (social and fiscal conservatives) than in the center (uninformed, uninterested, middle of the road happy taxpayers, hippies and social liberals.) These days fiscal conservatism is in fashion, but social conservatism is antagonized by the media. In addition, the left-wing radicals appear to be much more vocal. Thus the PC's strategy is clear: Like their federal counterpart, they have chosen to mover towards the left and have chosen radical feminists and homosexuals as their allies.
In fact, we might say that the Ontario government has been hi-jacked by social liberals. Apart from hostility towards the traditional social conservative stand on family issues, the PC's are showing willingness to break new legislative ground under the influence of radical feminists.
Last spring, they passed Bill 6, a fairly undebated piece of legislation that increased the power of the Children's Aid Society to intervene not only in cases of abuse or suspicion of abuse, but also in any situation they consider inappropriate for a child, thus undermining the jurisdiction of the parents and claiming the right to tear apart families.
Currently, the PC's are in the process of passing Bill 117, which increases the government's power to intervene and appropriate the assets of men who have been accused of abuse, even without proof and even before the legal process is started.
In both cases there is obvious need of legislation to protect those people who cannot protect themselves, but the government has invoked tyrannical powers for itself, instead of finding a solution to problems of abuse. Please read ahead about these two Ontario pieces of legislation.
Bill 6
Recently an amendment to the Family Services Act, Bill 6, was introduced by The PC government. This amendment was proclaimed and became law on March 31st.
This Bill expanded the reasons for finding a child in need of protection by the state. Conservatives, are supposedly against state intervention and for stringer families, but not Michael Harris and the Ontario PC's.
Bill 6 directly affects families in Ontario. It removes authority from parents and gives it to government organizations run by bureaucrats who think they know better than parents how to raise children.
Of course, children should be protected from abuse. However, not long ago, further 'protection' was granted when, in the bureaucrats opinion, children need to be protected from situations where abuse could happen. We have heard of cases, one recently in BC, where children were removed from the custody of their parents under these provisions and placed in foster homes. But even this level of protection apparently is not enough.
The new Ontario law establishes a lower threshold for reporting if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the home is not suitable for the children. In addition, the duty to report applies to all grounds for protection instead of the old criteria based on abuse or substantial risk of abuse. Now in Ontario the Children's Aid Society can enter a home and if, in their opinion, the house is not suitable, they can 'protect' your kids by taking them away!
Just a couple of months after the new law was introduced, the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton felt they had to intervene in the family of Dave Mielke, a system analyst with Nortel, married with 13 children, four of them adults. They showed up last June and, and with the police behind, they took away his nine younger children and placed them in five different foster homes. This happened in Ontario, year 2000, under a PC government! They separated crying kids from their mother, while she was almost becoming hysterical. They separated young children from each other and moved them with strangers in different homes. The father was present and could do nothing.
The CAS did not have to produce a court order to enter their house and inspect it. The saga of a distressed mother, a very controlled, but exasperated father and the CAS is so long and complex that Dave Mielke set up a website with all the details of the case.
The parents were subject to intimidation, false accusations and pressure. They were forced to see their kids by appointment, and start a 'psychological assessment' of the whole family at their own expense. Eventually, the CAS released some of the children back to their parents, one or two at a time, in time for Christmas.
There never was any abuse. The initial allegations of abuse were sparked by an incident where one child went to school with a black eye. After the abduction of the children, the CAS quickly realized that allegations of abuse would not stand and tried to find different reasons for their action, but until now they found none (apart from 'the house being too dirty').
The CAS never admitted any wrongdoing, but they had many conditions for the family to have the children returned. One of the conditions was 'not to have any more children.' (They since agreed to drop this condition.)
The children, during a four months period, were forced to live in foster homes, had to change school, heard false allegations about their parents and were not able to talk freely to them. This is not all. Their 2-year old child suffered even more serious consequences.
At the end of every visit with his parents he was crying "Home, Home..." and did not want to leave them. When he was finally allowed back with his parents (he was the first of the nine to be 'released'), he had nightmares and was diagnosed with separation anxiety. In addition, he suffered physical abuse during the period he was 'reassigned' to a foster family, and is currently recovering from severe psychological trauma. He was also sick a couple of times with foot and mouth disease and was found eating his own feces. Finally, he had bruises on his body, small cuts under both eyes and a 'laceration' on his genitals.
Today, under Ontario law, a family can be completely disrupted under false allegations, their children can be taken away for months and possibly abused.
If Bill 6 gives the CAS the power to intervene so drastically, without warning, in all cases and only according to their own judgment, than any family could suffer the tragic consequences experienced by the Mielke's family.
Bill 117
Events, such as the murder-suicide of a whole family by a deranged individual are very disturbing. However, the 'fix' by the Ontario government to such events is biased and aggravating. There appears to be a continuous altering of the definition of abuse to meet a set goal.
The group FACT (Fathers Are Capable Too) reports: "The Ontario government is proceeding without regard to the wishes of voters with Draconian legislation designed to purposefully and instantly shut men out of their children's lives permanently with only an allegation of a wrong word... Of course, the legislation while seemingly gender neutral is being established purposefully and merging into a system that will zap mostly men, but all non-custodial parents severely."
Bill 117 has already passed second reading. It establishes procedures for an 'emergency intervention order' to strip men of all their possessions (house, children, bank account, car, properties) as soon as a suspicion is uttered that they have been abusive in a relationship. The legislation may be used against anyone who is, or was, in a relationship of any kind, from a spouse or a former spouse to even a person who had a former dating relationship. Once the process is started, it cannot be stopped, not even by the original complainer.
The Bill is known as: "Domestic Violence Protection Act" and has been considered by the Standing Committee on Justice and Social Policy, whose members are mostly PC's. Most interveners who presented their case in front of the committee were women's groups. Of course, it is more difficult for other groups, without government funding, to prepare presentations, but FACT and from Equal Parents of Canada were there.
In his presentation Mr. Bill Jenkins, president of FACT, examined a lot of statistics. Mr. Jenkins, who has a master's in mathematics from University of Waterloo, is a fellow of the Society of Actuaries and a fellow of the Canadian Institute of Actuaries, concluded that typically the violence between men and women is about equal.
Mr. Peter Cornakovic, also a member of FACT said: "Bill 117, in my
perspective, will just codify the current situation of domestic violence and, in my
opinion, it will just perpetrate female victimization... the legislation is not explicit
to gender bias but I can read between the lines, like a lot of other people can and a lot
of speakers before me already have. If it is interpreted as such, it is in contravention,
once again, of the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It will
create a huge potential liability, costing the province and the taxpayers of this
province potentially billions of dollars for every man falsely accused and without due
process in law.... This bill if implemented in a gender-biased way, will encourage
fatherlessness and encourage violence, unfortunately."
In the www.fact.on.ca site you can
read: "This Bill allows the government to strip families, assets, incomes and
children from men, if they are alleged to have said, or even not said, a wrong word. This
horrendous bill is simply another step from the Ontario legislature to turn back the clock
of time ... If you ever thought that we were sliding back into the Middle Ages, this
government is the proof."
In a private email to the FCP leader, Mr. Jenkins states: "It is perhaps a major
point, though one that is not politically correct, that under 117 the man will lose
everything if his wife even alleges that he yelled at her. If he is acquitted, the bill is
structured to ensure that he will not get anything back as a result. He would be better
off killing her than having an allegation of yelling -- his children will be seized
irrespectively (and 117 overrides any family law decision), but he keeps his property if
he kills her."
In his presentation to the Justice Committee, Butch Windsor of Equal
Parents of Canada said: "How many times were children removed from a loving parent as
a consequence of the investigation of a false allegation? How many times were the false
allegations used in civil proceedings to prevent and oftentimes eliminate a father from a
child's life? Who is being responsible for the children's interests to have a loving
relationship with both parents?
The full presentations from FACT and EPC are very interesting and are available from
Hansard, October 24, 2000.
"Abuse ...and Abuse of Power"
is reprinted from IMPACT - the official newsletter of The Family
Coalition Party of Ontario, Winter 2000 edition: P.O. Box 367, Stouffville, Ontario L4A
7Z6 Tel: 1.905.640.6702 Fax:
1.905.640.8102
Email: fcpont@netrover.com
Website: www.familyparty.on.ca
or www.ontariocoalition.com