I have met and heard the tragic stories of many parents. PA is a function, by and large, of a custodial ex-partner, although some alienation can start while the couple is still together.

This blog is a story of experiences and observations of dysfunctional Family Law (FLAW), an arena pitting parent against parent, with children as the prize. Due to the gender bias in Family Law, that I have observed, this Blog has evolved from a focus solely on PA to one of the broader Family/Children's Rights area and the impact of Feminist mythology on Canadian Jurisprudence and the Divorce Industry.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

A Mangina Journalist makes sport of female on male violence ~ Go ballistic to protect the family jewels

My observations of Mr. Baron's misandry:
|
fromMike Murphy
sender timeSent at 13:44 (GMT-04:00). Current time there: 17:33.
toEBaron@png.canwest.com, wmoriarty@png.canwest.com, ERolfsen@png.canwest.com, KMercer@png.canwest.com
ccJeremy Swanson
date29 October 2009 13:44
subjectGo ballistic to protect the family jewels Liberals make it harder for men to defend themselves BY ETHAN BARON,
mailed-bygmail.com
Ethon: Re: Go ballistic to protect the family jewels - Liberals make it harder for men to defend themselves
BY ETHAN BARON, THE PROVINCE
OCTOBER 29, 2009 7:23 AM
You are making light of a vicious assault on a man. Would you do the same had the gender's been reversed. Not likely I do believe. Your editors are far too feminized and sanitized for that. We have copious numbers of manginas working in journalism who are clearly unable to see the double standard they represent when publishing such - whats that word - oh yes - drivel. Next time you want to seem funny at the expense of another man look in the mirror and ask yourself - would I do this if it were about a female. It is a very simple test. You are no David Letterman whose squirrel jokes are in far better taste than yours and that's not reaching a high plateau. Just ask his feminist critics or Sarah Palin. I do like Dave, however. Mike Murphy Promote Bill C-422 Equal Shared Parenting

Liberals make it harder for men to defend themselves

For men living in Langley, or even just visiting, I offer the same advice I get from my neighbourhood squirrels: Watch your nuts.

It appears a woman randomly assaulted a man in Langley, by kicking him where it counts.

Anthony Clark says he was strolling along 200th Street when a young woman walked up and delivered a powerful blow to his groin with her foot.

The kick exploded his testicle, which had to be surgically removed, Clark says.

His description of the assailant -- young, slim, average height -- doesn't narrow the field enough to be very helpful.

"To say, 'Yeah, beware of all women walking down the street, that would be tough,'" says Langley RCMP Sgt. Don Davidson.

Because the victim didn't report any robbery, and random attacks by women against men are exceedingly rare, RCMP remain puzzled about a motive. The woman may be mentally ill, have an axe to grind against men, or there may be more to the story, Davidson suggests.

For men, I offer the following solution: Armour yourselves.

You have several choices, and one of them is on sale.

For $199.95 US, marked down from $249.95 until Saturday, Tamiami Armor is selling a Level IIIA "ballistic cup." This snazzy little number, made of high-tech ceramic like that used in military flak vests, is fitted into a companion jockstrap.

"It stops all handgun bullets," says a company spokesman, who inexplicably declined to be identified.

Given that we're talking about an attack in the Lower Mainland, where gang-war bullets could potentially fly anywhere at any time, this tactical device would serve a double purpose.

It would protect the family jewels from this female suspect as well as from gangsters' random slugs.

The problem is, you'd soon find your protected package snarled in red tape, as the provincial government is bringing in legislation to outlaw body armour for ordinary citizens -- except by special permit.

Banned will be any "garment or item designed, intended or adapted for the purpose of protecting the body from projectiles discharged from a firearm," the draft legislation says.

Fortunately, less-expensive protection is available, without a permit, at martial-arts equipment stores. At the low end, you can buy a $15 plastic cup with jockstrap, but considering the force of the blow received by Clark, these cups might not be up to the job.

"Being plastic, it's possible you could crack them," says Sam Logan, manager of Golden Arrow Martial Arts in Vancouver.

It makes more sense to spring for the $40 steel cup.

"It's a special order," Logan says.

Clark says RCMP told him constables had heard of three or four similar attacks in Langley.

Davidson says Langley Mounties are not aware of other such incidents.

"They're saying they never told him that kind of thing," Davidson says.

In the meantime, it may make sense to buy some protective gear.

When it comes to safeguarding the important things in life, it's better to err on the side of caution.

Just ask any squirrel.

Parental Alienation: A Mental Diagnosis?

One of my comments on this site.
PAS and the usual suspects

You can get a flavour at the negative energy that is invoked when this subject arises. Those who believe it is "junk science" start sliming the theory and then other people. I want readers to take note of the vehemence of these deniers of abuse and then ask your self some reasonable questions.

In the normal course of family relationships children can be abused. In many countries it is the single mom who leads in this category for both maltreatment and death. You should note that some of the most passionate critics of this malady are moms who lost custody. Their first counter-attack is to call the opposing parent an abuser. Some organize themselves around lawyers who make a lucrative living from referrals, and call themselves protective parents. Most of these do not have fathers with custody in them. They are dominated by moms who have lost custody. In the USA 84% of decisions give maternal custody so when a mom does lose custody any reasonable person has got to understand there are serious issues. In Canada it is even more pronounced with over 90% of physical custody given to moms.

In both countries PAS has passed the relevant scientific tests for evidence that being Frye and Mohan. That it has not been given an entry in the DSM is often brought up as an issue yet the APA recommends custody evaluators use Dr. Gardner's books on PAS as part of the tool kit for their work. We should, however, not get hung up on semantics. Anyone with any contact or knowledge of children can recognize alienation of a child from a parent. Anyone with any kind of practical training can determine the cause. Common sense tells and close observation shows most children feel a sense of guilt if they are being abused by a parent thinking they have done something wrong. They usually don't hate the parent with the intensity an alienated child does. Abused children will try and please the abuser in order to get back in their good graces. They do not say to them without fear or reservation, "you smell, you hate mommy or daddy, you have bad breath, you have germs, you are over/underweight, you dress poorly, you are old, ugly, not liked by anyone and this list goes on. They will say this to your face on access visits in the hope you will take them back to the custodial parent.

In Canada the legal literature shows about a 2-1 ratio in terms of decided court cases where mom was the alienator. It is not strictly a one gender issue. Parental Alienation is real and is emotional abuse of children. Anyone who denies this is a person enabling this abuse.MJM

Thursday, October 29, 2009
  • Video
  • Comments (111)
  • Some experts say the extreme hatred some kids feel toward a parent in a divorce is a mental illness

    Posted October 29, 2009

    From an early age, Anne was taught by her mother to fear her father. Behind his back, her mom warned that he was an unpredictable and dangerous; any time he'd invite her to do anything—a walk in the woods, a trip to the art store—she would craft an excuse not to go. "I was under the impression that he was crazy, that at any moment he could just pop and do something violent to hurt me," says Anne, who prefers that only her middle name be used to guard her family's privacy. Typical of a phenomenon some mental-health experts now label "parental alienation," her view of him became so negative, she says, that her mother persuaded her to lie during a custody hearing when the couple divorced. Then 14, she told the judge that her dad was physically abusive. Was he? "No," she says. "But I was convinced that he would [be]." After her mother won custody, Anne all but severed contact with her father for years.

    Click here to find out more!
    Video: Children's Health Quick Tips
    Video: Children's Health Quick Tips

    If a growing faction of the mental-health community has its way, Anne's experience will one day soon be an actual diagnosis. The concept of parental alienation, which is highly controversial, is being described as one in which children strongly attach to one parent and reject the other in the false belief that he or she is bad or dangerous. "It's heartbreaking," says William Bernet, a child and adolescent psychiatrist and professor at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, "to have your 10-year-old suddenly, in a matter of weeks, go from loving you and hiking with you...to saying you're a horrible, ugly person." These aren't kids who simply prefer one parent over the other, he says. That's normal. These kids doggedly resist contact with a parent, sometimes permanently, out of an irrational hate or fear.

    Bernet is leading an effort to add "parental alienation" to the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the American Psychiatric Association's "bible" of diagnoses, scheduled for 2012. He and some 50 contributing authors from 10 countries will make their case in the American Journal of Family Therapy early next year. Inclusion, says Bernet, would spur insurance coverage, stimulate more systematic research, lend credence to a charge of parental alienation in court, and raise the odds that children would get timely treatment.

    But many experts balk at labeling the phenomenon an official disorder. "I really get concerned about spreading the definition of mental illness too wide," says Elissa Benedek, a child and adolescent psychiatrist in Ann Arbor, Mich., and a past president of the APA. There's no question in her mind that kids become alienated from a loving parent in many divorces with little or no justification, and she's seen plenty of kids kick and scream all the way to the car when visitation is enforced. But, she says, "this is not a mentally ill child."

    The phenomenon has been described for many decades, but it became a cause célèbre in 1985, when Richard Gardner, a clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, coined the term "parental alienation syndrome." As more dads fought fiercely for joint custody, he observed a surge in the number of children suffering from a distinct cluster of symptoms, including a "campaign of denigration" against one parent that sometimes included a false sex-abuse accusation and automatic parroting of the other parent's views.

    But sound research supporting a medical label is scant, critics say. The American Psychological Association has issued a statement that "there is no evidence within the psychological literature of a diagnosable parental alienation syndrome." What's more, concern has grown that "PAS" could be invoked by an abusive parent to gain rights to a child who has good reason to refuse contact, says Janet Johnston, a clinical sociologist and justice studies professor at San Jose State University who has studied parental alienation. In teens, she notes, parental rejection might be a developmentally normal response. Anecdotal reports have surfaced that some kids labeled as "alienated" have become suicidal when courts have ordered a change of custody to the "hated" parent, she says.

    In any case, divorcing parents should be aware that hostilities may seriously harm the kids. Sometimes manipulation is blatant, as with parents who conceal phone calls, gifts, or letters, then use the "lack of contact" as proof that the other parent doesn't love the child. Sometimes the influence is more subtle ("I'm sure nothing bad will happen to you at Mommy's house") or even unintentional ("I've put a cellphone in your suitcase. Call when everyone's asleep to tell me you're OK"). It's important to shield kids from harmful communication, says Richard Warshak, a clinical professor of psychology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and author of Divorce Poison. If something potentially upsetting about an ex must be conveyed, he advises imagining how you would have handled the conversation while happily married; how would you have explained Mom's depression, say?

    "The long-term implications [of alienation] are pretty severe," says Amy Baker, director of research at the Vincent J. Fontana Center for Child Protection in New York and a contributing author of Bernet's proposal. In a study culminating in a 2007 book, Adult Children of Parental Alienation Syndrome, she interviewed 40 "survivors" and found that many were depressed, guilt ridden, and filled with self-loathing. Kids develop identity through relationships with both their parents, she says. When they are told one is no good, they believe, "I'm half no good."

    Now 23, divorced, and a parent herself, Anne has recognized only recently that she was manipulated, that her long-held view of her father isn't accurate. They live 2,000 miles apart but now try to speak daily. "I've missed out on a great friendship with my dad," she says. "It hurts."

    National Post editorial board: All-day kindergarten doesn't make sense

    Out of curiosity I did a little number crunching on current teacher demographics in Ontario by age category related to the following editorial in the National Post today just to see what the trend line looks like in our schools and indeed in the broader public service. Currently both the Provincial and Federal Public Service has a 55% female 45% male composition. Some of you will say there is Murphy on another one of his Feminist rants or if you are a mangina you might even call me intolerant names just like the feminists currently proffer periodically. Personally I could care less but I do have a need to elucidate (not hallucinate) on matters of males being discounted and females given greater value in almost all aspects of our daily discourse. My target, however, is not women it is feminists and politicians just in case someone was going to do the usual and call me a misogynist. I love women especially those like Sass and Kat26 who stand up and assert their equality. My crunching covers the current age groups by gender as follows and their dominance. Total teachers registered in the Province 219,181 - more to come courtesy of McQuinty. Total Female = 149,636 Male = 59,968 Ratio is not quite 3-1 female to male at 265.50% >female It gets more interesting when you break them out by age cohort. Watch the trending from young to older Age 20-30 female 32,421 male 8,012 Female lead by 404.66% Age 31-40 f - 47,069 m -17,303 Female lead by 272.03% Age 41-50 f - 36,016 m -15,134 Female lead by 237.98% Age 51-60 f - 33,707 m -14,116 Female lead by 238.79% Age 61+ f -10,000 m - 5,403 Female lead by 185.08% Trending is obvious in that we have far fewer male teachers and accelerating under the McQuinty lefty Liberals. Why are males not interested in teaching? What impediments are in play through the schooling of boys that causes them to turn away from teaching as men? Here is possibly one reason and is a true story - " A couple of weeks ago an older girl bullied a 9 year old boy and roughed him up some. He did what we told him was right and he reported the incident to the female principal and female teacher. He was told not to be a sissy, nothing was done. A few days later he and a male friend were playing a bit rough and all hell broke lose. They were doing nothing wrong just being boys. They are still close friends but don't really understand why they were disciplined and the other incident was ignored. Try and explain to a 9 year old that this is the way it is. How does one explain the statement made, I can do this because I am a girl. What is this teaching young males." This is not isolated and goes on every day all across this country but in many and various ways. I haven't yet found the demographics for our other largest tax cost industry of health care but I will source them someday. I will posit I will find a largely female dominated Industry as well with trends of greater domination coming particularly in the higher ranks of Doctors. Wake up men - you are being feminized and marginalized in many ways and you do not even see it.

    National Post editorial board: All-day kindergarten doesn't make sense
    Posted: October 29, 2009, 2:00 PM by NP Editor

    Given Ontario's massive deficit, why is Premier Dalton McGuinty focused on imposing an expensive, full-day kindergarten program on the province?

    Cynics will say that the project is about burnishing his legacy, about leaving future generations of Ontarians something more than red ink. He's practically said as much, suggesting that once his kindergarten program was passed, "I find it hard to see somebody seeking to undo [it]."

    He is, of course, right: It is much harder to take away expensive entitlements than it is to introduce them in the first place. This is one of the reasons that the nanny state-- of which Mr. McGuinty might be considered governess-in-chief, these days -- is anxious to get into the business of hiring literal all-day nannies for Ontario's five-year-olds.

    The Canadian Christian Heritage Party declares open season on men

    The following is the CHP's rationalization for their declaration of open season on males in Canada. 

     Tue, 27 Oct 2009 Dear Thank you for your question regarding our platform statement: The CHP will maintain the registration of handguns but would restore the right of Canadians, especially women, to own .32 and .25 calibre weapons of barrel lengths shorter than 4.1 inches. Small handguns in the hands of women would do much to end the fear they currently experience because of violent ex-partners. 


    The intent of "especially women" was not to suggest that domestic violence is primarily perpetrated by men against women. As you correctly point out, statistics show that men and women are about equal in abuse. However, they also show that more serious injury and death are generally men assaulting women. I've quoted below from a Macleans article from July 2006 entitled "Breakup Blast". Domestic violence goes across all relationships. But serious injury and death -- it's men stalking and killing women," says Peter Jaffe, a professor at the University of Western Ontario and academic director of the Centre for Research on Violence Against Women and Children in London. 


    The smaller calibre guns are lighter weight and easier for women to carry in a purse. That was the point behind specifying women. I hope this clears up that our intent was not to fear monger or bash men, rather it was to assure that women would also be able to defend themselves by having the ability to carry a light weapon. Vicki Gunn Executive Director CHP Canada This is my response to their policy.


    What they don't get is that 999,993 men out of every million male voters to not kill their spouses and the vast majority of Canadians do not get affected by DV. In families where it does occur it is pretty much equal and the women very likely initiates more than the man. Why you ask? Simply because she knows she can because the vast majority of men are socialized to not retaliate. 


     Mike Murphy Wednesday, October 28, 2009 9:24 PM To: electjim@rogers.com Cc: Jeremy Swanson


    Subject: Election pandering to women, to own .32 and .25 calibre weapons It was brought to my attention you are pandering to the feminist minority to enable all women, at the exclusion of men, to carry handguns with the sole purpose of killing men perceived by the woman to be a predator. It sounds like a licence for open season on males.



    I have been advised you are aware Intimate Partner Violence In Canada is about equal. The most recent figures from a 2004 Social Survey by Statistics Canada "Family Violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2005" shows an estimated 7% of women and 6% of men representing 653,000 women and 546,000 men in a current or previous spousal relationship encountered spousal violence during the five years up to and including 2004. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/Daily/English/050714/d050714a.htm 


    Men are seriously injured in about 1/3 of these cases. You must, therefore, make note of this and provide for these men as well other wise it is blatant sexism you are promoting. In a country that has roughly 16.1 million females you are going to promote all of the adults of that gender who would like to, can carry hidden handguns because a tiny minority suffer physical abuse. The 653,000 who reported abuse of all kinds, is 7% of the then population and that is - I repeat - all forms of abuse.


     Physical abuse causing injury is a tiny proportion of even the 7%. In terms of spousal homicides in relation to the population of the country it is minuscule. On the basis of per million couples this is how it works out. 999,997 women do not kill their male spouses and 999,993 men do not kill their female spouses. I think we will see the male deaths increase under your proposal and in an effort to protect themselves we may see more illegal handguns in the possession of men. Contrary to Jaffe's narrow perspective women are more likely than men to stalk, attack and psychologically abuse their partners, according to a University of Florida study that finds college women have a new view of the dating scene. In a separate survey of 1,490 UF students, one quarter (25 percent) said they had been stalked during the past year and 7 percent reported engaging in stalking, of whom a majority (58 percent) were female. 


     Here are a few more studies you might want to consult. Virtually all empirical survey data shows women initiate domestic violence at least as often as men in heterosexual relationships and that men suffer one-third of physical injuries from domestic violence. Over 200 of these studies (and growing), using various methodologies, are summarized by Professor Martin Fiebert at http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm


    Harvard Medical School and the American Psychiatric Association both recently announced a major national study in the U.S. that found half of heterosexual domestic violence is reciprocal and that: "Regarding perpetration of violence, more women than men (25 percent versus 11 percent) were responsible. In fact, 71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women." 

    http://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/newsarticle.aspx?articleid=111137     The study also found: "As for physical injury due to intimate partner violence, it was more likely to occur when the violence was reciprocal than nonreciprocal. And while injury was more likely when violence was perpetrated by men, in relationships with reciprocal violence it was the men who were injured more often (25 percent of the time) than were women (20 percent of the time)." 


     A recent 32-nation study by the University of New Hampshire found women are as violent and as controlling as men in dating relationships worldwide. http://www.unh.edu/news/cj_nr/2006/may/em_060519male.cfm?type=n You quote Professor Jaffe and he is one of the feminist researchers who is famous for using very one sided data in his studies. He usually uses and reports only on subjects from transition shelters but never reports on how violent the women in the shelters have been toward their male partners. You will see from the above research you will be definitely putting a premium on females and putting a discount on being male. 


     Did you know lesbian partners have a higher DV rate than heterosexual partners? Under your agenda both of them can have hand guns. I will be advising male colleagues across Canada about your intentions and will ask all men to work diligently against your anti-male and ultimately anti-family agenda unless you reconsider it. It is a highly divisive and polarizing proposal. 


    Mike Murphy Sault Ste. Marie ON P6A 6J8 Promote Bill C-422 Equal Shared Parenting



    Wednesday, October 28, 2009

    Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Involvement after Separation and Divorce:

    The Fatherhood Involvement Research Alliance and

    The Social Science and

    Humanities Research Council of Canada

    present…

    Dr. Edward Kruk,

    University of British Columbia,

    School of Social Work

    Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Involvement after

    Separation and Divorce:

    A Workshop for Parents and Professionals

    1. What do we know about separated and divorced fathers?
    2. How do we ensure responsible father involvement?
    3. Shared parenting after separation and divorce: How do we make it work in the best interests of children?

    This presentation will examine the barriers to fatherhood involvement with children after parental separation, and ways of overcoming those barriers, including a new approach to child custody and access after divorce.

    Kamloops
    
    Thursday October 22nd, 2009
    7:00-9:00PM
    Tournament Capital Centre
    910 McGill- Road Room C
    Kamloops, BC
    
    Vernon
    
    Friday October 23rd, 2009
    7:00-9:00PM
    The People Place
    101-3402 27 Avenue
    Vernon, BC
    
    Nanaimo
    
    Wednesday October 28th, 2009
    7:00-9:00PM
    Beban Park Recreational Centre
    500 Bowen Road, Room #19
    Nanaimo, BC
    
    Victoria
    
    Thursday October 29th, 2009
    7:00-9:00PM
    Fairfield Community Place- Garry Oak Room
    1330 Fairfield Rd
    Victoria, BC
    
    Vancouver
    
    Wednesday November 4th 2009,
    7:00—9:00 pm
    Council Chambers, City of Coquitlam
    3000 Guildford Way
    Coquitlam, B.C.
    
    Toronto
    
    Saturday November 21st, 2009
    2:00PM-4:00PM
    North York Central Library- Auditorium
    5120 Yonge Street,
    North York, Ontario
    

    Tuesday, October 27, 2009

    In Ireland ~ Children are the losers when parents go to court to battle

    Its comforting to see someone familiar with Irish Family Law, which treats dads in a manner similar to Canada (talk about world pandemics) make a suggestion about compulsory courses on shared parenting and I would also add counselling prior to litigation. It is one of many reforms required in Family Law in many countries to firstly try and save marriages and secondly to get agreement before hiring a greedy Lawyer who tend to raise the stakes and the resulting adversity. They are "hired guns" not mediators and want to obtain the best deal for their clients and their egos. Dr. Jayne Major has a comprehensive reform package elsewhere in this blog.MJM

    Tuesday, October 27, 2009 SHEILA WAYMAN

    THE ADVERSARIAL legal system is no use at all in reaching the best solution for children when their parents separate, according to psychotherapist and author John Sharry.

    Judges, caught between two angry parents, think they can become little heroes and sort it out for the children, he says, “but the heroic thing to do would be to try to get the parents to sort it out”.

    He believes the courts should make a course on shared parenting mandatory for parents before hearing disputes over custody and access. That would help to impress on parents the need for co-operation for the sake of the children.

    Shared parenting, through which children have access to quality contact and care from both parents, has been proven to be the best outcome in most family break-ups, he argues.

    The rate of marriage breakdown is on the rise in the Republic, with 6,222 separations and divorces in 2008, an increase of 15.6 per cent from 2001. Parental separation is second only to the death of a parent in the amount of stress it causes children.

    “The single biggest factor in whether children will do well is the level of hostility between their parents,” says Sharry, co-author of a new edition of When Parents Separate: Helping Your Children Cope, published by Veritas. “If that is reduced and the parents can co-operate in the best interests of their children, then all the damage is mitigated.”

    Working in the Mater Child and Adolescent Mental Health service in Dublin, Sharry says the fallout from parental separation is a significant issue in children’s mental health.

    “At the end they usually only have one active parent, who is compromised. Everyone is in a worse situation.”

    It does not have to be like that, he stresses, but shared parenting is challenging. He advises parents that going to court only increases the difficulties.

    “When you fight your ex-partner over the children, everybody loses. A lot of money is spent and you can aggravate the difficulties for you and your children.”

    He has worked with families who have made huge progress in drawing up a mediated agreement. “But when they go to solicitors, their differences are aggravated, their tensions are aggravated and then they all have a go in court.”

    He has never seen court action useful in creating shared parenting. “If you impose a judgment, it is always second best to an agreement.”

    He acknowledges that if there are power differences, for example where one parent is not letting the other see a child at all, the court can help to rebalance that, but it should then tell the parents to sort the arrangements. He also welcomes the increase in the use of collaborative law outside the court system to help parents reach agreement.

    It is often not feasible for two former partners to live separately but nearby, particularly in the current economic climate. If they have to remain under the one roof, some do find ways to make it work for the children.

    Sharry worked with one family where the father had moved into a separate part of the house. “It wasn’t great, but I think their children preferred that. The problem is if the partners want new partners, which they tend to do.”

    There is an onus on parents to stay close after a break-up, Sharry explains. “Your desire might be to go to a new country and get away from the past. But if you are bringing children with you, you are really depriving them. Children are for life – it means you have a commitment to the place you have them,” he adds. “There are no easy outs.”

    A new edition of When Parents Separate: Helping Your Children Cope , written by John Sharry and Eugene Donohoe, is published by Veritas, €8.

    A talk of the same title will be given by John Sharry next Tuesday, November 3rd, in Donnycarney Community Centre, Dublin, 8pm-9.30pm, admission €20. To book, or for more information, see www.solutiontalk.ie or tel: 086-7340114.

    This article appears in the print edition of the Irish Times

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2009/1027/1224257487235.html

    Monday, October 26, 2009

    The Feminists and Political Panderers are at it again ~ Stronger Protection For Women And Children

    More pandering by the left to the feminists. It does not matter that DV is pretty much equal between genders, that the most dangerous place for a child is in the care of a single mom, that in some studies it shows females initiating DV in 70% of the cases, in more recent studies it shows females will suffer fewer injuries if they do not initiate the abuse, and there are no DV shelters for men even though they are seriously injured in a third of cases. The legislation is blatantly and prejudicially aimed at men but read further below over its origins. Restraining orders only work for honest people. If someone truly wants to harm their partner no piece of paper will stop them. Its like a padlock that will only keep honest people out. How many criminals will it keep out? The genesis of the legislation was the death of Katelyn Sampson, a small innocent girl at the hands of a drug addicted female hooker, who was her guardian approved by Bentley's court system, and her Mother who gave her over to the addict was also hooked on drugs. They were recipients of the largess of Ontario taxpayers. This kind of legislation is designed to pander to the DV Industry and the ideologues who work in academia, the Status Of Women offices and the AG's department.MJM October 26, 2009 1:45 PM McGuinty Government Reforms Family Justice For Ontarians

    Restraining orders in Ontario have been strengthened to improve the security of those suffering from domestic violence, most of whom are women and children.

    A breach of a restraining order made under the new provisions will now be prosecuted as a criminal offence. This increases the protections available to victims of domestic violence. For example, if a person is charged with breaching a restraining order and is likely to re-offend if released, a judge or justice of the peace can now detain this person until the trial.

    This part of Ontario's family law reform legislation came into force on October 15, 2009. The legislation also expanded protections to allow partners who live together in a relationship for less than three years to apply for restraining orders.

    QUICK FACTS
    • A new evidentiary test sets out considerations for judges when granting restraining orders.
    • The judiciary now has clear authority to order specific terms in restraining orders, to better protect victims of domestic violence and their children.

    "These changes will mean victims of domestic violence will have increased protections in what is often their time of greatest need. More Ontarians will now have access to restraining orders, helping them to keep themselves and their children safe from harm."

    – Chris Bentley Attorney General


    "Ontario's new family law reforms will offer more protection to women who are being abused and provide better opportunities for them to build brighter futures for themselves and their children. This is an important step in moving forward on our government's agenda to help women and children live free from fear of domestic violence."

    – Laurel Broten Minister Responsible for Women's Issues

    http://www.news.ontario.ca/mag/en/2009/10/stronger-protection-for-women-and-children.html

    CONTACTS

    • Brendan Crawley Communications Branch (416) 326-2210
    Ministry of the Attorney General ontario.ca/attorneygeneral

    THE BEST Put Down LINE EVER? Major General Peter Cosgrove is an 'Australian treasure!'

    This story is priceless and aroused a strong urge within me to have a verbal duel with a feminist. On a Monday morning no less. Unfortunately it is a hoax but a damn good one. http://www.snopes.com/military/reinwald.aspMJM General Cosgrove was interviewed on the radio recently. Read his reply to the lady who interviewed him concerning guns and children. Regardless of how you feel about gun laws you've got to love this! This is one of the bes,t comeback lines of all time. It is a portion of an ABC radio interview between a female broadcaster and General Cosgrove who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military Headquarters. FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Cosgrove, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base? GENERAL COSGROVE: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery and shooting. FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it? GENERAL COSGROVE: I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range. FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children? GENERAL COSGROVE: I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm. FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent killers. GENERAL COSGROVE: Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you? The radio cast went silent for 46 seconds and when it returned, the interview was over.

    Sunday, October 25, 2009

    Caroline Overington in OZ out does herself ~ Replace shared care with Canada model

    My letter to the editor of the Paper:
    fromMike Murphy
    sender timeSent at 17:43 (GMT-04:00). Current time there: 18:02.
    toletters@theaustralian.com.au
    cconline@theaustralian.com.au
    date25 October 2009 17:43
    subjectCaroline Overington "Replace shared care with Canada model"
    My Dear Editor: Re: Caroline Overington "Replace shared care with Canada model", October 29, 2009
    I have followed Ms. Overington's feminist rants over the years and always wondered why there was no counter balancing to these views which are often factually incorrect. There is no exception with this article. I also find it interesting she gets her facts wrong from the Australian women's movement frequently but now dares venture to the top of the world and quotes from feminist lawyers reports which are famous for their lack of veracity and use of mendacity. There is no difference in feminist discourse it appears no matter its national source. The information used is to promote feminist privilege and maternalist superiority often through the use of cherry picked statistics or pure fiction. In Canada judges order maternal custody in over 90% of cases. They offer breadcrumbs to dads through the use of a legal fiction called joint custody but physical custody goes to mom who rules. Possession is not just 9/10ths of the law it is the whole of the law. Is this the model Australia aspires to by going backwards. Why doesn't Overington discus the Danish, Dutch, Belgian or French model? Perhaps even the German Cochem example? All are representative of shared parenting in practice and working for children and parents alike. A few observations on her lack of sources and citation. "THE Rudd government has been urged to replace shared parenting laws with a model similar to that of Canada..." Urged by whom? "The Australian understands that the Canadian model has been put to Attorney-General Robert McClelland..." Put to the AG by whom - a feminist lawyer group with less than 50 members in a country of 31 million? She quotes not just herself as "understanding" but your newspaper.
    "Unlike the Australian family law regime, Canada does not require a court to presume that the best interests of the child are met by shared parenting" ..."It is unlikely that a breastfeeding baby would be placed in a shared care arrangement, as happens in Australia under the shared parenting law;" There is no shared parenting law in Canada, as yet, but bill C-422 is on the Parliamentary order table. If no shared parenting then the court presumes the status quo of maternal care which was the status quo in Australia prior to 2006.
    Overington is using the non-existence of a shared parenting regime in Canada to propose Australia, in effect, go back to the status quo. Interesting circular logic. We call that a Non sequitur in most English speaking countries and indeed others. "Canadian states and territories spell out some of the tests for the "best interests" principle." Overington needs to do more research on the socio-political and geographic nature of Canada. We have no states but we do have 3 territories on top of the world, one of which lays claim to the North Pole housing a magical figure called Santa Claus. Some of Overington's statements and conclusions are just as magical perhaps even mythological. The Canadian Divorce Act, and most Provincially related Family legislation, is gender neutral but yet judges still award maternal custody in a 9-1 ratio to moms. I would suggest our judges need direction, as did yours, in balancing the gender difference. Our research by experts like Professor Edward Kruk, at the University Of British Columbia (the latter a Province) shows parents need a minimal 40% contact rate to maintain a parental bond. He also describes numerous negative social outcomes for children in sole care homes. Can I recommend you hire a male reporter to help balance your reporting and opinion columns by feminists. It might make those like Overington actually do real research. Mike Murphy
    Promote Bill C-422 Equal Shared Parenting

    Caroline Overington | October 26, 2009

    Article from: The Australian

    THE Rudd government has been urged to replace shared parenting laws with a model similar to that of Canada, where shared parenting after divorce is not necessarily considered in the best interests of the child.

    The Australian understands that the Canadian model has been put to Attorney-General Robert McClelland as an option to consider as he wrestles with changes to the reforms introduced by the Howard government in 2006.

    Canada places the interests of the child ahead of the right of either parent to insist upon a shared-care arrangement.

    Unlike the Australian family law regime, Canada does not require a court to presume that the best interests of the child are met by shared parenting.

    It encourages the courts to take into account the benefit to children of having a relationship with both parents after divorce, but also takes into account the roles played by each party before separation, and the consequences to children of too much disruption in their lives.

    It is unlikely that a breastfeeding baby would be placed in a shared care arrangement, as happens in Australia under the shared parenting law; nor is it likely that children would be ordered into an arrangement that sees them woken from naps to visit their other parent, as also happens here. It is understood that the Canadian model has been put to Mr McClelland in the form of submissions from women lawyers, and from women's groups opposed to the shared parenting laws.

    It is also understood that the main group representing divorced and separated men, the Shared Parenting Council, has put up no alternative to the current regime.

    The group missed the deadline for submissions to the review of the law being chaired by retired family court judge Richard Chisholm. Rather than proceed without a paper from the fathers group, Professor Chisholm has offered to take a late submission.

    Child custody in Canada is governed by the Divorce Act, which says that courts shall "take into consideration only the best interests of the child of the marriage".

    That formulation is supported by case law, which also puts the interests of the child first.

    Canadian states and territories spell out some of the tests for the "best interests" principle.

    Some say any disruption of the child's life must be taken into account before shared care is considered.

    Men's groups have tried to bring shared parenting to Canada, most recently in August, but so far they have failed.

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,26259132-17044,00.html

    Saturday, October 24, 2009

    MELANIE PHILLIPS: If we don't take children and benefits from incapable mothers, the alternative is social catastrophe

    By Melanie Phillips Last updated at 10:06 AM on 07th September 2009

    Once again, Britain is recoiling from the sickening spectacle of childhood innocence being turned into its monstrous antithesis.

    Two young brothers aged ten and 11 from Edlington, South Yorkshire, subjected two other little boys aged nine and 11 to sadistic attack and torture, leaving one fighting for his life.

    What is so horrifying is that the attackers showed no empathy whatsoever with the suffering of another living being.

    A sketch of the two brothers facing Sheffield Crown Court

    A sketch of the two brothers facing Sheffield Crown Court. They will be sentenced next month.

    People call these boys 'evil' because such absence of feeling is inhuman. But they are not evil. They are children.

    We are all born with the capacity for both good and bad. Everything depends on whether the immature child is raised in a way that develops the good and discourages the bad, or whether something goes wrong with that process.

    To label these boys 'evil' is to let the real villains off the hook. These children are the product of evil attitudes within the adult world.

    Their personalities have been warped and their ability to feel for others blocked off because they have been deprived of the essential condition for developing into normally functioning human beings: a secure and loving family in which the basics of civilised life are programmed into children's characters.

    Instead, they were abandoned to fend for themselves in a pit of absolute degradation, cruelty and inhumanity.

    Their mother, who has seven sons by three fathers, is an alcoholic and drug addict who left them to forage from rubbish bins and fed them cannabis to keep them quiet; their father is a drunken brute, who regularly beat them and forced them to watch violent horror films.

    We know that there are thousands of other children being raised in broadly similar backgrounds. There are areas of the country where the overriding problem is not material poverty but social, cultural and spiritual disintegration - at the heart of which is the collapse of family life.

    Children are being born to lone mothers who were themselves raised in shattered homes by mothers who in turn came from identical backgrounds. The outcome is households in which children are neglected and maltreated, subjected to drug and alcohol abuse, violence and emotional chaos; and where the cruelty and indifference they endure is often translated into the sadistic way they treat others.

    Indeed, only last week we learned of another case, in West Yorkshire, where three boys aged 13 and 14 pleaded guilty to stripping, kicking and beating a 13-year-old with wire and bricks.

    Of course, only a tiny minority of children grow into attackers or sadists. And many lone parents do a heroic job in raising their children to become responsible adults. But the fact remains that family disintegration sets up chronic disadvantages for a child. Where these are not addressed, a cycle of deprivation is often transmitted down through the generations which replaces civilised behaviour by sheer savagery.

    For the past three decades, warnings that the disintegration of the family would result in social catastrophe were brushed aside. What was deemed more important was never to hurt the feelings of those living in fragmented households and to throw welfare benefits at them instead.

    Those who objected that this merely fuelled family breakdown were told they were cruel and heartless because depriving such families of welfare benefits would harm the children.

    Now in Edlington we can all see the result: four child victims, two of them horrifically attacked and tortured by two others whose very humanity has been taken away from them.

    Barnardo's chief Martin Narey says babies should be removed from bad parents

    Barnardo's chief Martin Narey says babies should be removed from bad parents

    The question now is what to do about a problem that has become a social and cultural emergency. When Iain Duncan Smith's Social Justice Commission refers to 'broken Britain', it is not exaggerating.

    Mr Duncan Smith himself suggests various imaginative schemes to repair such families, such as ones where both mother and child are taken into care. But such projects are too expensive and intensive to be applied to all the shattered lives which are growing so exponentially.

    The problem has to be tackled at source. That's why the head of Barnardo's, , has now said babies born to such mothers should be removed from them at birth and adopted.

    That may sound harsh - but the alternative, in smashed personalities, brutality and sadism, is much harsher. And all the evidence suggests that adopted children generally do very well indeed.

    By contrast, the care offered by social services is often worse than useless. Despite the fact that it knew all about the Edlington boys' previous history of sadistic behaviour, Doncaster social services - which itself has a record of gross inadequacy - placed them with a foster couple who not surprisingly were totally unable to control such deeply disturbed children.

    Whatever needs to be done to address the weakness in social work, surely what is necessary is not just to try to pick up the pieces of shattered family life but to prevent it from breaking in the first place.

    The key is to switch off the motor behind this catastrophe: the prevailing attitudes of a ruling elite which, pretending to be non-judgmental about family background, has actually smashed the traditional family to smithereens.

    Far from alleviating poverty, distress and misery, these self-regarding 'progressives' instead created and perpetuated these ills. Holding that the real crime was not to produce neglected or emotionally disturbed children but to ' stigmatise' those who raised them in such a way, they incentivised family breakdown by handing out welfare benefits with no conditions attached to behaviour.

    Through being paid automatically the birth of every child, child benefit has been an effective engine of mass fatherlessness. Other benefits, housing and child care payments offered to lone parents similarly rest on the assumption that the main problem to be addressed is always material poverty.

    But this is merely one aspect of these mothers' desperate need, which is rooted overwhelmingly in the fact that they cannot cope with looking after themselves, let alone their children.

    The independence afforded by the current benefits set-up is thus often a tragic delusion and cruel trap. Accordingly, a more humane response to unmarried motherhood is to treat it for what it really is - a potential disaster for both mother and baby.

    Both should be looked after in motherand-baby units with specialised help. Turning off the benefits spigot would also remove the financial incentives that have made such disasters a commonplace - as indeed was intended by the well-heeled intelligentsia, who set out to make unmarried motherhood 'normal' but whose own income cushioned themselves against the worst of the damage that the removal of such constraints on behaviour inflicted upon the poor.

    Hurling accusations of 'heartlessness' against their opponents concealed the fact that these 'progressives' were themselves causing unlimited damage and misery - not to mention a steady supply of jobs for themselves in interventionist programmes to 'rescue' the lives they were so cavalierly continuing to destroy.

    It is those people who made morality into a dirty word. Since the essence of morality is feeling for others, and since the essence of psychopathy is the absence of any such feeling, is it any wonder that the result of the doctrines imposed by these 'progressives' has been the creation of psychopathic children?

    The Edlington disaster can therefore be laid at their door. The next time they start moaning about flint-hearted 'moralisers' they should be firmly reminded of that fact. The rest of us have a society to rescue before it is all finally too late.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1211620/MELANIE-PHILLIPS.html#

    Friday, October 23, 2009

    Stephen Taylor: Liberals imply domestic violence caused by Tory government

    Two of my comments within the thread of this article.
    Oct 23 2009 4:26 AM Mike Murphy

    ______________________________

    The DV industry in Canada is a heavily invested and multi-faceted ecosystem to promulgate misandry against men. It is the epicentre of today's 3rd wave Feminist movement focusing on victimization of women. It is called Victim, Gender or Life Boat Feminism.

    Within this Industry an ideology surrounding a psuedo-scientific mantra is used that posits a patriarchy rules all women's lives and they are victims of it. It is called the Duluth Wheel and in its simplest form describes all men as abusers and women victims. According to it we men use control on females as a primary mechanism whether it be psychological or physically coercive.

    That is why the feminists will tell you there are not enough women in whatever positions they identify to you whether it is MP's or in the Board Room. All things that are wrong with females not getting to high office (even if they are) are because men dictate they should not be there.

    This, of course, gets feminists off the hook for everything based on merit or choice because they are mere malleable puppets in our hands. It is though they are still children in adult bodies.

    It is all bunk of course but they believe it to the core and like any ideology if it is challenged they yell loudly enough that the eunuchs in the political, judicial, lawyering, and chattering classes turn on their politically correct persona and dutifully do what they are told. Iggy doesn't truly believe the crap but has no choice but to go along with it because he has been eunuchized. (similar to lobotomized but a different organ is involved) That is truly a pandemic amongst the political classes, with some notable exceptions, and there is no current vaccine other than common sense which gets seriously vaporized within the feminist rhetoric.

    It is my view the DV industry exacerbates the friction involved in divorce and may be the reason for some of the more egregious acts of violence. They counsel their clients to make false allegations, leave the family, use the Duluth Wheel to indoctrinate the client to the ways of victim feminism, and offer no hope the family can be salvaged due to the psycho-babble inherent in the ideology they use. They also get all clients to sign non-disclosure agreements so the truth will not get out from their umbrella of secrecy.

    Gosh I'm starting to write another chapter in my book again but this does arouse a passion in me. Let me close by advising there is great interconnectedness between the DV shelters, the lawyers in family law, academics seeking tax money for studies of women at shelters, the Police, Legal Aid Agencies in each province, the DOJ in each Province and the Status of Women Canada the lead victim feminist agency in the country. Each Province has on its payroll similar ideologues. In Ontario alone the Minister for Status of Women has $208,000,000.00 for female related issues and if you include legal aid it is far more. Chris Bentley, AG, Ontario's leading Eunuch in the Attorney Generals Department just found $150,000,000.00 more for legal aid 70% of which is targeted at women.

    There is 0, non, nada, targeted for men's issues and not one tax supported DV shelter for men in the country even though at least one third of serious injuries from inter partner violence happens to men. This does not include men who are psychologically destroyed by women with serious personality problems. There are about 550 women's tax supported shelters in Canada.

    DV is a serious issue but in the overall scheme of things gets far greater prominence that it should. For example when you compare the rate of homicide of intimate partners on a million couple basis you will find 999,997 women do not kill their spouse and 999,992 men do not kill their female partner. Feminists would have you believe every women is in imminent danger of her male partner. It is bogus and a canard but we have two generations of brainwashed men and women to untether from their mental image of the problem. Barb Kay is one such very brave journalist and more are realizing the mythology is hurting families and women themselves.

    by Mike Murphy

    Oct 23 2009 2:46 AM

    "Under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government, women are increasingly at risk for domestic abuse and violence."

    This is similar to many feminist statements and myths about DV.

    Its interesting to observe feminist lawyers who will assert, for example, that over 50 allegations of abuse were made against a dad seeking access to a child. The purpose in making the statement to the judge and the press was to vilify the dad and not allow him access. All of the allegations were made by the mother - none were proven - but the mere fact they were made is used as a weapon against dads frequently.

    An article recently appeared in the Christian Science Monitor (CSM) again using the same tactics. allegations = fact. Always read between the lines and never believe a feminist statement without fact checking. My letter to the CSM with respect to that misinformation is as follows:

    Re: Christian Science Monitor, 10/14/09. Author Kathleen Russell

    You allowed this author to publish unsubstantiated claims with respect to cases in Marin County CA, and offering unsupported and erroneous information relating to a theory of abuse of children called Parental Alienation Syndrome.

    I am guessing this was offered to the author as an opinion piece and was published without authentication by your editor. You will escape liability for slander on it because she didn't name names but one of the cases she obliquely refers to is well known involving the kidnapping by a so called protective parent of a child. This parent was subsequently arrested, jailed and tried but found to have personality related issues, which is not uncommon. She got a gender discount.

    For future reference moms are the largest cohort of abusers and killers of children in the USA. They are also given sole custody of children in 84% of all cases in the USA. Ms. Russell's opinion which states otherwise is no more than that and is factually incorrect. Allegations of abuse are not proven facts of abuse. If allegations were the only criteria of proof most of the country would be in jail. I can easily cite you any number of allegations that are untrue and ought never be used to obfuscate the truth.

    I am disappointed in your publication and frankly will have trouble believing anything that appears in it again.

    Mike Murphy

    I note Denis used the stats from the 1999 social survey by Stats Can. These are on a 5 year cycle and the 2004 numbers show a decline in DV between males and females. The numbers for that survey show an estimated 7% of women and 6% of men representing 653,000 women and 546,000 men in a current or previous spousal relationship encountered spousal violence during the five years up to and including 2004, according to a comprehensive Statistics Canada report on family violence.

    www.statcan.gc.ca/.../d050714a.htm

    DV is pretty much equal in Canada and men are injured although women are injured in greater frequency due to their smaller size. The interesting thing is in recent studies it shows females initiating the violence in over 70% of cases and also it shows they are less likely to be injured if they don't initiate it.

    MJM

    Posted: October 22, 2009, 6:30 PM by NP Editor

    Something on page 24 of the Liberal Pink Book leaped out at me:

    Preventing Violence Against Women

    Under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government, women are increasingly at risk for domestic abuse and violence.

    It’s pretty sloppy writing at best, deliberate partisan muddying on a serious issue at worst.

    While the Pink Book doesn’t go on to say that Paul Martin supports child pornography and thus this gaffe will not be covered with the same vigor by the press, it deserves to be called out.

    Consider that this sentence is similar: Under Jean Chretien’s Liberal government, Canadians were murdered in the thousands.

    Oct 22 2009 7:15 PM

    Under any current national government, whether Conservative or Liberal, Canadians are being murdered at the rate of one hundred thousand every year.

    by rossbcan
    Oct 22 2009 7:28 PM

    "Preventing Violence Against Women"

    By definition requires preemptive justice, speculation of "experts" (undoubtedly self interested and corrupt) that some freedoms (undoubtedly of males) must be curbed or aggression initiated (against males) because they "might" choose violence.

    Same as Iraq, a war crime...

    Nothing is REAL until the facts are on the table. We live in an action precedes consequence REALITY.

    Law can only rationally respond after the facts are on the table. Anything else is irrational, telepathetic speculation. And, VERY DANGEROUS.

    by Sassylassie
    Oct 22 2009 7:43 PM

    Preventing violence against women is liberal speakezze for pre-crime and thought crimes just like Section 13. It's smoke and mirrors, the libs had decades to do something for females and universial childcare and they did zip well they lavished funds on Quebec for childcare didn't they?

    by WCF
    Oct 22 2009 7:59 PM

    Correct me if I am wrong but the majority of the violence in Vancouver region is from immigrants...Would it not make sense to conclude that Jean Chretien and all those Liberal PM's before him, who supported mass immigration, are at total fault for the murders in Vancouver?

    by vanbengler
    Oct 22 2009 8:46 PM

    Hello all;

    this you may find interesting: Source: Statistics Canada. Google search command: Number of homicides in Canada

    Homicide offences, number and rate, by province and territory

    (Number of homicides) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

    homicides

    Canada 549 624 663 606 594

    Newfoundland and Labrador 5 2 11 7 3

    Prince Edward Island 1 0 0 1 0

    Nova Scotia 8 14 20 16 13

    New Brunswick 8 7 9 7 8

    Quebec 99 111 100 93 90

    Ontario 178 187 219 196 201

    Manitoba 43 50 49 39 62

    Saskatchewan 41 39 43 42 30

    Alberta 64 86 108 95 88

    British Columbia 94 113 101 108 88

    Yukon 1 7 1 0 2

    Northwest Territories 4 4 0 0 2

    Nunavut 3 4 2 2 7

    Source: Statistics Canada, CANSIM, table (for fee) 253-0001.

    Last modified: 2008-10-23.

    Find information related to this table (CANSIM table(s); Definitions, data sources and methods; The Daily; publications; and related Summary tables).

    interesting: Canadians being murdered by the hundreds of thousands? Somehow I don't think so . . .

    By my calculations "we" have murdered 3036 citizens in the last five years . . . the latest statistics for murder rates in the USA in 2005 alone are over 16,000 . . .

    Brian Leslie Engler

    Brian Leslie Engler

    by vanbengler
    Oct 22 2009 9:13 PM

    Hello all;

    On every package of cigarrettes (you) buy it says that cancer contributed to by smoking killed 45,000 citizens last year alone.

    And we are upset by a comparatively few violent murders . . . ?

    Give me a break . . . .

    Brian Leslie Engler

    by Denis Pakkala
    Oct 22 2009 9:43 PM

    The Liberal Pink Book will continue to erode the rights and liberty of men by acceptance of feminist ideology that only women are victims and men are perpetrators.

    GOVERNMENT OF CANADA

    www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/.../Intimate_Partner.pdf

    Statistics Canada reports that "ALMOST EQUAL PROPORTIONS OF MEN AND WOMEN (7% and 8% respectively) had been the victims of intimate partner physical and psychological abuse (18% and 19% respectively). These findings were consistent with several earlier studies which reported equal rates of abuse by women and men in intimate relationships"

    by vanbengler
    Oct 22 2009 9:48 PM

    Hey rossbcan;

    Re "Law can only rationally respond after the facts are on the table. Anything else is irrational, telepathetic speculation. And, VERY DANGEROUS." (end quote)

    Interestingly enough, I agree with you . . .

    Now what is it really like having an idiot agree with you?

    Gotcha . . . .

    Brian Leslie Engler

    by Straightup
    Oct 22 2009 9:48 PM

    Aren't they liable for making false statements and accusations: Isn't that slander. Isn't that illegal outside the HoC...

    Other than that...no one reads that crap anyways.

    by GuyTron
    Oct 22 2009 10:06 PM

    Jon34 : 'Under any current national government, whether Conservative or Liberal, Canadians are being murdered at the rate of one hundred thousand every year.' - Say what? You say 1 in 300 people are murdered every year in Canada? That sounds way too high.

    by GuyTron
    Oct 22 2009 10:24 PM

    Thanks for the stats vanbengler. According to those stats it seems unlikely that 100,000 Canadians were even murdered in the last Century.

    Thanks Denis Pakkala for the stats. They bear a reasonable likeness to the ratios of males and females who suffer from depression related illness due to physical, sexual and mental abuse from parents and step parents in similar ratios of mothers and fathers doing the abuse. Until recently the stigma of males reporting abuse had the numbers extremely skewed. Mothers have been abusing their sons and daughters for generations with out being called out to answer for it and many institutions failed the children saying they were lying if they tried to make a complaint.

    by Seth Brundle
    Oct 22 2009 11:08 PM

    In 2005 97,254 abortions were performed in Canada. This represents a ratio of about 30 abortions to every 100 live births.

    by vanbengler
    Oct 22 2009 11:11 PM

    Hey GuyTron;

    RE: "Mothers have been abusing their sons and daughters for generations with out being called out to answer for it and many institutions failed the children saying they were lying if they tried to make a complaint." (end quote)

    My personal experience confirms this . . . and thank you for the observation.

    Now the trick is getting people to recognize and admit that both fathers and mothers; not just fathers may and can be abusers . . . and that children are profundly negatively affected by abuse; whether it be from mom or dad; whether it be enabled by either mom or dad; or worst of all if both mom and dad are abusers . . .

    Brian Leslie Engler

    by vanbengler
    Oct 22 2009 11:14 PM

    Hey GuyTron;

    RE: "Say what? You say 1 in 300 people are murdered every year in Canada? That sounds way too high" (end quote)

    Given the stats, why not accuse him of being a blatant liar? His post is in writing . . . and so are the stats as evidence.

    Quite frankly I would say the evidence is conclusive . . . wouldn't you?

    Brian Leslie Engler

    by Seth Brundle
    Oct 22 2009 11:23 PM

    Worldwide annual death toll from abortion: 41.6 million October 15, 2009

    by vanbengler
    Oct 22 2009 11:35 PM

    Hi Seth;

    Conceding in advance that you are one of the more difficult posters to deal with here . . . ummm, what is your point?

    Isn't it just a little off topic? If not, what is the connection to the topic? I don't get it: What is your point?

    And here we go, a moralistic tirade (rant) from the self righteous "religious right" . . .

    Brian Leslie Enlger

    by Sassylassie
    Oct 22 2009 11:48 PM

    van lots of so called religious people get abortions, it's called gendercide via the cultural belief that women are inferior to male fetuses thus they abort female fetuses enmasse.

    by Jacques3
    Oct 22 2009 11:56 PM

    If I was a woman serious about protecting herself against domestic violence, I'd get a gun.

    It's the equalizer.

    The police can never arrive in time to help a woman under attack by the (usually) much stronger man, and there are any number of cases in the past year where "restraining orders" were not worth the paper they were printed on.

    So, the liberal policy of making it harder (and ultimately impossible) for anyone to get a gun is actually an assault on women's safety.

    by Seth Brundle
    Oct 23 2009 12:07 AM

    murder; put to death; suppress| destroy;

    legalized murder, but murder none the less.

    by Denis Pakkala
    Oct 23 2009 12:11 AM

    Jacques,

    A commonly available kitchen knife or any household blunt object is a great equalizer for women who are typically physically smaller than men.

    Statistics from the US DAHMW, show that male victims of domestic violence are often attacked with weapons.

    Another great equalizer for women is that that police are trained to use the "dominant aggressor" assessment, which means that whoever is bigger gets arrested. Most often, this means men are arrested, regardless of who initiated or caused the violence.

    by vanbengler
    Oct 23 2009 12:13 AM

    Hey sassielassie;

    Facts, please . . . by the way, I agree with you, but for the purposes of this conversation I would say that "a lot of" non-religious people get abortions too . . .

    Now, how do we prove it?

    And how is it relevant?

    What difference does it make to you?

    Brian Leslie Engler

    by GuyTron
    Oct 23 2009 12:14 AM

    Sassylassie : '...thus they abort female fetuses enmasse.' - Not in Canada, we have laws against exactly that. It may happen but certainly not enmasse. There are almost twice as many females in my extended family than there are males. It is not a complaint but it proves your assertion does not hold water in this country.

    by Seth Brundle
    Oct 23 2009 12:17 AM

    Jacques if you were my wife and you got a gun, I wouldn't be able to get a bullet proof vest in BC to protect myself from domestic violence.

    by rossbcan
    Oct 23 2009 12:28 AM

    @Seth Brundle

    I suspect the reason that the law allows abortion is not so much out of concern for women, since there are alternatives to reduce the hardship of unwanted pregnancy and, adoption laws can be streamlined and made inexpensive. This is just a pretext.

    IMHO, the real reason is to legally deem the unborn "not human" so they have no rights and we can therefore enslave them with public debt which they have had no choice in and will not benefit from. In other words, the unborn are modern Jews, fair game for enslavement and extermination.

    Our ancestors did not allow public debt and insisted on fiscal discipline of balanced budgets, for this very reason.

    We are so immoral and irresponsible. We will soon be facing the consequences of not paying attention to what is required to survive, as a civilization.

    by GuyTron
    Oct 23 2009 12:31 AM

    Thanks Brian.

    It was my experience as well. I finally sought help for my clinical depression a number of years ago, and was amazed to discover how evenly distributed abuse was during 18 weeks of group therapy. It was a real eye opener to hear how mothers fathers and spouses abused each other and their children and even how grown children abused their elder parents, aunts or uncles. I learned how to cope with my past and deal with things in the future and now have a healthy relationship with my entire family. I am glad I got help before I repeated the cycle of abuse, and I encourage everyone else who has been abused to get help as soon as they can especially if they have become abusers.

    by vanbengler
    Oct 23 2009 12:34 AM

    GuyTron;

    With ultrasound it is now possible to determine the sex of a fetus before birth. Some cultures are shame/honour based. At the risk of over-simplifying, it is shameful to be female and honourable to be male.

    In those cultures, female fetuses tend to be aborted at a higher freqencey than males. It is indeed called gendercide.

    Additionally, and as a for instance (and I cannot quote source but it could probably be Googled - I haen't done that yet, but I have good invrmation)) in India if abortions are not performed, female babies (not fetuses) are literally disposed of.

    While not entirely regarded as acceptable, this is regarded and acknowleged as a systemic cultural practise.

    Is it wrong? I think so. Can I do anything about it? Probably not; except to let my own daughter know that I love her, that I respect her, and that I am very proud of her.

    And she knows it.

    Brian Leslie Engler

    by GuyTron
    Oct 23 2009 12:36 AM

    Jacques and Seth - That kind of reasoning is... oh so immature!

    If you are being abused... leave or get a divorce!

    Two wrongs do not make either of you correct.

    Both of you appear to need help, please seek it out.

    by vanbengler
    Oct 23 2009 12:43 AM

    Hey Jacques3;

    Re: "If I was a woman serious about protecting herself against domestic violence, I'd get a gun.

    So when the wife is the abuser, and the police can't arrive in time, should the man shoot her?

    Brian Leslie Engler

    Just wondering . . .

    Brian Leslie Engler

    by rossbcan
    Oct 23 2009 12:45 AM

    @GuyTron

    "stigma of males reporting abuse"

    held firm until there was a well heeled perp (RC church) to accuse and get compensated from. This attracted the legal "profession" who "follow the money"

    Not implying that the abused were not, just pointing out that matters are not dealt with until there is profit.

    And, I doubt that an abused male can get satisfaction from his abusing spouse unless he is poor and she is well heeled. In that case, he would get custody (relieve social system) and compensation.

    In the converse case (well heeled male, poor female), she would get custody to reduce social burden and he would get the shaft and no satisfaction since, to legally sanction a mother harms children. This is NOT "the appearance of justice being done"

    Statscan could easily and probably already has proven the inverse relationship between parental income and custody awards. Good luck getting these facts.

    by Seth Brundle
    Oct 23 2009 1:05 AM

    guytron

    My response to Jacques was sarcasm.

    vanbengel

    The abortion post stats, were to throw some light on Jon34's post, as an aside prior to its legalization in 1969 it was considered murder, punishable by life in prison.

    The law legalizing it was thrown out in 1988, and has not been replaced, but is is not a subject either the Liberals or Tories would touch with a ten foot pole.

    by vanbengler
    Oct 23 2009 1:27 AM

    Hey Seth,

    What abortion post stats? What is your source? How do we know you're just not making it up?

    Facts and source, please . . .

    Brian Leslie Engler

    by rossbcan
    Oct 23 2009 1:28 AM

    @Seth Brundle

    Do you have a link or citation regarding "thrown out in 1988"?

    by vanbengler
    Oct 23 2009 1:37 AM

    Hey SEth;

    RE: "murder; put to death; suppress| destroy;

    legalized murder, but murder none the less." (end quote)

    You could just as easily say that about war, couldn't you?

    Know of any wars going on right now? Just as a question: Are you defending these wars or condoning them?

    Or are you opposed to them?

    By the way, what is the source of your definition? Is it verifiable? Isa it even accurate? What have you taken out of context? What have you distorte? What have you evaded or avoided by not telling the truth?

    Brian Leslie Engler

    by Sassylassie
    Oct 23 2009 1:37 AM

    Sassylassie : '...thus they abort female fetuses enmasse.' - Not in Canada, we have laws against exactly that. It may happen but certainly not enmasse. There are almost twice as many females in my extended family than there are males. It is not a complaint but it proves your assertion does not hold water in this country.

    End quote:--------------

    Been to BC lately to see those Indo friendly ultra sound offices lately? Just because you say it does not make it so we have unrestricted abortions in Canada thanks to the Libs. No we don't have laws against gender abortions but feel free to prove me wrong but you can't. I don't care how many females are allowed to be born alive in your family my concern is those that are killed for being merely not male enough.. Forgot to mention all those females that were murdered and left in ditches in BC.

    by Seth Brundle
    Oct 23 2009 1:43 AM

    ross

    en.wikipedia.org/.../Abortion_in_Canada

    About half way down the page under history.

    by Seth Brundle
    Oct 23 2009 1:50 AM

    van

    You could just as easily say that about war, couldn't you?

    Better men than me have said it Van.

    "He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."

    Albert Einstein

    by vanbengler
    Oct 23 2009 2:10 AM

    Hey SEth;

    Is this it?

    In its decision (Morgentaler et al. v. Her Majesty The Queen [1988] (1 S.C.R. 30) at 37), the Court stated:

    "The right to liberty... guarantees a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting his or her private life. ... The decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision and in a free and democratic society, the conscience of the individual must be paramount to that of the state."

    Wht do you not understand about "conscience" for instance?

    That you are the only one who has one? That other people are not entitled to theirs?

    That you shold be able to dictate morals and limit other people's freedom of conscience?

    How would you like it if they did the same to you?

    Brian Leslie Engler

    by vanbengler
    Oct 23 2009 2:12 AM

    Hey Seth;

    Better men indeed; I have read Einstein before, too . . .

    But what do you say?

    Do you support the war?

    Just to prove it one way or another, I'll bet we could go back and find some posts, couldn't we?

    Brian Leslie Engler

    by vanbengler
    Oct 23 2009 2:15 AM

    Hey Seth;

    Just to repeat;

    By the way, what is the source of your definition?

    Is it verifiable?

    Is it even accurate?

    What have you taken out of context?

    What have you distorted?

    What have you evaded or avoided by not telling the truth?

    Brian Leslie Engler

    Read more: network.nationalpost.com/.../342061.aspx

    The New Financial Post Stock Market Challenge starts in October. You could WIN your share of $60,000 in prizing. Register NOW

    by welldoneson
    Oct 23 2009 2:19 AM

    Seth, thanks for reminding us how full of wind Einstein was outside of his work on relativity.

    by Tossed Salad
    Oct 23 2009 2:34 AM

    seth is the reason I am an independent. Until I pass something the size of a watermelon out of an orfice as small as a vagina I have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body as long as I do not have to pay for it. Of course that is the question whether I have rights if I am damned to be a wallet for the rest of my life without my input.

    by Seth Brundle
    Oct 23 2009 2:38 AM

    welldoneson

    Acclaimed by the world as a great revolutionist of theoretical physics, his bold speculations, now become basis doctrine, will be remembered when mankind`s present troubles are long forgotten…"

    focus.aps.org/.../st10

    van the source of my definition is from the Latin for murder, neco

    www.latin-dictionary.org/.../neco

    by vanbengler
    Oct 23 2009 2:46 AM

    Hey SEth;

    I guess that's a GOTCHA: I love this game . . .

    Brian Leslie Engler

    by MikeMurphy
    Oct 23 2009 2:46 AM

    "Under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government, women are increasingly at risk for domestic abuse and violence."

    This is similar to many feminist statements and myths about DV.

    Its interesting to observe feminist lawyers who will assert, for example, that over 50 allegations of abuse were made against a dad seeking access to a child. The purpose in making the statement to the judge and the press was to vilify the dad and not allow him access. All of the allegations were made by the mother - none were proven - but the mere fact they were made is used as a weapon against dads frequently.

    An article recently appeared in the Christian Science Monitor (CSM) again using the same tactics. allegations = fact. Always read between the lines and never believe a feminist statement without fact checking. My letter to the CSM with respect to that misinformation is as follows:

    Re: Christian Science Monitor, 10/14/09. Author Kathleen Russell

    You allowed this author to publish unsubstantiated claims with respect to cases in Marin County CA, and offering unsupported and erroneous information relating to a theory of abuse of children called Parental Alienation Syndrome.

    I am guessing this was offered to the author as an opinion piece and was published without authentication by your editor. You will escape liability for slander on it because she didn't name names but one of the cases she obliquely refers to is well known involving the kidnapping by a so called protective parent of a child. This parent was subsequently arrested, jailed and tried but found to have personality related issues, which is not uncommon. She got a gender discount.

    For future reference moms are the largest cohort of abusers and killers of children in the USA. They are also given sole custody of children in 84% of all cases in the USA. Ms. Russell's opinion which states otherwise is no more than that and is factually incorrect. Allegations of abuse are not proven facts of abuse. If allegations were the only criteria of proof most of the country would be in jail. I can easily cite you any number of allegations that are untrue and ought never be used to obfuscate the truth.

    I am disappointed in your publication and frankly will have trouble believing anything that appears in it again.

    I note Denis used the stats from the 1999 social survey by Stats Can. These are on a 5 year cycle and the 2004 numbers show a decline in DV between males and females. The numbers for that survey show an estimated 7% of women and 6% of men representing 653,000 women and 546,000 men in a current or previous spousal relationship encountered spousal violence during the five years up to and including 2004, according to a comprehensive Statistics Canada report on family violence.

    www.statcan.gc.ca/.../d050714a.htm

    DV is pretty much equal in Canada and men are injured although women are injured in greater frequency due to their smaller size. The interesting thing is in recent studies it shows females initiating the violence in over 70% of cases and also it shows they are less likely to be injured if they don't initiate it.

    by Seth Brundle
    Oct 23 2009 2:53 AM

    Tossed salad this is the real world, even today a majority of decisions to procure an abortion are made by men, the supreme court decisions were made by men. Woman today still have to submit to the will of men with respects to their right to have or not have a child.

    by Rhino Party Whip
    Oct 23 2009 3:01 AM

    Mike and Denis: We have tangled in the past but I think you are spot on with this issue.

    I believe there is a chilling effect on married men that short circuits normal conflict resolution out of bald terror.

    This can't be healthy, and I suspect it contributes to massive blow outs.

    In short, is the DV industry exacerbating the problem?

    by vanbengler
    Oct 23 2009 3:11 AM

    Hey Seth;

    "murder" at law: the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.

    To kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously

    slang: Something extremely difficult or perilous. i.e. "that final exam was murder"

    To spoil or mar through incompetence i.e. " to murder a tune".

    Any rebuttal?

    Lets hear some of those great excuses, huh?

    Still Gotcha

    Brian Leslie Engler

    by Seth Brundle
    Oct 23 2009 3:31 AM

    van

    To kill or slaughter inhumanly

    as opposed to humanely murdering someone.

    by vanbengler
    Oct 23 2009 3:48 AM

    Seth;

    I already recognize that you are as slippery as an unscrupulous lawyer. And I am being very polite.

    You've been had.

    Now you're using my definition . . . . because your definition was indefensible and found to be spurious . . .

    Pretty much like everything else you say . . . .

    So, I am retiring from the field of battle.

    Perhaps we will engage again.

    I enjoyed it, and thanks.

    Best wishes and good luck

    Brian Leslie Engler

    by Rhino Party Whip
    Oct 23 2009 3:49 AM

    Engler, Seth. You two are perfect for each other. If you would stop whapping each other with you big dictionaries and flexing your factoid muscles for a minute, you'd be BFF.

    by vanbengler
    Oct 23 2009 4:07 AM

    Hey Whino Patsy Whimp;

    You and I are perfect for each other too.

    Now: Take a good look in that mirror:

    Ten seconds,

    Really hard slap

    Head in the toilet

    Let it soak in for a while.

    Good vacuum assisted flush

    Where were we again?

    Oh yes, in a Court room and Exhibit "SFB".

    Thats "shit for brains" for Seth's information.

    Good night; enjoyed, and best wishes and good luck to you too

    Best regards,

    Brian

    by MikeMurphy
    Oct 23 2009 4:26 AM

    @by Rhino Party Whip Oct 23 2009

    3:01 AM

    ______________________________

    The DV industry in Canada is a heavily invested and multi-faceted ecosystem to promulgate misandry against men. It is the epicentre of today's 3rd wave Feminist movement focusing on victimization of women. It is called Victim, Gender or Life Boat Feminism.

    Within this Industry an ideology surrounding a psuedo-scientific mantra is used that posits a patriarchy rules all women's lives and they are victims of it. It is called the Duluth Wheel and in its simplest form describes all men as abusers and women victims. According to it we men use control on females as a primary mechanism whether it be psychological or physically coercive.

    That is why the feminists will tell you there are not enough women in whatever positions they identify to you whether it is MP's or in the Board Room. All things that are wrong with females not getting to high office (even if they are) are because men dictate they should not be there.

    This, of course, gets feminists off the hook for everything based on merit or choice because they are mere malleable puppets in our hands. It is though they are still children in adult bodies.

    It is all bunk of course but they believe it to the core and like any ideology if it is challenged they yell loudly enough that the eunuchs in the political, judicial, lawyering, and chattering classes turn on their politically correct persona and dutifully do what they are told. Iggy doesn't truly believe the crap but has no choice but to go along with it because he has been eunuchized. (similar to lobotomized but a different organ is involved) That is truly a pandemic amongst the political classes, with some notable exceptions, and there is no current vaccine other than common sense which gets seriously vaporized within the feminist rhetoric.

    It is my view the DV industry exacerbates the friction involved in divorce and may be the reason for some of the more egregious acts of violence. They counsel their clients to make false allegations, leave the family, use the Duluth Wheel to indoctrinate the client to the ways of victim feminism, and offer no hope the family can be salvaged due to the psycho-babble inherent in the ideology they use. They also get all clients to sign non-disclosure agreements so the truth will not get out from their umbrella of secrecy.

    Gosh I'm starting to write another chapter in my book again but this does arouse a passion in me. Let me close by advising there is great interconnectedness between the DV shelters, the lawyers in family law, academics seeking tax money for studies of women at shelters, the Police, Legal Aid Agencies in each province, the DOJ in each Province and the Status of Women Canada the lead victim feminist agency in the country. Each Province has on its payroll similar ideologues. In Ontario alone the Minister for Status of Women has $208,000,000.00 for female related issues and if you include legal aid it is far more. Chris Bentley, AG, Ontario's leading Eunuch in the Attorney Generals Department just found $170,000,000.00 more for legal aid 70% of which is targeted at women.

    There is 0, non, nada, targeted for men's issues and not one tax supported DV shelter for men in the country even though at least one third of serious injuries from inter partner violence happens to men. This does not include men who are psychologically destroyed by women with serious personality problems. There is about 550 women's tax supported shelters in Canada.

    DV is a serious issue but in the overall scheme of things gets far greater prominence that it should. For example when you compare the rate of homicide of intimate partners on a million couple basis you will find 999,997 women do not kill their spouse and 999,992 men do not kill their female partner. Feminists would have you believe every women is in imminent danger of her male partner. It is bogus and a canard but we have two generations of brainwashed men and women to untether from their mental image of the problem. Barb Kay is one such very brave journalist and more are realizing the mythology is hurting families and women themselves.

    by Seth Brundle
    Oct 23 2009 4:37 AM

    RPW

    Coming from IainGFould beatch thats too funny.

    by Rhino Party Whip
    Oct 23 2009 5:03 AM

    Mike: I don't know how you have the wherewithal to synthesize all the depressing data into cogent statements, but a pussywhipped nation thanks you.

    When you are done, you must look at how this well known yet unarticulated situation affects people who have not yet hit the grinder of divorce proceedings.

    I live in abject terror of crossing the sisterhood.

    by Rhino Party Whip
    Oct 23 2009 5:21 AM

    I would put $100 into solid polling to that effect, Mike.

    by vilda
    Oct 23 2009 6:02 AM

    What nonsense and when did the Liberals care?It was 1200 women who ensured women's equal rights were enshrined in the Constitution. The Liberals had exempted them. Cry me a river is the song they should be singing.

    by vanbengler
    Oct 23 2009 6:20 AM

    Hey Whino Patsy Whimp;

    RE: "I live in abject terror of crossing the sisterhood."

    I am not:

    That's one of the differences between you and I; as perfect as we are for each other: I am not a Whino, a Patsy or a Whimp.

    Brian Leslie Engler

    by Jon34
    Oct 23 2009 7:21 AM

    Under any recent national government, whether Conservative or Liberal, Canadians are murdered at the rate of one hundred thousand every year.

    Forced (i.e. induced) abortion is murder because it is illegally killing a human being. Currently it is not illegal according to Canadian law because there is no Canadian law on abortion. It remains, however, a violation of the Sixth Commandment; for background and context on the Sixth Commandment refer to God's covenant with our father Noah at the re-creation (renewal) of the earth after the Flood (Genesis 9). Needless to say, God is a much higher authority than the Supreme Court of Canada.

    I am a Christian before I am a Canadian.

    by ZeeBC
    Oct 23 2009 8:37 AM

    Liberal Pinko book. Is that a watered down recycled version of Mao's Little Red Book?

    by MikeMurphy
    Oct 23 2009 2:03 PM

    @ZEEBC: The feminist movement itself is a collective and has its origins in Marxism. There are, within 3rd wave feminism, hard core ideologues who want to empower women at the expense of men and the family. In other words the current operation of the Family Law System subscribes to the notion if you are a man you are disposable. Judges award mom over 90% of physical custody in Canada. They, with some notable exceptions, are Eunuchs cow towing to political correctness brought on by victim oriented feminists. Does anyone really believe 90% of dads are that bad. I hope not.

    Any man not caught up in family Law directly or through family does not know their relative worth in this country and in the U.S.A. Men are the economic engine, however, to maintain the current unilateral divorce system. Your ex, as 75% of Canadian women in divorce do, will file for divorce and you will have to spend 10's of thousands of dollars to stay in your children's lives at a rate greater than 14%. You have gone from an equal to a revenue spigot and will be required to pay for child support, possibly spousal support and your soon to become ex can move the boyfriend in with the children and he will see them 24/7. Statistically this will put them in greater danger of molestation and abuse.

    Under no fault or unilateral divorce she can have committed criminal actions against you, have adulterous affairs and unless you can prove she is a drug addict she will get custody. You can thank the feminists, lawyers and gutless judges and politicians for this.

    The wife or partner if cohabiting may have taken a trip to your local DV shelter to get a leg up on custody where she will get the complete package on how to twist the knife. A lawyer referral will result from this visit which starts the process of settlement and/or litigation. The man's lawyer will have told him you stand no chance at getting custody so cut your losses and take what you can get.

    If it does go through the courts the average lawyer will receive something like $25,000.00 for his services from each party. Lawyers along with feminists do not want an amendment to the Divorce Act that would give a presumption of equal shared parenting to both fit parents as their current entitlements will be less.

    This is an average. If the parties have deep pockets it can go over $300,000.00 and last for a decade. This happened recently in Toronto where a surgeon sought custody of his children who were severely alienated by the mom who has serious personalty problems. The dad finally won custody using very expensive expert witnesses and the judge, Faye McWatt, even gave the dad legal costs in her later judgment.

    They have brought up the canard of DV as a reason. See my previous post on the mythology of DV. The legislation is for fit parents and in most western democracies the children are in greatest danger from a single mom and worse still if her new boyfriend moves in.

    I do go on but the stories of feminist influence in so many areas of our national discourse are legend and mostly false. In London Ontario the Police Chief, Murray Faulkner, is a disciple of feminist mythology and in a case involving one of his active duty officers, a female, who killed a retired officer she was in a relationship with did not get classified as DV. The DV death rate is then highly suspect and this does women no favours and continues to hurt all men. This case happened in 2007 with Acting Police Inspector Kelly Johnson (female) killing Dave Lucio. She did this when Mr. Lucio was contemplating an end to the relationship with the intention of reconciling with his wife.

    Many of us are working diligently through advocacy to change the rules. One of those is a Private Members Bill C-422 giving a rebuttal presumption of equal shared parenting for two fit parents as they do in some European countries and to a degree in Australia and several US States.

    by rossbcan
    Oct 23 2009 3:41 PM

    @MikeMurphy

    The educational stats which show a preponderance of females should be looked at a more closely.

    Males have a preponderance in the hard sciences which cannot be subverted, else airplanes would start falling out of the sky, equations would not balance and everything technological would fail, because the laws of nature ruthlessly punish FALSITY.

    Females have a preponderance in the so called social "sciences" which, IMHO, are highly subverted to achieve "social engineering". Since they are FALSE, it is just a matter of time before it all implodes, by natural law (actions inevitably have consequences).

    When a the showdown between reality and opinion inevitably occurs, reality will win, because ALL of natural law is in support of those who use it.

    In other words, females have been duped and educationally subverted. Their degrees (and power) becomes USELESS once it is socially accepted that "inequality under law", affirmative action, enslaving some to favor others is a social / economic dead end and threat to peace, order and good government or, civilization (the rules by which we cooperate for MUTUAL self-interest), in general.

    by rossbcan
    Oct 23 2009 3:47 PM

    @MikeMurphy

    "unless you can prove she is a drug addict she will get custody"

    Wrong in my case, which you have already checked out.

    BTW, I have been meaning to tell you for some time that you are asking the right questions, appear to have the basic knowledge and skills regarding how to fight to win.

    Our efforts constitute a complementary pincer movement, boxing our enemies in. They try to counter me, they run into you. They try to counter you, they run into me.

    by Denis Pakkala
    Oct 23 2009 4:03 PM

    Great discussion Men.

    This is the result of several decades of manginas in abject terror of crossing the sisterhood.

    Mike Murphey is doing great things for equality, more men need to speak up for equal rights.

    by Advokat
    Oct 23 2009 4:26 PM

    Jon34: There is no such thing as 'god's law' because there is no god.

    In any event, silly christian myths have no place in reasoned, rational discussion among adults. Apart from the silliness of the jesus lie, Canada has a separation of church and state, which renders religious dogma irrelevant t legislation... But if you want to follow god's law, or fairy law, or any other made up rules, go for it... Just don't be surprised when you are prosecuted if you breach Canadian law.

    Abortion is not murder, in Canada. Seth's semantic games demonstrate nothing more than abject ignorance of the law. 'Murder' is a legal designation that applies ONLY if the killing is unlawful; abortion is legal and therefor cannot be murder. You may not like it, but them's the facts, dude...

    by Tossed Salad
    Oct 23 2009 4:29 PM

    Hit www.glennsacks.com or mensactivism.org, etc.

    If you can weed out the radicals and the American slant this is just one of many sites dedicated to mens issues. There are many links to other sites which deal with the problems men face vis a vis domestic violence, pa, etc. The word is getting out as I have stated. It is a trickle but it is going to take years (the gender feminists have over 40 years on us) for change but it is coming and there will be segments of society who will pay for their crimes and make no mistake they are crimes. I would be very afraid.

    by Tossed Salad
    Oct 23 2009 4:31 PM

    Denis: Don't forget to include SassyLassie in in the discussion and IMO she is all woman.

    by Denis Pakkala
    Oct 23 2009 4:48 PM

    There is currently a debate between leading domestic violence researchers, Dutton and Stark at www.mensnewsdaily.com

    For many years, feminist researchers have avoided publically debating their ideology. It is fantastic that these debates are starting to happen and more men and women are supportive of real equality.

    Sassy is primarily anti-liberal and anti-feminism and not necessarily pro-equality. I often sense that she is also supportive of traditional norms, which discriminates against both men and women.

    by MikeMurphy
    Oct 23 2009 5:11 PM

    @rossbcan:

    You are right in terms of the fields. Prof. Perry has charted 2005-6 data by bachelor's degree here mjperry.blogspot.com/.../female-male-breakdown-college-degrees.html and he has links to the raw data as well as post grad breakdowns.

    My analysis of the family law field is an average situation and there are exceptions such as yourself. The exceptions usually come at a great emotional and/or financial cost for the dad but some do stay in the fray and fight until their money or emotional capital run out. My money has run out but I have copious quantities of emotional capital and the best thing of all -an undying love of my children who deserve their father in their lives more than 14% of the time to provide gender balance. Dr. Ed Kruk, of UBC has shown through research a parent needs at least 40% of time with their children to retain a parental bond.

    One of my favourite father quotes is as follows:

    “The job of a father is this : to help his children develop, to teach them to express and master their emotions; to avoid physiological distress, to provide a context for their experiences; to help them persevere, reach their goals and take on responsibilities; and to instil the roles of citizen, partner and parent. In short, it is to fill their bellies with bread, their brains with wisdom and their hearts with love and courage.” Camil Bouchard, “On Father’s Ground” 2002.

    I add one more that is more explicit. Biological Fathers are the best protectors of their children on the face of the earth.

    With no money it's problematic but necessity being the parent of invention causes one to adapt and learn the law and the administrative mechanisms in making your case.

    We will regain our equality in family law eventually but persistance and patience are the hallmarks of getting there. The ultimate winners wil be our children and by vanquishing the mythology of Victim Feminism all women will benefit.

    Then all of us can fight for human equality and dignity without the gender wars now in place.

    by rossbcan
    Oct 23 2009 6:00 PM

    @Advokat

    Me again, just to remind you exactly what I think regarding fake rationalizers and your "profession" in general. Collective "pitchforks and torches" in social self-defense time is approaching

    'god's law'

    I am tempted to throw you out of a plane at altitude, so you can learn how effective "man's law" is in saving you from the consequence of having mass in a gravity field, at a very high altitude, just one of god's laws as is the FACT that a fetus is a potential human being, no matter how much sharp hair splitting to deny reality is done.

    And, since I know how much you enjoyed this last time, I will repeat myself:

    "Isn't the logic behind your anti-lawyer rant..."

    No, my anti-lawyer rant is based on the fact that your entire "profession" is based on opinion, with no objective measures and, we are all in a moral hazard (trap) position as a consequence, because how can we OBEY the law if we have no clue what "judicial discretion" will choose? Plus the fact that there are too many laws (some contradictory) and no basic principles that mere idiots such as myself can follow and be safe from you conflict creating bottom feeders (predators). I reject your "professions" artificially created reality that I must pay and consult your profession to protect myself from your profession. Yours is a protection racket, a zero sum game, with no winners except lawyers.

    I concede the fact that some lawyers fight for "good" and others for "evil". Most lawyers fight for both, at one time or another, depending on client need to win. The Ying cancels the Yang, at a hefty and predatory cost. A pox on you all.

    But, there is method in my madness. I hope that enough lawyers and judges will realize that theirs is a lost game and the prey must eventually turn on the predator. The only hope for your "profession" is to realize that people can only be tricked and fleeced for so long before they defend themselves. The only survival choice for your profession (and civilization) is to represent factual, objective law which is:

    a) Sanction (and fully compensate victims - not yourselves) these who initiate aggression or cause harm.

    b) Sanction (and fully compensate victims - not yourselves) those who disobey:

    http://www.cli.gs/RuleOfLaw

    In other words: Get objectively REAL or ELSE

    As you can see, I KNOW my enemy. Nothing I have said above is unfair or untrue. It is a just verdict. It will not be long before social consensus is again achieved: Corrupt, fallible man CANNOT justly rule free persons and keep the peace. We need the "rule of law" back. It doesn't matter how many stacks of bibles one swears on. Actions speak louder than words.

    And yes, if necessary, I can, have and will self-represent myself in court. Rule #4 of survival: Do not feed you enemy.

    Clear enuf?

    Oh yea, "scofflaw" and "lack of respect for authority or my self-proclaimed betters" is water off a ducks back.

    I so enjoy rants such as this. Highly recommend as therapy and stress control.

    by rossbcan
    Oct 23 2009 6:06 PM

    @Advokat

    "abortion is legal and therefor cannot be murder."

    Exactly what the Nazis said regarding Jews, when they were "legally" defined as "non human".

    In all fairness, I would be tempted to define lawyers as "non human" also. Its all a matter of who has the most guns and what their agenda is.

    by Advokat
    Oct 23 2009 6:26 PM

    Ross: We all know your views on lawyers, and as tempting as it may be to engage you on that, I know that there really is no point. Clearly you have had at least one run in with a lawyer that has left you with serious anger issues, and I am not going to waste my time. A psychiatrist would be much more helpful to you on that point than anything that I can offer in defense of my former profession.

    That said, your attempt to equate abortion with the Nazi's 'final solution' is just plain silly. Are you really so wrapped up in the anti-choice movement that you are unable to distinguish the difference?!?

    I am, as you may have guessed, staunchly pro-choice. But even I will admit that abortion is an issue on which intelligent minds can disagree. It is only raving fanatics and simpletons who see the world in black and white extremes - or who try to draw parallels between abortion rights (which more than half the population supports) and the holocaust.

    But seriously, Ross, your 'lawyer hatred' is obviously consuming you to the point of distraction. Day after day, you post these ridiculous rants about how evil lawyers, masking your ignorance of the profession and the law with words you have obviously pulled from a thesaurus in a failed attempt to convey some sort of intellectual superiority. (On a side note, a very gifted writer once told me that if you can't articulate an idea using words that a child can understand, then the idea is probably not worth very much). Get help, man... They are doing wonderful things with medication these days...