Election day is coming ~ If you are a man don't waste your vote

Posted earlier today in the Sault News forum under Fathers 4 Justice. http://www.soonews.ca/forum/index.php/topic,3071.msg16824.html#msg16824 So far in this election The Conservative Party and the Greens are the only parties on the record to support shared and equal parenting for each partner in a divorce or separation. If you are a man you are at a great disadvantage and if divorced or separated you already know this. You have less than a 5% chance of having physical custody of any kind and you will pay for the rest of your life, emotionally and financially. Family Lawyers will keep hounding you to keep paying as it is their best financial interests to do so. The money that goes in their pocket comes out of yours and your children's financial legacy. At best your visitation rights will likely be about 14% of the month which is standard across North America. Your children will then become more susceptible to suicide, crime, early pregnancy, smoking, if your child is female would you believe earlier puberty and early pregnancy, greater susceptibility of drug use, and other less than desirable behaviours. Father removal is a 6 billion dollar a year industry in Canada. Ever wonder why you read about so much gang and gun violence in our big cities. Father removal by the very courts (Superior) who may prosecute the young criminals could well be one of the answers. Layton, McGuinty and the socialist mayor of Toronto want to ban guns but the UK have one of the strictest gun laws in the universe yet violent gun crime is increasing among young people as it is here in Canada. You have to dig into the statistics to find this information as on the surface it may show an overall decrease in crime in certain areas. In the UK violent knife crime is also on the increase among young people. Will Layton want to ban knives next. Those of you who are not in this category of divorce or separation yet, men that is, will lose your children, your way of life will be diminished economically and emotionally, you can in fact lose your home via a restraining order based on false allegations of abuse. Especially don't throw your cell phone down on the ground, for example, in the presence of your ex, as that will be construed by the courts as violence, and you could be considered dangerous. There are family lawyers here in the Sault just ready to take your money based even on a hint of this conduct as the courts will also levy costs against you. Having a difference of opinion on a matter with your female partner may come back to haunt you as further proof of your violent nature. (Did you raise your voice during this discussion?) If you don't believe this you haven't been through the gulag of Family Court yet to see the effect of the current feminist mantra that wants more than just equality. They want ownership and control plus interest. You do have a 50% chance of this happening in your lifetime or you know someone who has. This isn't a gender war. Grandmothers, Aunts, Sisters and many other females are affected by the Father's loss as well. They will not likely get to see their kin very often, if at all. If the ex is really vindictive she will do everything possible to keep the children loyal to her and her side of the family. You, the father, may only get to see them through supervised access for the reasons outlined above. Yes, there are judges here in the Sault who will order supervised access based only on the word of your female partner which could be bogus. Pardu was one of them but she has moved on to bigger and better things. Pardu is a feminist. Pity you should meet her in a Family Court anywhere. See here for some biographical info on Gladys Pardu. http://www.law.utoronto.ca/visitors_content.asp?itemPath=5/13/8/0/0&contentId=1528 or just read the following:

Women of the '70s: Hon. Gladys I. Pardu

Class of 1975

I was young, and had just had a baby, and no one would give me a job. One interviewer told me, "Well, we tried hiring a woman once, but it didn't work out, so we wouldn't do that again."

I entered the Faculty of Law at the University of Toronto in 1972 when I was 19 years old. Up until then, my undergraduate studies had seemed no more than a continuation of high school. I soon began to exult in the intellectual challenges offered to me in an atmosphere that was amazingly supportive. Friendships developed that have continued to this day. There was no sense of disadvantage in the school from being a female in what had previously been a male dominated profession. Things were a little different after graduation. I was young, and had just had a baby, and no one would give me a job. One interviewer told me, "Well, we tried hiring a woman once, but it didn't work out, so we wouldn't do that again." In the end, I rented space, hung up a sign, and waited for people to walk in. I cut my litigious teeth on cases that no one else wanted. I was in court almost every day, and learned all I needed to know about running an office, from staff, to accounting, billing and dealing with clients. I loved the thrust and parry, the drama and competition of courtroom work. My practice grew and I acquired partners and associates along the way. I had never considered the possibility of becoming a judge until one day, a senior member of the bench suggested that I submit my name. To my astonishment, in 1991 I was appointed to what is now the Superior Court of Justice. The adventure continues. The horror stories are endless. Check the local F4J blog for some of these including myths and misrepresentations created by lawyer's associations who have a vested interest in keeping the current adversarial system in place. http://f4j-soo.blogspot.com/ Don't waste your vote on candidates who do not or will not state their support for such changes. Tony Martin is such a candidate and Paul Bichler is so far "mum" on the issue. Eight days to go and counting.