The tragic Campione
case and the abusive manner in which the system treated the Father.
Here is what the hired gun lawyer for the killer mom said about the person who killed her two daughters.
"Her
lawyer, Mary Cremer, argued that her client was a loving mother who struggled
with mental illness." Is it any wonder few can believe what lawyers say.
What an oxymoronic
statement. It is very common in Family Courts to raise false allegations of
abuse. This is taught by unscrupulous lawyers and feminists , particularly
those operating in DV Shelters. Loving
moms don't kill their children but those with serious emotional instability do
with greater frequency than biological fathers.
http://victimfeministcentral.blogspot.com/2009/09/mothers-commit-vast-majority-of.html
We have a woman with
some personality disorders. There is a cult of moms who have lost custody who
call themselves "protective parents."
My research and observation of them shows them to be a vile and
destructive group of individuals who were abusive to their children. This one
took the delusion to the extreme by killing her progeny. It is also the most
extreme form of Parental Alienation where the parent tries to keep the children
from the other through hate. What it all
boils down to is the woman hated her hubby far more than she could ever love
her children.
The actions by the
courts in requiring Mr. Campione to use Supervised Access to see his children
are part of the matriarchal controls present throughout Child Custody and
Family Law. As much as he advised those in charge, especially the Barrie based
Children's Aid Society, the children were in danger he was ignored. The belief
is men are bad - women are benign despite the aggregated evidence to the
contrary. Most CAS' are female run and highly biased against dads and highly
favourable toward maternal custody. Some
will spend 10's of thousands of dollars, as is Chatham-Kent CAS right now to
remove loving dads from their children's lives.
They are not
accountable to any one at this time except for their financials. The Ontario Ombudsman has no jurisdiction and
the Minister, Laurel Broten, ignores
complaints.
You can thank
feminist mythology for this state of affairs.
They believe and have convinced the Police, Judges, Lawyers politicians and social
services that men are coercive abusers and women innocent victims.
If any one has read
the details of this case and the actions of this woman you will be truly
sickened at the depravity.
False Allegations of
abuse against dads means sure fire custody. In contested custody cases local DV
shelters and lawyers will offer oblique suggestions to moms, who may not have
been abused, to place it in their affidavit to ensure custody and supervised
access for dads. For some moms this is one more quotient of revenge. Perjury is commonplace in Family Court and
never prosecuted. The lawyers and DV shelters know the ropes.
In addition, the
DV shelter will require the mom to sign a non-disclosure agreement to ensure
their advice doesn’t get into the public domain. Studies have shown family law
related false allegations of abuse, some requiring protection orders, can be as
high as 70%. The killer was following established protocols in the war against
dads occurring every day across the country and supported by incompetent social
service agencies like the Children’s Aid Society.
Approximately 280
Divorces a weekday across Canada
There is a very
large and lucrative divorce industry in Canada. Discounting for weekends and
holidays we see about 280 divorces per working day. Lawyers rake in billions and the social
services, mental health segments also profit handsomely especially in contested
custody cases.
Moms get physical custody
in over 90% of cases. The judge in this case is typical. They receive training
from a secretive organization called the
National Judicial Institute. This
training tells judges men are abusers and women benign. If a woman claims she
is abused she is to be believed without any evidentiary standards. This judge clearly believes this very
disturbed killer is believable despite the jury’s verdict. This judge is but
one of many spouting the same drivel.
The myth of male
only Domestic Violence and he myth of Patriarchal Oppression
The DV industry, the
Judge and the CAS in Barrie who support the junk science in the Duluth Wheel of
patriarchal oppression of women in Canada, outside of the real oppression by
certain religious cults, can give no
explanation for the greater degree of violence in Lesbian relationships as
compared to heterosexual. Lie and
Gentlewarrior surveyed 1,099 lesbians,
finding that 52% had been a victim of violence by their female partner, 52%
said they had used violence against their female partner, and 30% said they had
used violence against a non-violent female partner. Finally, Lie, Schilit, Bush, Montague and Reyes
(1991) reported, in a survey of 350
lesbians, that rates of verbal, physical and sexual abuse were all
significantly higher in lesbian relationships than in heterosexual relationships:
56.8% had been sexually victimized by a female, 45% had experienced physical
aggression, and 64.5% experienced physical or emotional aggression. Of this
sample of women, 78.2% had been in a prior relationship with a man. Reports of
violence by men were all lower than reports of violence in prior relationships
with women (sexual victimization, 41.9% (vs. 56.8% with women); physical
victimization 32.4% (vs. 45%) and emotional victimization 55.1% (vs. 64.5%).
(See Patriarchy And Wife Assault: The Ecological Fallacy by Donald G. Dutton,
Ph.D. Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia)
Domestic Violence in
Canada Fact vs Fiction
Mrs. Campione based
on her mental health profile and the fact she killed two innocents is far more
likely to be the abuser not her husband.
The judge, through his comments, showed a clear lack of knowledge on the
abuse by partners of both genders, in this country. Family violence in Canada:
A statistical profile, 2005. 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.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/Daily/English/050714/d050714a.htm
Keep in mind what
you see in the paper is what is reported to police. The numbers above from
Stats Canada are those based on surveys which are more comprehensive.
Unfortunately in
Canada, and indeed most English speaking western democracies, this judge’s
biases are widely held. This one just made it all too blatant in his remarks.
As stated earlier 90% of physical custody in Canada goes to mom based on
similar rhetoric, not fact, this judge espouses. Its no accident 75% of women
initiate divorce because the evidence is clear they will win custody of the
children, they will be guaranteed tax free income in a child support award of
over $700.00 a month for two children if dad grosses close to $50,000.00 a
year, no matter if mom makes far more than the newly removed father. That
$8,400.00 being tax free is equivalent to over $10,000.00 if taxable. They may get alimony if they can create a sad
enough story, including false allegations of violence, and they will get 50% of
all assets accumulated during the marriage.
If 90% of something
went to a single party – say jobs to white anglophones in the public service we
would be shouting from the rooftops. It appears to be OK in Family Law to
discriminate in a sexist manner against dads.
Think about it and then wonder why many TV commercials show dads as
bumbling idiots. We men accept it – well at least most do – but if we were to
give an opinion on why so many bilingual francophones from Quebec dominate public
service positions we have strong opinions,
White males – actually in Family Law – all males are not in the back
seat of the bus – they are kicked off.
Stong is an ex
Liberal politician in the Superior Court of Justice. This Judge, therefore,
does Family Law cases. No dad stands a chance in his court. He has to go.
This is but one of
many Family Law cases where identity and gender politics play a role causing
the worst of negative outcomes for children.
Justice Stong evidenced his gender biased views in his remarks in effect
blaming the dad - a victim - and excusing the vicious and evil mom. Stong is an ex-Liberal member of the Ontario
legislature. A further tragedy is he
handles Family Law Cases and no dad stands a chance for custody in his court.
He should be removed but that will not happen. No federal judge has ever been
removed for bias or incompetence. Children become the recipients of many
negative outcomes with the sole custody model in Canada. Ninety percent of
physical custody goes to mom in a sexist and biased legal system. Children would be far better of in a
shared/equal parenting environment as proposed in Bill C-422. Get behind the bill and help prevent
further tragedies. The kids will have both fit parents in their lives and be
better protected.
I am always very
surprised when I see statements like “How can a mother kill her children”. I
have concluded these folks just don’t know the facts. These facts are clearly tabulated by some
government agencies every year. In the USA for a very long time the evidence is
moms are the most likely killers and abusers of their children. It ought to be
no different in Canada except Stats. Can. does not break the figures down like
the USA and Australia. In those countries they separate out the male parties as
Biological Father and other. If you want
the truth about moms being the most common killers and abusers go here for the
data. The links in the tabulated evidence over many years will take you to the
original source data.
http://victimfeministcentral.blogspot.com/2009/09/mothers-commit-vast-majority-of.html The first graph shows the situation for
Western Australia in 2006-07 where there were 21 child homicides. Mom killed 11,
her new partner or boyfriend killed 5
and the biological father 5. So mom and her
new partner killed 16 of the 21. A child is far less protected when the
biological father is removed and this occurs hundreds of times a working day
across Canada. Mom gets sole physical custody in 90% of cases. Dad, if lucky,
gets 15% visitation but the new boyfriend sees the children 24/7.

November 17, 2010 – 10:31 am
REUTERS/J.P. Moczuls
A
relative comforts Leo Campione (L) as Campione leaves a funeral service
for his two daughters Serena, 3, and Sophia, 1, outside St. Peter's
Catholic Church in Woodbridge, a Toronto suburb, October 10, 2006. The
girls were believed to be murdered by his estranged wife Elaine in
Barrie, Ontario, on October 4.
He just couldn’t leave well enough alone. Judge Alfred Stong, I mean, who presided over the
Elaine Campione murder trial.
Two days ago the jury brought in a decision of first-degree murder and a
25-year sentence against Elaine Campione, who freely confessed to
drowning her two little girls in a bathtub, and who freely stated in a
videotape that her motivation was hatred for, and revenge against her
husband Leo.
The trial was over, But Judge Stong added comments after the verdict
announcement suggesting that if had the power to overturn the jury’s
verdict, he would. He said, “It is more than disconcerting to think that
if Campione had not been so abused, so used and discarded as a person,
her two daughters could still be alive…” Judge Stong was determined that
even if it is Campione that gets locked up, Canadians would know that
the real villain, morally speaking, is Leo Campione, the father of the
dead girls (even though his alleged abusiveness was entirely based on
his wife’s allegations and never proved), and it is actually the
“discarded” Elaine Campione who is the victim.
Judge Stong felt such personal animus against the grieving father
that he wanted to deny Mr. Campione and his parents their opportunity to
read a victim-impact statement, standard practice even with
mandatory- sentencing cases. He only relented under strong pressure from
the prosecutor, who reminded the judge that the murdered girls had been
“an extremely important part of [Mr. Campione's] life.”
The judge’s attitude is shameful. But what can you expect from
someone who has been trained – literally, judges take structured
learning programs steeped in feminist myths and misandric conspiracy
theories – that women are never abusive or violent unless they have been
driven to it by an abusive male. Judge Stong just could not get it into
his head – he alluded to the “unimaginable facts of this case” – that a
woman could kill her children without a motivation involving a
controlling male that somehow drove her to the act.
Why did it not occur to the judge to blame the CAS? The CAS was well
aware of Elaine Campione’s quixotic and alarming history. They knew that
Campione had exhibited many signs of psychosis, that she had been
hospitalized in psychiatric wards, believed people were out to kill her
and kidnap her children, and exhibiting such bizarre and/or negligent
behaviours toward her girls that mother-substitutes, including her own
mother, had to be constantly parachuted into her household if it was to
function at all.
Yet the CAS decided the mother was the “safe parent.” Mr.
Campione fought like a tiger and indebted himself trying to wrest
control of the children from a woman he knew to be unstable and a
potential risk to them, but nobody listened to him. Why? Because
everyone licenced to deal with family issues on behalf of the state –
social service agencies, police, lawyers and judges – are trained in the
same mythology about women as Judge Stong was. They are all singing
from the same hymn book: trust the woman, suspect the man, even when the
evidence screams not to.
Let a man raise his hand once to a woman (or not, but simply be
accused of doing so), and he will be whisked out of his children’s lives
for a year at least. You can be sure that if the father of these
children had exhibited one-hundredth of the myriad clues to Elaine
Campione’s potential risk to her children’s safety, the CAS would have
eaten him for breakfast.
The “system” didn’t fail Elaine Campione. The system failed those two
little girls by enabling a woman’s psychosis at the expense of her
children. There is nothing “unimaginable” in this case at all. It has
all happened before.
Everyone involved in this fiasco should be locked up in a room and
forced to review the case of Zachary Turner, the thirteen-month old baby
who was drugged and drowned in Newfoundland in 2003 by his psychotic
mother, Shirley, while she was out on bail for the third time on charges
of murdering Zachary’s father. And after that forced to review the case
of Toronto baby Jordan Heikamp, who in 2001 was starved to death by his
mother under the blind eyes of the Catholic Children’s Aid Society (no
jail time) and Toronto baby Sara Cao, abused to death in 2001 by her
mother Elizabeth. Christie Blatchford, who covered that case, said the
mother (again no jail time) “was treated by the system, and in the main
by the media, as a pitiful [woman], worthy of sympathy.”
Sound familiar? Plus ça change. When fathers kill, they are not
assigned any motivation but their own evil impulses. When mothers kill,
everyone in the system kicks into denial mode, and assumes the fault has
to lie elsewhere – anywhere, as long as the woman doesn’t have to take
responsibility for her actions, and can be offered sympathy. When
fathers show disturbing tendencies, the system acts, or tries to. When
mothers show disturbing behaviour, the system protects the victimizer.
Little Sophia and Serena Campione did not have to die. They were
allowed to die because of a belief system that denies the truth of human
nature. Both men and women are capable of aggression.
Statistically in Canada, mothers abuse their children more than
fathers. When will our society really consider the “best interests” of
the child rather than throwing them under the bus of a superannuated and
pernicious ideology?
Read more:
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/17/barbara-kay-when-a-mother-is-on-trial-the-father-is-the-accused/#ixzz15ZrmvkkX