Expect my post on this one tomorrow morning 12:01 AM
Meanwhile CBC online article informs you.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
5 comments:
I encourage your comments using this filter.
1. Write politely with a sincere statement, valid question, justifiable comment.
2. Engage with the blog post or a previous comment whether you agree or disagree.
3. Avoid hate, profanity, name calling, character attack, slander and threats, particularly when using specific names.
4. Do not advertise
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I heard of this type of testing in 2005 for the first time.
ReplyDeleteA polygraph is not admissible in court because the operator is not an expert the court can trust to be unbiased, and the methodology is still suspect - pathological criminals can lie with impunity and get off scott free.
This particular test is an extension of the polygraph. Similarly, the imagery shown to people to observe their responses are arbitrary. A couple of viagra or other pills taken before the testing can skew the results.
So, paint a person a criminal, and this gives government employees licence to throw the rights of an individual out the window?
Since governments love to collect statistics, it should be a simple matter to ask them to publish information gained from this testing process, such as how many people were tested, their ages, who authorized the tests, and explain how it has affected decisions. This would reveal more about the mentality of the people doing the testing that those ordering the tests.
Incidently, the last paragraph, "
Polak said it's completely voluntary, involves parental or guardian consent and can be withdrawn at any stage..." since the government becomes the guardian and full custodial parent with the child's removal, they have the power to authorize such tests at will.
That aside, what would this have to do with the Baynes case?
Well Anon 9:27 PM, good night. I guess you will have to wait until 12:01 AM for the answer to your last question, which incidentally was an curious question to pose to me. My post will indicate that while the Bayne case is not directly correspondent to the testing issue, the testing agency is one more department of this troubled Ministry. Shouldn't that cause us to reflect a wee bit.
ReplyDelete"These tests are a clear breach of the children's basic human rights. In any other context, subjecting children to violent pornography would be considered sexual abuse," said Annabel Webb, director of the advocacy group Justice for Girls.
ReplyDeleteMy sentiments exactly. And this is just more proof that the Ministry of Children and Family "Development" is a very perverse organization indeed.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/07/28/bc-penile-sex-tests-young-offenders.html#ixzz0v33At725
To: Anonymous (July 28, 2010 9:27 PM)
ReplyDelete"Since governments love to collect statistics ..."
Governments don't love to collect statistics per se. They love collecting more taxes and ever expanding their power.
To give you an example, the only statistics on ethnic background of removed children MCFD collected is Native. If they are really interested to improve "child protection", statistics on all ethnic background are important in research and policy making. Yet, they only compile statistics on Native so that they can claim federal funding.
To: Anonymous (July 28, 2010 11:03 PM)
"... just more proof that the Ministry of Children and Family "Development" is a very perverse organization indeed."
Subjecting children to violent pornography is corrupting children contravening Section 172. (1) of the Criminal Code. This is criminal.
The B.C. government has cancelled a program that tested the sexual responses of young sex offenders by attaching sensors to their genitals, after it learned one of the researchers has been charged with a sexual offence.
ReplyDeleteRead more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/07/29/bc-penile-testing-young-offenders-halted.html#ixzz0v70UEpHk