To presume is to take something for granted or as being true in the absence of proof to the contrary; to suppose something to be true without proof. When it comes to law, that definition applies in Canada. That is the inherent right, at least expectation of everyone who lives within our democratic British Columbian legal system. The citizen lives within a state of presumed innocence. It shouldn't be any other way.
 |
| A child afraid of MCFD |
It is understandable that someone who is suspected of a violation of law should be temporarily restrained until a timely investigation establishes that either no evidence of infringement exists or, there is enough evidence to proceed to a trial using the pertinent facts. It is even appropriate in a serious criminal offense, to hold such a person in custody until trial when that person poses a risk of flight or further offenses.
When in a trial no evidence or insufficient evidence of a violation has been exposed either through discovery or confession by the defendant, the presumed innocence is confirmed by an acquittal of charges against the person. No penalties will be ruled against the person as a result of that trial.
Because Paul and Zabeth Bayne's ordeal has not been a criminal case the presumption of innocence does not seem to apply. Something is different. I am telling it like it is not how it should be. The Ministry of Children is authorized to act 'in the best interests' of the Bayne children as interpreted by MCFD social workers and director of that specific case, and that empowers MCFD to presume, if not guilt, then parental liability, certainly responsibility, even criminal probability. That's what MCFD can do. It can operate from presumption of guilt. And the inequitable entitlement which is afforded to MCFD consists in that the Baynes, rather than being protected within a canopy of presumed innocence, are made vulnerable as in a gladiatorial arena, because they, defenceless, must somehow validate their innocence. And their word, their protestations are not enough. Isn't it true that anyone, everyone says he or she is innocent, even vile murderers maintain, “I didn't do it.” Why should self-professed innocents be presumed innocent?
And then this imbalance. Long before the Baynes were required in a court of law to prove their innocence, MCFD could exact the penalty upon them of removing and holding on to their children and imposing restrictions upon the parents' access to the children and involvement in any decisions that pertain to their lives. And of course, MCFD has been doing this for three years, an anniversary marked in memory on October 22nd. Yet because MCFD forced a trial by its application to retain the children forever, the Baynes were compelled at great personal cost and financial expense to demonstrate that they are innocent of harming their child or posing a physical risk to any of their children. Any reasonable person can appreciate the challenge resident in such a demand.
This case is only one illustration of the many that have been introduced over many months by your comments that support your collective premise that the Ministry of Children's Child Protection division should at all times be presumed a risk, and presumed to be guilty of error. What an alarming indictment of a government ministry and a fearful atmosphere under which our population must live. I know hundreds of people who are MCFD-phobic. Mr. Premier you must not permit this to continue or dismiss these concerns as the rants of a fringe minority.
Well said. I completely agree with what you've written here and how it couples with your previous post about why the public hesitates to report suspect behaviour.
ReplyDeleteIn answer to your question on a post a few days ago concerning what needs to be done about MCFD to make it work, this is the root that needs to be pulled first.
ReplyDeleteIn Canada, as taught in our schools and trumpeted in every media, we are a country under the rule of law. Legislation, as developed for MCFD, is of the same type used by rogue governments world wide... abusive, arrogant, corrupt and dictatorial in the most abhorrent respects.
If family is not the core of a society, something else has to be. The social engineers have come in the back door with this legislation. Start there!
This legislation needs to be changed to come into line with Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the basic right to be presumed innocent unless charged and proven to be guilty of lawbreaking.
Address this because it will be the thin edge of the wedge. Social engineers plan in the same way other engineers plan. . . revamp, rebuild, restructure over time and soon the structure will not look like the same one. I, a Canadian citizen, see this specific victory of structuring a gov't ministry with the power to presume guilt and then to have the power to act on that presumption is is coup against the Canadian people and Canadian law.
It is a matter of distinguishing what is wrong from what is 'unlawful'. The law is written a certain way but it does not reflect right and wrong. It is clearly wrong how they are managing things. It is something that freshly shocks people who are not involved. My friend is highly placed and he called the ombudsman on my behalf. I am happy to be letting people know what I have been through and it is my own way to fight. I think that information is useful, so we know we are not alone in this!!!
ReplyDeleteThank you Betty, and Bernice that underscoring of the starting block is very important for me to hear. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteFor other readers, Betty and Bernice and I do not know one another apart from brief exchanges about principles and values and basic human freedoms here, but I will tell you if we want Canada to remain the haven we espouse it to be, we had better all work together to safeguard our rights and freedoms a Bernice reminds us.
You are so right Ron. Just think of all those rights that the hardened criminal can expect,like presumption of innocence, a speedy trial and an advocate. Not only did Willy Pickton enjoy all those privileges--well maybe not speedy trial--but he had all his legal bills paid. Then look at Basi/ Verk. They had six million dollars paid in legal bills and the whole case cost eighteeen million. What did the public get apart from the bill? A plea bargain and a slap on the wrist.
ReplyDeleteNow if the MCFD accuses you of child neglect, you are presumed guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. Nobody pays your legal bills and such help that you might get is miniscule compared with a criminal trial. However, nobody ever finds out how much is being spent on the prosecution--must protect privacy you know. You will never know how much Finn Jensen made on the Bayne case. After all it is much more important to catch criminals than it is to totally disrupt the lives of young children. Nobody really cares what happens to the children as long as the lawyers get their fees and parents are too poor to mount a legal challenge.
Isn't it interesting how all the legal principles get stood on their head in child protection. In criminal cases the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and if they do not do so, there is no case to answer. Defendants do not even need to enter a defense because all they have to say to the judge that the prosecution has failed to make a case. In contrast, in protection cases you are called upon to prove your innocence. Look at the Bayne case. The director claims that the Baynes deiberately harmed a child. If you say to him that he must prove his case, he replies "on the contrary, you must prove that you did not harm a child." Well how can anyone possibly prove something that never happened, or that does not exist. Totally illogical and irrational. Look at Jensen in court. Lacking any direct evidence, all he could do was to try to bully Zabeth on the winess stand. Admit that you harmed your child and if you do not I will scream at you that you are a liar. That is not evidence, and why should anyone be required to prove something that never happened? In child protection, the courts are dysfunctional and thelaw is ignored. The act is a bad act to start with, but even so things would be a great deal better if anyone made the slightest effort to follow the act. The basic requrements of the act are ignored with impunity, while those in authority look the other way. Blame the system and not the people who operate it. It would not be polite to point fingers at those upright citizens now would it?
An interviewee on the CBC made an interesting comment the other day (in reference to the Basi Virk trial, which as we know, ended rather abruptly, thanks to the guilty pleas, thereby saving certain parties from having to testify).
ReplyDeleteThe comment was to the effect that government is now more corrupt than organized crime. And this shouldn't really be surprising to us, since government is much larger and much more powerful than organized crime.
And after all, if someone kidnaps your child (and they aren't a government MCFD employee), there will be a massive manhunt, Amber alerts, broad media coverage, almost universal sympathy. But if the governmet (MCFD) takes your child, well, too many people think you just must have deserved it. That's corruption at its worst. That's our government. Changing to NDP or Conservative wouldn't help much, if at all. A radical shift in our thinking about the role of government is what is needed.
Yes Anon 11:39 PM
ReplyDeleteYes, yes, yes! to your last statement. A radical shift in our thinking about the role of government in child welfare and protection is needed, not political ideology. Thanks for hitting the nail squarely!
The last installment of the 12-part Province series on early child development ended Friday:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theprovince.com/business/Growing+Challenge+ideas+that+could+make+difference/3709658/story.html#Comments
It is beyond frightening if the suggested 1.5billion dollar program of government implemented childcare is implemented.
The reality of childcare and combination of kindergarten is chilren spend 8-10 hours away from their parents in group settings where no single child gets the personal one on one attention Hertzman implies is needed.
The few posted comments are indicative of the low readership, and lack of high level interest of the article. The exceptionally poor level of journalism and simplistic conclusions and recommendations is precisely how "it sounds good" distructive entities such as MCFD get their foot in the door as a prelude to looting homes.
Parents who really care about the future health, happiness and welfare of their children would be interested, I think, in learning about the many benefits of home schooling. Whatever sacrifices the parents have to make could very well be worth it, if they can find a way to make this (home schooling) possible. It is also much more difficult for MCFD to steal your children when they are in your care primarily, as opposed to being in a school, with a social worker always lurking around (as was the case with Reena Virk), or the multitude of "mandated reporters" who are always under threat of not reporting everything they see or hear that might be construed as "abuse."
ReplyDeleteIf it can save your child from the clutches of MCFD it will be worth pretty much any hardship you might have to endure, and the hardships are usually financial issues that aren't really hardships in retrospect.
I agree that all day kindergarten is not a good idea. It is interesting how it is assumed that it is the key to success to have less parental involvement and more government intervention at an early age. Why? My mom was at home with me until I started school and then I went to half day kindergarten and I am fine. Why is it so much an improvement to get the kids away from the parents?
ReplyDelete