I asked what are some next steps that can move our province toward a solution that protects children yet minimizes the damage to functional families?” Here is what some of you said last week.
“I would encourage people to just keep publishing - however they can (e.g., blogs, websites, flyers, booklets, etc.) - and exposing child protective services for what it is....More and more people are becoming aware of the corruption inherent in child protection services, largely because of online criticism of child protective services. This criticism comes from parents who have actually been affected by child protection services, as well as people such as Alex Jones, who has a number of videos about child protective services.”
“Fortunately, there is increasing opportunity to get your word out and piggyback off mainstream press. Most stories on MCFD include a comments section, so activists should be posting comments and including links to more information.”
“What can be done is educating people one at a time. It changed them minds of so many people when my children were taken, as I am someone who people thought would be the last person to have my children taken. Yes, you can change opinion, just tell people what MCFD is really like, one at a time.”
“Perhaps, Ron, you could put "Hymie Davis" as a search term in your blog, so that parents who have been affected by expert witnesses could read the article in today's Vancouver Sun.”
Michael Borusiewicz from Australia had a son die while in foster care and he writes: “I have devoted my life to this cause and have done everything I can think of to expose the injustices occurring frequently in our communities. It is not just one city, or state, or country. I also started Luke's Army, which now has around 3000 members. I have joined over one hundred web sites as Luke's Army now. Independent news sites, parenting sites, political sites. I started a group on facebook called "Luke's Army."
In the Article MCFD-Phobic / Part 347 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne - I stated that, “The citizen lives within a state of presumed innocence,” and also pointed out that in a case like the Baynes' “presumption of innocence does not seem to apply.” Here is what some of you said last week.
Bernice wrote, “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.”
Ray Ferris wrote, “Now 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.”
An Anonymous person wrote, “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 government (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.”
It's good to know that more and more people are working to expose the child protection industry. What many don't realize, is that the child protection industry is very, very adept at public relations. An example of their very effective public relations with respect to the now-discredited Shaken Baby Syndrome is the following article:
ReplyDelete"Knitters try to cap shaken-baby cases
By Lindsay Kines, Times Colonist October 22, 2010
"B.C.'s knitters are banding together to put a lid on shaken baby syndrome.
From Elkford on the Alberta border to Children's Ministry headquarters in Victoria, volunteer stitchers are churning out tiny purple caps for newborns as a way to promote a prevention program known as the Period of Purple Crying.
B.C. Children's Hospital hopes to hand out 1,000 of the hats next month along with the program's Purple DVDs and booklets, which are provided free to all new parents across the province...."
http://www.timescolonist.com/Knitters+shaken+baby+cases/3710388/story.html
-----------------
(I must say I am very disappointed to see Lindsay Kines doing such shoddy reporting, and not presenting the other side of the story. He is supposed to be a seasoned journalist, not easily duped by government entities who wish to promote their agenda. Perhaps, Ron, if you put his name in one of your postings search terms, he might find this blog, and hopefully start investigating the biggest scandal in BC's history.) I keep wondering when all these award winning journalists are going to wake up and smell the coffee - what are they waiting for?
------------------
As an earlier poster pointed out, it is probably no coincidence that this story promoting the concept of Shaken Baby Syndrome (and MCFD as a protector of babies and children) is coming out now, so near to the decision of Judge Crabtree in a case of international interest.
Readers will find that MCFD and Children's Hospital and who knows who else have managed to make this knitting caps for shaken babies story go somewhat "viral" (it helps, of course to have lots of employees and volunteers spreading their message).
My point is that while we are all busy trying to hold our emotions (such as anger) in check, because those aren't apparently appropriate with respect to our work of educating the public, MCFD, Children's Hospital and others involved in child protection public relations are busy tapping into emotions, and manipulating the public with homey stories and getting lots of free labour (e.g., all the knitters who have been duped into thinking they are supporting a great cause).
The battle to expose the child protection industry is largely a public relations battle. We have to figure out new, innovative ways to get the word out.
We might want to take some lessons from those who are so effective at getting their message out. Pink ribbons and the like have worked wonders, where logic and objective speech may be ignored.
The knitters and the caps have been mentioned before. I am unsure how significant the timing of that campaign is with the Bayne decision. The timing nevertheless is striking for those who follow the Bayne campaign for justice. SBS is certainly not discredited within the BC medical community.
ReplyDeleteIt is remarkable to see the marketing effect of having a crying baby branded, and then directly equated as being the source of stress and eventual hard-to-catch "abuse."
ReplyDeleteOne cannot directly criticize the concept without appearing to be against crying children generally. The training of the public becomes, "Oh, look at that person with a crying child, they will eventually beat the child. Poor child. Thank god we have child protection."
Listen to this particular audio clip with CBC by a doctor at the BC Children's Hospital, Dr. Jane Hailey explaining crying, caregiver response, and who is also promoting the dangers of SBS:
http://www.dontshake.ca/BCAlmanac.mp3
http://www.dontshake.ca/news/news.php?id=27
Purple crying = stressed caregiver = abuse = SBS = Removal of the child.
Purple crying does indeed blanket search results, and it is exclusively used in conjuction with child protection and SBS. It is frightening too, as it seems to state as fact all infants have a "purple crying" period, and all parents and caregivers are expected to react negatively "because they can't control themselves." The connotation is that SBS is simply the result of those few parents who get caught.
Just for BC, a Freedom of Information request should reveal the diagnosing doctors of SBS, ages of the children involved and disposition of the parents/caregivers (ie. charged with a crime, in prison etc.), socioeconomic status of the parents, male or female, prior MCFD involvment, legal and and MCFD involvment over the past 10 years. This would put some perspective on how common SBS is.
I recall the previous Minister Tom Christensen giving MCFD over a million dollars specifically for SBS prevention. Perhaps the cute purple hats and the dour-faced social workers happily knitting away will encourage another million dollar donation this year. Whatever works, I supposed.
The Times Colonist article states 5-15 children are diagnosed per year, which seems to indicate the attention paid to this matter is far out of proportion to the danger SBS poses to the general public.
When mentioning 'out of proportion', one commenter in a story about closing schools mentioned the 600 million dollars is being spent on the roof of the stadium, while 5-6 elementary schools are being closed for a mere savings of 1.5 million.
The purple crying website site itself seems rather simplistic. My kids as infants cried because they were colicky. Bicycling their legs often solved the problem. A public health nurse recommended this, and this remedy is mentioned on other websites. I could not find this solution to common crying cause is not mentioned on the site.
The focus appears to assume parents will become frustrated and road-rage angry willing to harm their own child. Oddly, there are no 'scare' tactics that state the government have an unlimited spending frenzy if they experience a shaken baby, you WILL go to jail, and WILL lose the child if you are the parent, and you will not be allowed to have any more children. THAT's the other side of the purple crying /SBS equation.
If this story is not a strictly marketing promotion peice disguised as news, this is where the journalism aspect of reporting should kick in. Mention the Baynes, the Rahman families and countless others as examples of what happens to parents accused of SBS.
There is no record of Bethany suffering unconsolable crying, the reasons implied for SBS was the family was not rich enough for MCFD's tastes.
What we can see here in this example of purple crying as a marketing tactic of child protection, it has virtually no counteracting publicity that exposes this as yet another tactic of child protection and vested-interest Health agencies elevating child abuse and making it seem more prevalent than it is.