Freedom of expression is a foundation of a functioning democracy. Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: ... freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication." Freedom of speech is a Canadian constitutional commitment that is predicated upon the belief that a free society is unable to function when there is coercive legal censorship motivated by those with power and an ideology that will not permit opposing viewpoints. Freedom of speech is maintained in Canada so that truth may be attained, people may be assured of self-fulfillment, people may participate as members of the society and as a means whereby both stability and change may be addressed.
 |
| Photo: (Soe Zeya Tun/Reuters) |
The country of Myanmar is a member of the United Nations and is ruled by a military junta which has stifled free speech. Recently the international press has made much of the release on Saturday of 1991 Nobel Peace prize recipient pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi. She is now 65 years of age. She has spent 15 of the past 21 years in detention without trial. Her latest period of house arrest spanned 7½ years. Such oppression by the military regime explains why governments of Australia, Canada, France, the United Kingdom and the United States still refer to the country as "Burma", refusing to recognize the validity of the name change imposed by the Junta.
 |
| Photograph: Sipa Press/Rex Features |
Canada granted Aung San Suu Kyi honourary Canadian citizenship in 2007 and Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Saturday called her a Champion of Peace. That speaks to the peaceful means by which she has always advocated her push for democratic rule in Burma, much in the character of Martin Luther King Jr., and Mahatma Gandhi. (Photo right:
Aung San Suu Kyi's husband, the late Michael Aris and sons Alexander and Kim receiving Nobel Peace Prize on her behalf in 1991.)
In Canada, there are limits to free speech and free press guarantees, as the Canadian Supreme Court is quite ready to point out. Yet those limits most certainly do not apply to speaking out about what is perceived to be injustice caused by a government agency and its employees. In British Columbia, numerous personal and media websites and blog sites have been chronicling stories about the way child welfare is conducted, particularly the administration of child protection. Some of those sites, like this one, are designed not merely to tell a story but to advocate for substantial and constructive changes in policy and practice that will ultimately result in benefits for Ministry of Children administrators and social workers as well as for children, parents and families. It is my position that the action steps for Ministry transformation in B.C. have not yet come close to the local administration of service delivery where all of the heart-breaking issues occur. Until Victoria begins to listen to the grassroots, to social workers and to parents, MCFD will fail to understand what must change.
A Basis for Discussion, Part 323, Sept 29 from this GPS site
CBC Story: Aung San Suu Kyi released
Video of Her Release:
A Wonderful Collection of Personal Photos of her life with her late husband, British Academic Michael Aris
Gallery of Her Life
Freedom of speech and belief is vital to a free society. Blogs and websites alone are grossly insufficient to stop the corruption in the child protection industry. Concerned parents must get involved politically.
ReplyDeleteThe article titled "Couple wants to help others adopt" in The Province on Nov 14, 2010:
http://www.theprovince.com/Couple+wants+help+others+adopt/3826545/story.htmlstated
that fees for most adoptions range between $15,000 and $40,000.
Adoption (hence the Adoption Act) is also in MCFD's mandate. Granting adoption licenses to adoption agencies (there are 5 in B.C.) is also a MCFD authority.
Does it occur to anyone that MCFD needs human inventory to fuel adoption activities? Incidentally or not, half of removed children are under 5.5 years old, preferred age in the adoption market.
Using the figures in this article, the 1,200 kids whom MCFD had obtained a CCO and ready to sell them in the adoption market would generate a revenue of $33 million (using $27,500 per adoption, the mid point of the $15K and $40K fee range).
This corruption is so well concealed, advanced and sophisticated that there is no head to cut off. Whoever betrays the principle of accrual of power and money, others betray him.
Like fighting drugs, the only way to stop this is by cutting off the human inventory supply. Revoke child removal authority and kill CFCSA. They have no place in a civilized society.
We have forgotten that free society requires participatory democracy to work well.
ReplyDeleteThe comments by anonymous above are disturbing and difficult to believe; so, also, are the stories of empirical and dictatorial gov'ts such as the Burma story in the blog. However, they are true accounts.
How can people continue rocking the good life if we believe such things? Life requires full attention to work and raise families, and we think we must leave governing to career politicians and activists who have time and are more capable people.
We hear, "Get out and vote!" but if all political parties buy the system, what's the difference? Casting a vote is only a beginning.
The machine still chugs along as though it was private business behind the scenes. This is bureaucracy. This continues virtually unchanged regardless of the gov't in power. Bureaucracy can run roughshod over any sitting gov't, Canadian law and courts, education, "child protection," sytems etc and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Grassroots swells make change. Special interest groups make change. Elected officials with hidden or personal agendas make change. Political ideologies mixed into "education" make change. Gov'ts and individuals are full of people with agendas which are theirs and not reflective of the interests of others.
Only continuous vigilance from grassroots maintains the tension between freedom, anarchy and dictatorship.
Removal of an activist from the political scene is old school and simplistic, but certainly an effective deterrent to others who may think of following in their footsteps. South Africa's Nelson Mandela is a good example.
ReplyDeleteThe same tactic is being used against the Baynes. As long as there is this cloud of suspicion of 'did they, or did they not shake their baby' they might as well be in jail. Their life is been on hold for three years while their children are growing up under government influence as they compete for the children bonds and attachments.
Personally, I think the long term answer is in the children, not just with trying to sway today's politicians. However, the last thing I would want for my child is to be imprisoned, for real, or virtually, for their views, or today's equivalent, being discounted because of the file of evidence on their lives the government has created.
Kids victimized by MCFD and similar systems need to be taught to recognize that the system is the true perpetrators of their misery, it is not their fault or their parent's that the system fails to 'rehabilitate' or improve parenting skills - supposing it was required and effective services existed. I daresay the Baynes will be educating their children appropriately to protect themselves against this new bogeyman.
Outfits like MCFD realize the overall value of 'converting' children, brainwashing them, collecting information on them, not just the immediate monetary benefits removal brings. The younger the child, the more impact MCFD intervention has.
We have seen many children who have grown up in the system as foster children and in group homes and into adopted homes, only know the MCFD way and they end up perpetuating the system. The Baynes children and my own children were cared for by former foster children. Is this an anomoly or typical?
One question to ask is if given a choice of being a social worker to benefit children, would these University trained graduates choose MCFD, a school system or Health care, environments that all encounter children to be helped, and why?
I have little doubt child removals will continue to evolve and be generally accepted and made more palatable in much the way income tax has was once a foreign concept but is now a reality.
If you want to maintain freedom for your kids, you need to teach them critical thinking and how to stand up for themselves and not 'leave it to others' to do the heavy lifting. My kids have certainly learned this the hard way.
MCFD are simply greedy bullies operated by, and who attract people who may have felt bullied or powerless when they grew up, and now they have the chance to return the favour against society who maligned them in the first place. These people disguise this by cloaking themselves in a respectable profession with lofty ideals. That's my personal opinion, not yet born out by facts.
An insightful comment by a fellow parent who was helping me act as a supervisor, met with my social worker who was intent on talking with my children without my presence; the observation was quite simply, "this person really hates parents." An additional observation was that the individual still was new to the game, her heart hadn't fully hardened as had many of the more experienced social workers where nothing that is said to them phases them or causes a twinge of guilt in what they do.
I used to tell my kids life as a kid was tough in comparison to how they have it now: no internet, no color TV, no computers, no iPods, and I had to walk in the snow 5 miles to get to grade school. My kids will tell their children they were in government care for a couple of years, and vividly recount what this was like that will make my growing up years seem privileged by comparison.
My encounter with MCFD has caused me to an about face on teaching my kids to blindly trust and accept authority, but instead, to take a Michael Moore approach to question those who govern them.
Anon 1:21 - Can you clarify that it costs a parent money to adopt from MCFD? The information below suggests otherwise.
ReplyDeleteMCFD pays people to adopt children. http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/adoption/paa.htm
I also found this:
http://www.bcadoption.com/site_page.asp?pageid=16#Cost
How much does it cost to adopt one of BC's Waiting Children?
If you adopt a child with special placement needs through the Ministry, your costs are minimal. You pick up the tab for the criminal record check(s), which would cost approximately $40 – $60, and your medical report(s), which would be no more than $100 per adult.
I've been wrong before though...
I'm certainly confused about adoption options.
ReplyDeleteMCFD offers slightly damaged goods and is willing to pay less than half that paid to foster parents compared to prospective parents who choose to adopt.
Then we have the Province article that has a stock of 1200 healthy babies for sale for $15k-$40k, presumably where the history and parentage of the child is witheld from the prospective parents.
So, would the three Baynes children fall into the category of "for sale: $15-40k each" or "needs help: we pay you $800/mo until age 19?"
Couldn't tell ya, anon. No clue - all I performed was a google search to find the above info. My best guess is the answer to your questions will be in the links I provided or through other google searches just as I did.
ReplyDeleteNow that being said - it is exceptionally disrespectful to call Children in Care "slightly damaged goods". All those children deserve an apology.
Some folks posted comments in the next blog post, but since the adoption discussion is here, this is where you will find my response...or lackthereof as is the case - not sure why they posted responses in a different discussion;
ReplyDelete...
Erm, I just posted a response to someone on the blog.
I was simply sharing info. Nothing more. Nothing less. What you wish to glean from that is up to you.
Thank you for collecting the evidence and presenting it as you did. (no sarcasm)
Did you really justify calling kids in care "slightly damaged." I gotta be honest Ron, I am stumped that you would let that slide. I am sure the Bayne's quite appreciate their children being labeled as "slightly damaged".