Interventions by MCFD that are of a
paternalistic nature have been framed into public policy. One wonders
legitimately if the authors of the Child and Family and Community
Services Act were policy writers or program designers. A conspiracy
theory called 'The Rise of the New Paternalism,'* about which much has
been written in the past few years, makes this claim of
intentionality among education, government and legislative types.
According to this, one might argue that the CFCSA was written in such
a way that it encourages paternalistic interventions into families. *(sample article by Glen Whitman)
CFCSA was written to convey to the
public that it was a middle position, a safe ground between doing
nothing for children or being heavy-handed with parents and
caregivers. In that way CFCSA should be viewed as highly preferable.
And that would be fine if the middle position didn't shift over time
which is what it has done. The middle ground of thoughtful
intervention in the child's best interest by helping parents and
securing children's rights to security and health has become one of
the poles rather than the middle. The more intrusive removal of
children not as a last resort but almost by default has become the
middle ground. And that is what some of the commenters on this blog
who sound like alarmists are forecasting. They have been so injured
by the appropriation of their rights to parent, by the seizure of
their children, and by the confiscation of free speech that they are
convinced the middle ground is only a harbinger of a more sinister
outcome, a kind of domination by government agencies. It sounds
paranoid doesn't it? Have you not seen parallels in other areas of
societal life? Do it our way or else. I don't smoke, never have,
well, I tried like many children do, and don't want to. I know and believe the personal risk of smoking and
secondarily to others. Can any of you remember when smoking on
airplanes was acceptable, but in only one part of the plane, the
front. Then the ban was imposed. Good middle ground position. Of
course that now is the laissez faire position because smoking has
been banned in hospitals, bars, restaurants and everywhere in some
urban centres. Do it our way or else.
What happens is the eliding of what should remain crucial
distinctions, perhaps chief among which is the difference between
private and public and the difference between voluntary and coercive.
It's quite understandable and right that a society should say to its
citizens there are certain standards which we expect of parents with
respect to their care of children and these are default standards
with rules. But it does not have to be assumed that paternalism
itself is the default position of our society with respect to those
who govern us and therefore in meeting those standards of child care
we have to do everything exactly the way the Ministry tells us rather
than exercising choice ourselves. We do not have to cave to a
government that says we can have no voice.
This Blog has been advocating the return of three children to their biological parents, Paul and Zabeth Bayne, for which a ruling is expected from Judge Crabtree within the next six days. Stay posted.
To Ron's comment in Part 417 (Jan 13, 2011)
ReplyDelete"what SW’s are doing is not a crime, not technically or legally, and they are not criminals but workers in the social science field of family and children."
In the English speaking world where governments have the undue power to remove children from their parents, what SW do are legalized crimes against humanity. This statement is realistic, technically and legally correct. Their practice is not a science in the field of of family and children but a despicable idiosyncrasy of racketeering under the pretext of "child protection".
Obviously, the "child protection" industry is very successful in concealing its legalized crimes by oppressing a very small percentage of the population and professing to be a profession based on science. As long as the public still believe the foregoing, they will continue to haunt Canadians for a very long time. Wake up people.
If you look at the definition of Crimes Against Humanity, it seems pretty clear that what MCFD is doing falls into that category:
ReplyDelete-----
Crime against humanity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, "are particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder; extermination; torture; rape; political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion."[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_humanity
Yes, Anon 11:03 AM, thanks for the definitions and for Anon 10:45 AM, that speaks to my point. I am seeking to distinguish between the terminology you desire to use because of your own experience and anguish and the terminology that is truly appropriate if you want to engage in dialogue with changemakers because I can tell you now, change is not going to happen through exaggerated rhetoric because the ones who need to hear will not be listening. There are ways of pointing out cruelty and error with language that keeps people tuned in.
ReplyDeleteMy connection is hit and miss, so I may not complete this. To start with---the CF&CSA is a terrible act for numerous reasons about which I have written at length. It was written by idealists with no practical experience. It jammed the courts as soon as it was passed. They made the huge mistake of trying to legislate practice and so the act became cumbersome and unmanageable. It greatly assists the social workers in avoiding accountability. This is the really big problem. It is not giving social workers to much power, but leaving it far too long before the day of accountability. In earlier days cases were much shorter and judges got a better grip on things. Today lawyers run everything and do it in such a way as to maximise income. Doug Christie excepted. Yes one could manipulate the systm in the old days, but usually only for a few months. I would repeal this act tomorrow and bring back the old simpler act which worked much better.
ReplyDelete@Ray Ferris I too must agree that the act does not allow for Social Worker accountability. If they were to ammend the act how would you do it and what would you say? Just curious on how you would go about facilitating change to the CFCSA
ReplyDelete