Your comments about MCFD Phobia / Part 434 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Paul and Zabeth Bayne were never presumed innocent with the proviso that authorities must prove them to be guilty of a punishable offence. They now serve as an example. In a post that I wrote on Monday October 25, 2010 and entitled MCFD-Phobic, I drew attention to the awful reality that in our current system, the Ministry of Children is authorized with power to interpret 'the best interests' on the basis of presumed guilt or liability or risk of parents. In fact in the Bayne example, the protection of the children became a punishment that was administered long before a court appearance and before a ruling. I made an appeal that this must not be allowed to continue and many of you wrote in response.

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.

In 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.

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!!!

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 eighteen million. What did the public get apart from the bill? A plea bargain and a slap on the wrist.
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.

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 deliberately 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.

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."

NOTE: The comment option has been shut off until February 20th. I regret this interruption and I look forward to continuing our coverage of the Bayne case as soon as something further develops.