Tuesday, February 28, 2012

FAMILY AUTONOMY

The family is the primary social institution. Family autonomy you would think should be among the most important objectives of provincial and federal governments. What we have come to understand that parental liberty is fundamental to the concept and function of family. The family is the primary conservator and transmitter of values, beliefs and traditions. Can it not be evident to Members of the Legislative Assembly of B.C. and to the Ministry of Children and Family Development and to Educators and to Law Enforcement that any intervention into family is like an invasion into its sanctity because it endangers family customs and ideals?

Such recognition is underscored by the fact that the autonomy of family is both acknowledged and defended within Canadian human rights documents and international papers of which Canada is a signatory. Such documents seek to protect the rights of families against the intrusions inferred here against what is universally recognized as the natural and essential societal unit. It should be entitled to protection.

Would it interest you to know that the Canadian Bill of Rights makes a preamble statement stating that “The Canadian Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions?”

Furthermore, the United Convention on the Rights of the Child also issues a statement in its preamble, “Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities in the community.”

Contained in these documents and others like it are pro-family provisions which demonstrate the time-honoured tradition that public interests are best served when the family is supported and protected.

Sadly, unfortunately and unnecessarily, children’s rights activists pit their promotion and arguments against the historically held beliefs in the integral importance of the family. In certain international cultures where practices such as child marriage, female infanticide and genital mutilation are practiced I understand the obligation to speak for children’s rights over family tradition. But certainly not here in Canada. Yet Canada is among the coalition of countries that opposes the affirmation of parental rights. There is no comprehensive need to abolish parental rights and responsibilities in order to protect children from malicious treatment. Specific cases can always be dealt with through criminal law channels. There is no need to intrude upon the parent-child relationship by extreme efforts to eliminate parental rights.

3 comments:

  1. The conspiracy on this front is to lower the barrier to justify such intrusions, bypassing these fundamental rights.

    Intervention by the state is justified by arbitrary assessment of "professionals" that the rights of the child have been violated by their parents.

    Until parents fight on a per-case basis, in the same way victims of police violence fight back and are winning their cases, matters will continue to degenerate.

    The recent story in the U.K. about parents charged of violating a no-contact order because of children talking to each other via Facebook is a good example.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Knowledge is POWER, so here is some information decent people in Canada need to be aware of:

    http://www.mts.net/~lwinslow/Writings/Canada%20Firmly%20in%20the%20Hands%20of%20Satan.htm

    http://www.trosch.org/msn/mason-graphics.html

    http://www.henrymakow.com/canadian_military_spending.html

    http://thetyee.ca/News/2011/01/28/SystemBroken/

    WHERE ARE THE LAWYERS TO START A CLASS ACTION AGAINST MCFD. THEY WOULD HAVE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE/FAMILIES WHO WOULD WANT THEIR NAMES ON THE SUIT...MCFD NEEDS TO BE SHUT DOWN,...COURTS THAT CONDEMN THE INNOCENT and AQUIT THE GUILTY SHOULD HAVE NO SAY IN WHO CAN BE PARENTS TO THEIR OWN FLESH AND BLOOD-- OUR CHILDREN...

    Or someone show me and Josef how to bring a class action lawsuit against MCFD...I know he would be on board for sure...

    ReplyDelete
  3. I note that a reader did not approve of my using blanket terms like stupidity and incompetence. I did preface my remarks by saying there was ample evidence of stupidity and incompetence. This blog has been a running record of such evidence for---how many years is it now Ron? Look at the determination to pursue the Bayne case against the advice of their own lawyer. Look at the stupid, incompetent and vindictive decision to take the Bayne boys away from the grandparents. There is a lot more evidence of stupidity in the matter of Ayn Van Dyck and I am sure that this is going to be full coverage of that on this site. Do I not constantly natter on about the need for evidence. The evidence has been amply shown and I do not need to justify my use of the terms stupidity and incompetence.
    I would love to be commending workers for integrity and intelligence and compassion. Problem is I do not see the evidence.

    ReplyDelete

I encourage your comments using this filter.
1. Write politely with a sincere statement, valid question, justifiable comment.
2. Engage with the blog post or a previous comment whether you agree or disagree.
3. Avoid hate, profanity, name calling, character attack, slander and threats, particularly when using specific names.
4. Do not advertise