CANADIAN IMMIGRATION AND SHARIA LAW

Symbol of Sharia. crescent moon & Venus star

I said yesterday that Canada as a culture has made a perceptible shift to the Left and this is demonstrated with the election of the current Liberal federal government. The Liberal policy agenda became attractive to a majority. This government will make decisions from the Left of Centre on vital issues in 2016 and beyond. Furthermore I vaguely expressed apprehension about some issues and the choices to be made. Today I am expressing one specific area of uneasiness.

It is an Immigration and Sharia Law item.

2016 & CRUCIAL CANADIAN DECISIONS

Canada is fortunate. I am a grateful Canadian. We have government by the people. Regardless of which political party is in power, we are governed by democratic principles. I am persuaded that within the Liberal caucus are responsible and honorable people. Government by the people is respected by them and applied in my best interests. As 2015 closes out I am concerned. I'm not alarmist.  Noticeably, in Canada as in the USA the shift has been to the Left when articulating ideals and morality. It is from the Left that heavyweight decisions are being made and will be made as 2016 dawns.

SEIZING CHILDREN

Each year in each of our provinces in Canada, police officers and child-welfare caseworkers remove children of all ages from the custody of their parents to protect them from alleged abuse or neglect. Some of these “emergency removals” are pre-authorized by judges in ex parte proceedings until the full story is known. In other cases the removals are achieved solely on the authority of the law enforcement or child welfare agency responding to a concerned call they have received. Depending on ages of children and circumstances, the children are predictably seized without warning from their homes or schools, subjected to intrusive interrogations, medical examinations and occasionally strip-searched. They are required to live in foster homes or group homes while the legal system grinds toward a settlement of their future.

PIERRE ET JUSTIN, FATHER & SON

Credits: QMI Agency file photo

Justin Trudeau, as a potential Prime Ministry is still a riddle, but that will not matter if he carries the same popular support that his father Pierre Elliot Trudeau enjoyed for most of the fifteen years that he was PM. I don't know whether Justin has what it will take to govern a country.

Lest we forget PET, he came to power on the wave of Trudeaumania as columnist Lubor J. Zink coined it. He was not a friend of Quebec separatists who were at the height of their rhetoric and fervor then.

CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEMS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

Here is another thought from my friend Ray Ferris. Ray Ferris is a retired child-protection worker and the author of  The Art of Child Protection.

In Britain child protection legislation is national, but the execution of the work is delegated to local authorities, such as cities and towns, or county councils. Local authorities set up child welfare services, but are subject to accountability to the national government. The U.K. gets its fair share of child protection horror stories, but there does seem to be a difference about how they are handled. Also it is much more possible to have an efficient service in one municipality and a terrible one in the next.

Following the death in two different municipalities of children, in which the social workers repeatedly ignored compelling evidence, a judicial inquiry took place. The Haringey authority and another one were declared to be “unfit for purpose.” That has a nice ring to it and would apply here don’t you think?

FAMILY AUTONOMY IN LIGHT OF THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS (part 2 of 3)

Are ‘human freedom’ and ‘human dignity,’ values that we want to preserve here in Canada? Do I hear a unanimous and audacious “YES!” Do we want to preserved them here in British Columbia?

If so, then why? I can venture an answer. Because among other benefits that family autonomy achieves for us in a free society, are diversity, variety, and multiplicity. Don’t tell me that these are not important to us, to you. Few of us are enchanted by sameness.

FAMILY AUTONOMY, CHILD PROTECTION & PARENTAL RIGHTS (part 1 of 3)

The family is the primary social institution. The family is the primary conservator and transmitter of values, beliefs and traditions. Conservation of family autonomy should be among the most important objectives of provincial and federal governments. This commitment must become 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? Furthermore, parental liberty is fundamental to the concept and function of family.

PARENTAL LIBERTY (Part One)

Dispute About Government and Parental Roles

simply an image of a dispaasionate agency leading a child away from family

History tells the story. Historically there has been a vigorous dispute about the relationship between government and the family and certainly with the function and responsibilities assigned to each. Contingent upon the political philosophy, either the family has been seen as servant to the state or the state has been expected to provide for families the required security to accomplish their work as primary caregivers to these citizens of the future.

Tension always exists between the state and its parts. Government institutions should be obliged to be careful to facilitate the function of the family without usurping its proper role. Of course federal and provincial governments have a role to play to ensure children are not threatened by poverty, neglect or abuse but the state must be careful not to trample on the independence of the family. Theoretically the government exists to aid and assist the smaller units rather than to take over their places in a society.

THE WAY IT WORKS

Natural parents have full rights over their child unless mitigated by an agreement or court order to the contrary. These rights, known as parental rights are also referred to as custody or guardianship.

Occasionally a parent is unable to cope with parental responsibility and voluntarily turns a child over to the government. By law, in all jurisdictions of Canada there are child protection services, sometimes called child welfare services.  The term 'apprehension' is applied to the government intervention by which a child is removed from the natural parent(s) care, and this is affected by the extraction of all or most of the parental rights from the natural parents, through a quick confirmation by the Court. On this blog we tend to highlight the cases in which the government has taken initiative for a child protection order by which parental rights are set aside temporarily. I cannot underscore boldly enough my objection to the too frequent occurrence of temporary care that ignores court orders and time parameters.

British Columbia's legislation is entitled Child, Family and Community Service Act. In Ontario, the related legislation is the Child and Family Services Act, and, in Alberta, the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act. The BC CFCSA is unique in that it personifies the role of the government in child protection cases by a reference to the Director who is a senior public servant in one of the five provincial regions who interestingly seldom becomes involved in individual cases and never appears in court. So in fact, 'Director' means the child protection office or social worker responsible for the file.

Code of Ethics for Canadian Social Workers. / 600

ACTS / CASW

The Canadian Association of Social Workers (CASW) developed a Code of Ethics for Canadian social workers. It consists of six values which are intended to guide professional practice in an ethical manner and is consistent with the International Declaration of Ethical Principles, created by the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW). I would like to hear from you. Try not to default to rage and complaint. If you can, when you read these values, express clearly how you believe case workers associated with your case, have been measuring up. If there has been disappointment, have you been able to identify where the breakdown occurs?

Value 1: Respect for the Inherent Dignity and Worth of Persons

o Social workers are committed to respecting the dignity and worth inherent in all people. In doing so, social workers uphold each person's right to self-determination as long as this right does not impose on the safety and rights of others or the safety of the individual. If required by law to act against a client's wishes, the Code states that the social worker must do so with the least amount of coercion possible.

Furthermore, social workers recognize and respect the diversity within the Canadian population and uphold the rights of individuals to practice their beliefs and traditions as long as they do not impose on the rights of others. Social workers uphold the rights laid out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Value 2: Pursuit of Social Justice

o Social workers believe that all people--individually and collectively--are obligated to provide services, resources and opportunities that benefit humanity and protect individuals from harm. Furthermore, they advocate for social fairness and equal access to resources, services and benefits. Social workers are concerned with removing barriers and increasing choices among all people, but particularly among those who are vulnerable, marginalized or disadvantaged. This includes objecting to prejudice and discrimination under any circumstances and addressing and challenging the stereotypes of individuals or groups within society.

Value 3: Service to Humanity

o When acting in a professional capacity, social workers place the needs of others above their own self-interest. They aim to promote the personal development of individuals and groups as outlined in the Code. Furthermore, the power they are given is used responsibly and in ways that meet the needs of clients and promote social justice. As well, the knowledge and skills they possess are used to resolve conflict and address the wide range of consequences resulting from conflict.

Value 4: Integrity in Professional Practice

o Social workers respect and promote the values, purpose and ethical principles of their profession and their field of practice. They act honestly and responsibly and demonstrate reliability, impartiality and diligence, thereby maintaining a high level of professional practice. They are always mindful of their actions so that they do not negatively impact the reputation of the profession and they develop and maintain appropriate professional boundaries.

Value 5: Confidentiality in Professional Practice

o Social workers respect their clients’ right to privacy and the importance of the trust their clients have placed in them. This entails keeping client information confidential unless consent has been given by the client or a legal representative of the client to disclose certain information. That being said, the Code states that the confidentiality agreement can be broken if a client has disclosed incriminating information or if a court order requires the social worker to disclose specific information received from a client. Therefore, social workers always inform their clients about the limitations of the confidentiality agreement before any information is shared.

Value 6: Competence in Professional Practice

o Social workers respect their clients’ right to be offered the highest quality of service possible. Thus, social workers limit their professional practice to areas where they are most competent. If a social worker is unable to meet the needs of her client, she will refer him to another social worker or agency that can. Furthermore, social workers are continuously working on developing personal knowledge and skills relevant to their profession and contributing to the development of the profession as a whole. If this involves research then special care is to be taken to minimize risks, ensure informed consent and confidentiality and accurately report findings in an unbiased manner.

British Columbia has its own Code of Ethics, a blend of CASW and provincial BCASW priorities.

BCASW Code of Ethics

Ethical behaviour is at the core of every profession. The BCASW Code of Ethics was jointly adopted by BCASW and the BC College of Social Workers in January 2003 and consists of eleven principles:

1. A social worker shall maintain the best interest of the client as the primary professional obligation.
2. A social worker shall respect the intrinsic worth of the persons she or he serves in her or his professional relationships with them.
3. A social worker shall carry out her or his professional duties and obligations with integrity and objectivity.
4. A social worker shall have and maintain competence in the provision of a social work service to a client.
5. A social worker shall not exploit the relationship with a client for personal benefit, gain or gratification.
6. A social worker shall protect the confidentiality of all professionally acquired information. She or he shall disclose such information only when required or allowed by law to do so, or when clients have consented to disclosure.
7. A social worker who engages in another profession, occupation, affiliation or calling shall not allow these outside interests to affect the social work relationship with the client, professional judgment, independence and/or competence.
8. A social worker shall not provide social work services or otherwise behave in a manner that discredits the profession of social work or diminishes the public’s trust in the profession.
9. A social worker shall promote service, program and agency practices and policies that are consistent with this Code of Ethics and the Standards of Practice of the BC College of Social Workers.
10. A social worker shall promote excellence in her or his profession.
11. A social worker shall advocate change in the best interest of the client, and for the overall benefit of society.

BCASW Code of Ethics
CASW Code of Ethics - full document 2005
CASW Code and Guidelines for Ethical Practice

CANADA DAY, CHARTER OF RIGHTS & FREEDOMS, PROTECTION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS / 559

O Canada, Glorious and Free ………….. We stand on guard for thee.

Parents have brought children into the world. Inherent in our society is the conviction that the primary responsibility for care of the children belongs to the parents. That conviction translates into actual parental rights with regard to their children. Parental rights are viewed as "natural rights." It’s an essential tenet of cultural and societal Canadian life that parents will care for and control their children.

It is reasonably assumed within our society that parents are acting and will act in the child’s best interests. The protection of parental rights is founded on this fundamental postulation. The protection of such parental rights it follows will advance a child’s welfare.

THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITY / 533

Let me clear up a legal factor that seems to be cloudy to some readers who in their frustration with child protection agencies in Canada, spout “I thought we were innocent until proven to be guilty.”  That axiom continues to be true in criminal proceedings. Child protection proceedings however, are not criminal in nature. Rather they are civil proceedings and that means that the standard of proof is a balance of probability. You may still dislike that.

That balance of probability proviso when harnessed to child protection’s remarkable degree of legal authority over children disturbs and even angers many parents beset by CP case workers. In every Canadian jurisdiction there is now comprehensive child protection legislation. If that were not enough, the common law has given courts inherent jurisdiction over children who are in danger, and this jurisdiction is called parens patriae. The summary truth is that in Canada the natural parental custody and even court ordered guardianship is superceded by child protection or child welfare orders.

JOSEF FISHER / Part 408 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Josef Fisher has sometimes written comments on this blog site. At times I have taken exception to his angry writing. Recently, Josef requested that someone convert thousands of words from his sometimes incoherent English writing into a compelling introductory page for his blog.  I don't know why, but I took it on. He needed help. In gratitude Josef contributed a financial gift to the Bayne Trust Fund.  What you read now is a longer post than usual but it is a poignant fifteen year story of brokenness. MCFD is involved in breaking the man. 

Josef did not foresee that his dream of a free and happy life in Canada would turn out so tragically. Josef Fisher was born in Czechoslovakia in 1954 and in 1987 he fled communism to come to Canada. He is a naturalized Canadian living in Vancouver today. He is a broken man.

As an army officer in a small Czechoslovakian town Josef met a Cuban worker named Milene. Milene became pregnant and in 1985 returned to Cuba for their baby's birth. They named their son Yosef (later called Joe). Sadly Milene died eight days after Joe's birth. Milene's two sisters and mother took care of the boy until he was twelve.

Meanwhile Josef met a fellow Czechoslovakian named Iva in Italy where he was in a refugee camp for two years. He emigrated to Canada first and when she arrived ten months later, they were married. They briefly lived in Toronto where their daughter was born and they then moved to Vancouver in August 1991. In time, a son was born. After some interviews in 1995 Josef and Iva became foster parents receiving children from MCFD. They could not have known how MCFD involvement would change their lives. Some foster children from abusive backgrounds exhibited sexually aberrant behaviour which the Fishers reported and satisfactorily handled.

When his grandmother died in Cuba in 1997, Josef's son Joe requested to live in Canada with the Fishers. Fishers were still fostering children when they received Joe. After five months and on his first Christmas Eve in Canada, the Fishers learned that Joe had touched their six year old daughter indecently on several occasions. Joe was mortified by what he had done. While this sybling indiscretion could have been handled by the Fishers themselves, they trusted MCFD, so the Fishers notified their family doctor and MCFD. MCFD was initially satisfied with precautions taken by Fishers but then made accusations that they did not protect the children and MCFD installed 24 hour homemakers to monitor the family until a police investigation was done. A SW accused the Fishers of potential parental sexual exploitation which the social worker later acknowledged to be untrue. The frightened boy was interrogated by a Vancouver Police Sexual Offenses Squad detective who concluded the boy was remorseful and there was no risk of re-offending and no charge would be laid but also that counseling was needed for the boy's threats to harm himself.

Joe was twelve and terrified by social and psychiatric professionals. All members of the Fisher biological family were ordered into counselling. Josef and Iva felt victimized by a system that did not listen, assumed falsely, repeatedly made accusations and shut them out of consultations with their son. Their family future was being planned without them. Having fled communism, they were experiencing government interference and were helpless. They delivered requests for help to officials in early 1998. Their foster home was closed in 1998. Fishers were not permitted to say goodbye to the last foster child removed on Mother's Day in May 1998. Iva and Josef had to have mental health assessments. They refused. They cancelled the voluntary care agreement. They were threatened that Joe would be charged with sexual assault and their own children removed. Fishers were perceived as being unwilling for their children to receive therapeutic help.

They made appeals to anyone and everyone. Josef repeatedly complained to police and MCFD, the Attorney General, the Representative of Children, to MLA's, to MPs, the Civil Liberties Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Commission alleging Human Rights violations. Initial sympathy always resulted in disappointment. Their children's teachers and their family doctor commended the Fishers and deplored MCFD's treatment. Sympathetic professionals sought to intervene but were squelched by MCFD. Young Joe needed a Spanish translation to understand. Mr. Fisher's own ability to express himself in English was always a challenge and his growing anxiety was expressed in ways that social workers felt offended and threatened. For the first time his mental health was questioned and the audio recording of the police interrogation is on his blog. As his helplessness increased, Mr. Fisher acted irrationally and he was arrested for uttering threats, then released. Josef's complaints were seen as inflammatory, harsh, libelous and slanderous. Judges would not listen to the Fishers' charges. Josef was viewed as a risk, obsessive and mentally unstable. Josef's communications were prolific and relentless until his letters and faxes and emails were viewed as criminal harassment. By 2000 all agencies closed their ears to Josef. He was arrested once again, charged, found guilty and placed on probation. Over the next eight years he was arrested nine times, was incarcerated for many months, was detained for psychiatric assessment and was diagnosed as narcissistic, obsessive, compulsive, paranoid with antisocial traits. The issues were always related to Criminal harassment, Breach of probation and Uttering threats. On March 14 2005 Josef hit the news as an Emergency Response Team was summoned to prevent him from lighting himself on fire at the CBC Plaza in downtown Vancouver. By 2007 his son Joe had already experienced tasering, arrest, become drug dependent and homelessness. He was eventually placed in a group home.

Josef has not stopped telling his story and he will never get over his destroyed life. I don't condone all that Josef did. Had I known him I would have advised him on different courses of action many times. So, while Josef is responsible for his own responses, all government systems failed him and his family. His daughter has gone on to be successful at university. Josef and his son Joe (now 26) may find an apartment together. Josef and his wife Iva will be divorced in January 2011. I truly hope that all their lives are happier in 2011.

I have Josef's permission to tell this story. You can read Josef's own journalled account of his long ordeal in his linked blog. As you read all of his pages, bear in mind that the writing reflects Josef's agony, anger, confusion as well as English being his second language.

FREEDOM TO SPEAK / Part 368 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

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

CHANGEMAKERS PLEASE STEP FORWARD / Part 312 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Countdown: It's the 17th. Four days from now, is the final Court Date for the Baynes. 

Yesterday I alluded to the purpose of this particular blog.

I return to this point because there seems some confusion.

The GPS blog began as a personal commentary on life and times and issues filtered through my wide angle lens (wide angle defined by age and experience).

When in September 2009, after years of not being in communication with one another, I learned about my friends Paul and Zabeth Bayne and the distressing life to which they have been subjected, the blog became a daily recital of their pain. I couldn't help myself. Their story needed to be told, frequently.

Familiarizing myself with their case raised concerns about which I had to write - concerns about the operations of child protection in my area. People did read the blog, not many, but a few and they seldom commented.

As everyone knows, exposure to one complaint against child protection services leads rapidly to other cases. The concern intensifies. It was staggering to realize that protests against child removals and unjustified sustained time in care was not exclusive to the Fraser region but existed in all provincial MCFD regions, in all provinces of Canada, and furthermore, in the U.S.A and the U.K, and other countries.

The subject matter for me has remained focused upon this one family's ordeal but it has included numerous side trips to broader issues that pertain to any government's involvement in the care and protection of children.

As I continued to write, readership increased and comments accumulated. I realized there was an audience consisting often of people who have been deeply injured by a government agency and who need an avenue to express their anguish. The comment section of this blog has often been an expression laced with bitterness but it is understandable given the helplessness that contributors feel.

There are many more online blogs and websites where these topics are discussed angrily, even offensively. While I understand the emotion and disgust associated with the issues, I purposed to use this blog to discourse openly, honestly and respectfully the relevant subjects and insisted that comments be added with a comparable courtesy. 

Inherent to my approach is the awareness that society has troubled people, dysfunctional families, adults with addictions, people with histories of abuse, people who did not plan to have children, didn't want children, shouldn't have children. There are children who are angry, maligned, bitter, injured and unhappy. Someone must help all of these people. I accept that one of the first orders of action for our society must be protecting the most vulnerable, and therefore safeguarding children. Who else but our government is in a position to do this?  I don't like that particularly, but the church isn't doing it, and I don't have greater confidence in private institutions. It is not a quantum leap for me to accept that removing a child is sometimes imperative. It is not difficult for me to accept that there are principled and good foster parents who genuinely care for children and youth. I have no difficulty appreciating that many social workers are motivated by a sincere desire to help people. Therefore I welcome the comments of people who can speak from experience as children, parents and workers within the child protection network, can speak to the glaring problems, can speak to the past as well as the future and can make recommendations for change. 

The result has been a readership that is international. Big deal. It doesn't change anything. The change-makers are the people who have gone beyond talking about the problems within the child protection and care programs to organizing concerned people in such a way that help is provided to those victimized by these systems and in such a way that politicians must pay attention.