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.

IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE FAMILY IS BEING DECONSTRUCTED? (part 3 of 3)

Do you think this is happening, that is, the deconstruction of the family in the name of promoting the welfare and safety of the child? Is it unreasonable to pose this question? Does it sound like the query of a paranoid author? I don’t see it as an irrational question because I am no longer a young parent with young children but I am a concerned observer of societal and governmental behaviour.

The legal rights of families and parents are being redefined under our noses.

CIVIL RIGHT & AYN VAN DYK

Civil or human or political rights are rights which rest upon the premise of birthright into a polity or state or society. Conceptually, one’s birth must ensure that a person is a citizen who can fully participate in the civil and political life of that state without experiencing discrimination or repression. Neither government or organizations or individuals must be permitted to infringe upon those basic human rights.

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.

WILL A JUDGE RULE CHILD REMOVAL IS UNREASONABLE?

Roadside Check

Now we have something to discuss. What did B.C.’s tough drinking laws and the Ministry’s removal of Ayn Van Dyk from her father have in common? I understand these are not identical issues, not nearly. There are however, commonalities which beg some serious questions. I believe it is a commendable objective to rid our roads of drunk drivers. I also believe that it is laudable to protect children and ensure their security. I sympathize with everyone who has been injured or grieved by someone’s decision to drive while drunk. I am saddened by every incident of parental rage or addiction or neglect that has caused damage or death to a child.

Furthermore, I can understand the complaint of a driver who although unimpaired, has nonetheless failed a roadside screening test and without any opportunity for appealing or countering the judgment, has been tried and sentenced on the road where he was stopped. And believe me, I comprehend the resentment of parents who for reasons that cannot withstand cross examination nevertheless have a child removed from them, with no opportunity to explain, to defend, or to contest this action turned allegation and conviction.

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.

WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD? / 525

The ‘interests of a child’, the very best interests of children should naturally be the concern of each one of us. Parents in particular are expected to care for their children according to this standard. In societies like ours, the collective, the people, citizens, have elected representatives to institutionalize this standard of care for children. When parents or other caregivers appear not to be acting in the best interests of a child, then government authorized social workers intervene.

Curiously, ‘the best interests of the child’ has become a virtual dogma within our courts and child protection systems, yet there is no standard definition of ‘best interests of the child.’ Notwithstanding, this phrase customarily refers to the court’s consideration of the kinds of orders, actions and services that will best serve a child, as well as taking into consideration the person(s) best suited to care for the child. The child’s fundamental safety and welfare is the principal concern.

FOR WHAT DO WE STAND? / Part 403 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

In commenting about the CBC story about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, one person wrote the following:

Julian Assange stands for.......

Truth
Transparency
Democracy
Justice
Freedom
Liberty

The USA stands for.........

Lies
Cover-ups
Torture
Injustice
Aggression
Control over the people

Most of us are initially appalled to think that the last set of descriptives could be true of a free world democratic government. Nevertheless there are many people whose knowledge or personal experiences concur that these are apt identifiers for the USA. There are enough shockers happening inside our democracies to make us all nervous about the truth.

Based upon what many of you have written over the months it would seem that in your minds at least, that latter set of attributes are applicable to the Ministry of Children and Development in those localities where you live. You say that you have experienced Lies, Cover-ups, Authoritarianism, Injustice, Aggression, and Control over your lives.

That reputation is a heavy burden for well intentioned social workers.

I have the impression from social workers that their work today is like a mine field. They must vigilantly watch their steps with clients and supervisors.

Parents whose children have been apprehended inaccurately, mistakenly or unjustly are in Guantanamo Bay. Their lives have been detained. Freedoms curtailed. Resources diminished. Their children are under 'foster' arrest, customarily receiving acceptable care but experienced relationship deprivation. The children's still maleable lives are being shaped by events happening to them which they often cannot understand and which are beyond the control of the people who are most important to them.

Some of you have hinted at the ramifications possible if a Wikileaks kind of disclosure occurred with documents internal to MCFD regional offices or the offices of the suits and slacks in Victoria. But what would you want to come out of something like that? What kind of people are we? For what do we stand?

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

For Love and For Justice / Part 129 / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

The CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS is Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982. The initial and defining statement for this document states “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:”
This document begins with a title, an actual warranty to citizens like you and me and Zabeth and Paul Bayne, namely, the Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms. Then in numbered articles the Rights and Freedoms in Canada are articulated. For instance, article one says the following:
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
In this noteworthy document Article 11 speaks about the rights of even those in Canada who have been charged with an offence. Even a person so charged has essential rights. Nine precise rights are specified for them. The fourth of these rights follows here.
11. Any person charged with an offence has the right …
(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

I make that point to contrast the treatment of a charged individual with treatment directed to Paul and Zabeth Bayne. The former, the person charged with an offence, is to be presumed innocent that is until proven otherwise. Paul and Zabeth Bayne are not charged with an offence. However, their family, their normal life, their plans and hopes and dreams for their family have been interrupted to a degree that one might conclude that they are not only charged but guilty of an offence and that they are living out their punishment each day, and have been for twenty-eight months without a ruling of guilty against them. To call this an ‘Interruption’ understates the callousness not of social workers but of a system that requires the presumption of risk if not guilt of parents in order to protect children. That is the driver here. Having said that, I am unclear that there is an alternative approach. Someone more experienced in family law, family court, child protection and social services might have deduced by now some recommendations that could inject more mercy into the process for parents and family while still protecting children.

Now this case contested before the court is the Ministry of Children pitted against Paul and Zabeth Bayne. While they have not been charged with harming their children, they are effectively on trial for harm to their children, or if doing the semantic dance, then they are on trial to establish that they are a risk to harm their children - a great enough danger in fact that they should lose their rights to their children forever. They are such a risk as parents that these children who want to be with their parents should be cut off from all visitation, should be placed in a foster or adoptive home and should not see their birth mom or birth dad again – or at least until they are of the age of majority and as adult adoptees desire to find Paul and Zabeth.

So, the efforts of the Ministry of Children, its lawyer, and its witnesses in this case, project a portrayal of this couple that ranks them with the worst parents in B.C., without any redeeming qualities, not even one customary page of a few favourable comments could be made about them in the Risk Assessment of the MCFD. This should be viewed with amazement if not disbelief, given the facts that 600 people signed an online petition in support of returning the three children to the Baynes, and almost twenty thousand people have glanced at this blog site since October 2009, including social workers, MCFD, BC provincial offices in Victoria, many with regularity, and an auditorium of people dug into their purses to make donations to help the Baynes fund this defence. Does the Ministry know something sinister about the Baynes that none of their friends and family know. Perhaps, but so far that has not been evident in court as I can see. That's my take on it but of course Judge Crabtree will make the ruling. It can never be 'just' in this democratic society to remove one’s children for all time based on this portfolio of tracing paper thin circumstantial data. Rights and Freedoms should kick in right about now.

1. Link to a great teaching vehicle to look inside the Charter.

2. an effective site for teaching children the importance of rights of the individual.

For Love and For Justice / Part 98 / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

The CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS is Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982. The initial and defining statement for this document states “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:”

This document begins with a title, an actual warranty to citizens like you and me and Zabeth and Paul Bayne, namely, the Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms. Then in numbered articles the Rights and Freedoms in Canada are articulated. For instance, article one says the following:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Moving through this noteworthy document one finds article 11 speaking about the rights of even those in Canada who have been charged with an offence. Even a person so charged has essential rights. Nine precise rights are specified for them. The fourth of these rights follows here.

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right …
(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

When their youngest child, their six week old daughter was taken to the hospital in Autumn 2007 following a household injury, a medical diagnosis of Shaken Baby was applied and immediately Paul and Zabeth Bayne became suspected abusers. The RCMP was called and after questioning both were charged with aggravated assault. They were still presumed innocent and it would be necessary for a court of law to find them guilty. The RCMP in a short time concluded there was insufficient evidence to proceed with this charge and it was dismissed. RCMP also issued a statement to the couple that their photographs and fingerprints had been destroyed. They were innocent in the eyes of the law. The Ministry of Children and Family Development however is mandated to protect children when abuse is suspected and can proceed to remove children whether or not the suspicion is supported by evidence. Presumption of innocence does not exist within this system. And the rights of birth parents are forfeited. All three children were taken away from the Baynes in October 2007. A fair and public hearing has not determined that Paul and Zabeth should bear the penalty of the loss of their children as though they had been convicted of an egregious unlawful act. Yet for two years and three months they have lived without their three children in their home. Now finally, an inquiry is under way in the Chilliwack Court House and it is projected to continue throughout the month of February. The MCFD attorney will seek to prove their assessment of the Baynes as abusers and unfit parents. Paul’s and Zabeth’s attorney Doug Christie will demonstrate that the adversarial posture of MCFD against the Baynes has been flawed from the outset, having originated from a medical misdiagnosis and been reinforced by subjective and biased reports and judgments from many sources.

MCFD vs Bayne Inquiry at Chilliwack Court House,46085 Yale Road Chilliwack - Schedule of Court Days for the Bayne Child Custody Trial is as follows: Jan 2-5; Feb 2 -5; Feb 8 - 9; Feb 11-12; Feb 22-23; Feb 25-26. The public is permitted to attend. 9:30 AM start.

Helps:
1. a great teaching vehicle to look inside the Charter.
2. an effective site for teaching children the importance of rights of the individual.