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.

Public Trust, Power and Corruption / Part 380 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Public Trust, Power and Corruption

A fundamental theme of democracy is the concept of the public trust which asserts that within the public there lies the true power and future of a society and therefore the trust that the public invests in its officials must be respected.

A young person was speaking with me about the seeds of cynicism that have germinated and developed into full grown pessimism. At first one surmises this is cynicism about government but closer inspection reveals it is cynicism about persons, people, humanity. So few people come to power without becoming tainted or even derailed. The reality was captured in a phrase. “Power corrupts: absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

There is more to this adage which derives from a quotation by Lord Acton, who was actually John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, in fact Baron Acton (1834–1902). As an historian and moralist he summed his thought in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887 with these words: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." What chance had public trust if that revelation becomes our starting point? Another ancient, William Pitt, the Elder, The Earl of Chatham and British Prime Minister from 1766 to 1778 is recorded as having made an equally profound and disturbing statement in a speech to the UK House of Lords in 1770. "Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it."

If the Liberal caucus is comprised of many who have already compromised their respect and the opposition NDP has nothing better to show, where are we to look for leadership and guileless aid when we want something as simple as mercy or compassion?

Employees within the B.C. Ministry of Children and Family Development are not elected officers yet to them has been invested a responsibility that in some circumstances has not unlimited power but immense power which when employed can shroud its actions under a legislatively sewn cover of confidentiality and privacy. That without question has generated a pattern of conduct and job performance that has not been in the best interests of children and families for countless thousands of British Columbians. Public trust has been lost for all of these in their elected officials and others employed within governmental ministries. I mentioned to that young person with whom I spoke that he had articulated his eroded trust issues much sooner than I have. I have waited until my senior years to realize how awful things are. Now, I am almost overcome by the avalanche of disappointments. The few untainted MCFD employees whom I earlier mentioned must be as much or more discomfited by what they see around them each day.

Will the true champions please stand up? Will the honourable call for accountability? Will the untarnished stand out as attractive leaders?

DEMOCRACY AND CHILD PROTECTION / Part 374 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

We can knock the involvement of the Ministry of Children in the lives of families and parents but we had better understand the philosophy that drives it.

We appreciate and applaud the democracy in which we live. We therefore need to understand it. As democracy pertains to the welfare of children, parents possess substantial rights as well as responsibilities with regard to the care of their children. Yet we have opted within our democratic society to provide a safeguard to children whose parents cannot or will not provide them adequate care. The government also owns responsibility to insure that children's needs are met.

Autonomy does characterize parental rights to decide for their children with regard to educational opportunities, religious heritage, discipline, cultural and recreational activities. Yet within this freedom lies an awareness that when concerns arise about physical, sexual, emotional abuse or neglect, then the government by way of a mandated child protection agency may become involved with the family. Sometimes this involvement is voluntary, which is to say that the agency upon request offers parents support and counsel to more effectively care for their children, and this may include monitoring and accountability. Other times the agency's involvement with a family is involuntary and even unwelcome. Of course a child protection agency must protect children from parents whose conduct constitutes physical abuse or neglect, sexual abuse, emotional abuse or neglect, or failure to provide adequate care. It is never justifiable to interfere with a family merely because the agency believes it can do a better job of care or provide more developmental opportunities. Justification of involvement occurs only when the level of care received by children has fallen below a standard which no child in the country should experience.

The social worker's struggle and the parent's conflict arises from the vagueness of definitions for child abuse and neglect because this requires assessment by a particular worker as to what that minimal standard for care should be and whether or not these parents have missed it.

This is certainly one of the dilemmas of our child protection system.

What is occurring presently with Paul and Zabeth Bayne and the repeated attempts by MCFD SWs to schedule a meeting to discuss the support and care of Paul and Zabeth Bayne's fourth and unborn child and Zabeth herself may be viewed technically as fulfilling the MCFD mandate. In light of the years of pain that MCFD involvement has delivered to the Baynes, these recent overtures might be interpreted as tantamount to harassment. Paul and Zabeth have always been trustworthy people. As young parents, they were responsibly caring for their three children before they were removed and under the gloomy forecast of the past three years have conducted themselves admirably well. While they wait now for news from Judge Crabtree as to whether they will be awarded custody of their three, they have characteristically prepared for their newborn. They are employed, have excellent medical support through family doctor and obstetrician, are registered at a hospital that is equipped with a special care nursery to handle deliveries 24 weeks and over, and they have the great benefit of incredible support from family and friends. Rather than playing by the book now, it would be advisable for MCFD to desist. It should be clear that confidence in MCFD motive and conduct is expended.