CW WAS A CONTRIBUTOR / Part 291 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

I scrutinize the comments you send to this post. I explained my approach in a post some time ago.

On Wednesday, June 23, 2010 on my post MONITORING THE BLOG / Part 229 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/ I wrote, “The line is thin between reporting verifiable facts and defamatory material. I am depending upon you to exercise caution and integrity when referring to someone while relating a story or illustration. Because anonymous contributors afford me little confidence that they are who they say they are, SW, CW, parent, or that their motives for writing are honorable, on the basis of what they write, I must be trusting, discerning and objective at the same time.”

CW was a regular reader and contributor for many months. Although many of you did not know this person, the person's willingness to identify as a Care or Community Worker and the nature of this person's comments sent you into attack mode. Enough was revealed within his/her comments to convince most of us this was truly a social worker with inside information. I myself found the writer's comments balanced, extremely supportive of the blog's comments that called for change and improvement to the delivery of services by MCFD, and occasionally making points to clarify or correct statement some of you made about MCF data. Many of you didn't want to accept CW's support of any aspect of MCF work.

Among the things that CW wrote were these comments:

1.  “I hope this sight is a catalyst for change too and that once the court-involvement with the Bayne's is over, the discussion continues as you see fit, Ron.” June 23, 2010 8:53 AM
2. “To Anon 11:42 - I am afraid you are spending a lot of time considering my motives and missing the point … I have not once argued there aren't historical or current problems with child protection. I have said the issues which are being portrayed as the majority, are not.”June 23, 2010 9:57 PM
3. Concerning Chris Martell's story, “God bless this family. So so terrible.” June 30, 2010 2:54 PM
4. Thank you, Ron, for the valuable information you are posting. June 30, 2010 1:27 PM
5. One that upset you and me and others concerned the Baynes laying a baby on the floor, something they themselves may have questioned numerous times yet CW wrote: “It was not ok to leave this little girl on the floor - in her condition(age etc), with rambunctious brothers playing nearby. A removable offence? NOT one bit.”

CW has a right to speak forth but not to expect us all to find it palatable. In fact the comment was fair. Hindsight informs that putting the child there was risky but it was not a parental action worthy of child removal.

Characteristic of the contrary remarks that were frequently directed at CW is this example.
To: CW (June 16, 2010 9:01 AM) “Thank you for your prompt reply. I am impressed by your dedication in monitoring this blog, your knowledge in defending the “child protection” industry, your skills in mitigating damage and casting doubt. Your awareness of opposition is above the average of a front line community worker.”

Often CW was required to defend against a misinterpreted statement.

1. Anon 3:11 - I never once said parents are "better off after receiving services." I did say something along the lines of (paraphrasing myself) "those who voluntarily seek services will benefit from them." I said the postings here which are being portrayed the majority - are the minority. Nothing more. Please do not extrapolate.... I can explain this statement further if you wish it.
2. To Anon 12:27 - I think its with you where the burden of proof lays, does it not? Someone else had already mentioned PAPA on this web site before I had. I don't mind if people go to PAPA, they post a lot of important videos and articles. I referred solely to the surveillance section.
3. To Anon 12:18 - I wonder why I would engage in such an exercise with you on this blog - such as you are requesting... I have made my statements. You clearly have evidence you wish to present. By all means do so - I know you are itching... Ray Ferris, a documented former SW, has also stated surveillance, as you suggest it, does not occur... You may read my previous posts and quote when I said "MCFD never" used surveillance as you suggest. I may be wrong in recalling my own posts, but I'd say a good guess is that I said "MCFD does not."

And perhaps that latter comment is the one that I should have been able to recollect before publishing the latest challenge. CW had exhausted this subject of surveillance as far as he/she was concerned. But I didn't remember.
CW signed off a while ago, surprised and disappointed with me for publishing as a post a comment left by an Anonymous someone who challenged CW to respond to a specific issue, namely 'DOES MCFD SPY ON PEOPLE?' By signed off, I mean CW threw in the towel and said he/she would no longer comment on this blog. This Anonymous issued a similar challenge in an earlier post comment section called 'Whose Best Interests?'

CW has a discernible sensitivity. This is not the first time CW was offended and then made up with me and came back. Frankly, I think that the resignation was due to an accumulative affect of recurring exceptions being taken to CW's comments by numerous other writers, who, defensibly, are also very sensitive about the injustices dealt to them.

I have no idea what CW hoped to accomplish by that comment or withdrawal. Was I supposed to be surprised and disappointed? Well, surprised I was. The anonymous comment was sent and would have been published as a comment to a blog post of mine for that day. When I decided to remove that post, the comment still seemed of value enough to me, that I made it the post for the day. Perhaps I should have anticipated that it might offend CW but I didn't. How could I? CW managed other frontal attacks and this comment was eliciting a response. Disappointed? Perhaps a little because my intention was to stir the further engagement of the surveillance topic. Disappointed that CW no longer contributes? Well, sincerely, I try not to hurt people. Weeks of reading my posts should inform someone about that. Candidly, how am I expected to handle an anonymous contributor's fickleness in this impersonal medium.

I am not anonymous. You know who I am.  If a writer attacks me with words, I feel it. That is understandable. CW used initials yet still had a measure of anonymity so it strikes me as plainly silly for CW to feel injured by online comments when the writers do not even know CW, nor do I. I did appreciate the information and viewpoints that CW brought to our interaction. For CW's sake, CW did the right thing. Logged off. But perhaps not the right thing for the rest of us.

Now readers, if you are going to comment, please don't direct it at or to CW. If you have something to say about spying and surveillance by MCFD personnel, in that I would have interest to publish. I think CBC journalist Kathy Tomlinson might also be interested to read these comments.

Who knows, CW may still be commenting under an Anonymous or a pseudonym.