Views from the Water's Edge

Happy New Year 2009 from Edgewater Views!

2009-01-01T21:52:00.026-05:00

In following a tradition that started on this day in 2007 ... and continued last year on this same day, may 2009 be the best year yet!

Whether due to serendipity or by coincidence, this young tradition has brought with it many positive results. As belief in it continues to grow, an expectation is set in advance that solidifies subsequent outcomes. For those who believe that one's current mental/emotional state influences results yielded in the future, the sky is the limit again this year...

Edgewater Views was created by Geoffrey M. Reid in 2006 both as a subject of photography and as an outlet for my expressing opinions on various matters of public policy. In the year that followed, thousands of edgewater photographs were taken and over a hundred thousand passionate words were written anonymously under this pseudonym.

Following a series of bizarre circumstances, I woke up one day in 2007 with a greater understanding of life, a powerful shift in attitude, and my very own edgewater view. It is from this domestic vantage point that I was able to create a collection of photographs made up of over a year's worth of photos that share a particular perspective ... a similar water's edge subject - approximately the same time of day - on many different mornings in 2008.

The above photograph is an aerial view taken in July 2008 of the Montreal West Island peninsula that lies in the background of all photographs making up this collection. As a part of the unfolding of 2009, some of the edgewater photographs from this collection will be made available in the form of a story. As such, a new genre of communication - combining both photography and philosophy - has been born.

May your journey through space and time in 2009 positively contribute to the fulfillment of your dreams.

Edgewater Views
January 1, 2009

Happy New Year 2008 from Edgewater Views!

2008-01-01T00:40:00.000-05:00

In following a tradition set last year at this time at Views from the Water's Edge (and one that elicited many positive results), may 2008 be the best year yet!

Please consider the power of this young tradition from a philosophical perspective: ... that trusting it to be unequivocally so (and allowing it to unfold as such) is possibly the most positive action available to anyone seeking to maximize the chance of it becoming a reality. So for mature souls who can be happy today because they also trust in their future happiness, congratulations in advance for using the unfolding of 2008 to help in making your dreams come true!

Edgewater Views
January 1, 2008

Do these Provocateurs know something we do not about peaceful vs violent protest?

2007-08-22T22:16:00.000-04:00

I too read today the news as it unfolded about the police guarding the Montebello Summit arguably being caught red handed seeking to make peaceful protests into violent ones. Red Tory, who was all over this early in the day, posted this same link to live footage on You Tube of these alleged undercover cops. The video makes it seem they were planning to throw rocks and it shows them being "busted" by peaceful protesters.

Since hanging up my blogger activist shingle recently, I am preferring to consider mostly philosophical interpretations of certain situations rather than simply "as they appear" through conventional analysis. As such, my understanding of what is going on "above" and "below" the surface with respect to this situation differs from what I may have written previously about the police. You may recall that my emphasis would previously have been that the police represent one leg of the tripod called the "justice industry".... yada yada yada.

That is neither here nor there. I mention this really to demonstrate that I am still understanding and able to consider the conventional analysis within this broader philosophical framework. For example, it makes perfect sense that the police would need, possibly desire at many levels some justification to test their rubber bullets and tear gas. I also understand the long term macro interpretation that the police continuingly need to justify their existence by protecting against an "imminent threat" that rears its ugly head sometimes, possibly quite strategically. More specifically, I realise that violent protests justify the "big budgets" that have been spent on security in preparation for the North American Security and Prosperity Partnership. Furthermore, a riot would further justify the symbolic need for there to be a partnership in the first place, right? This is sound conventional analysis.

In considering this same situation and the respective motivations of the parties involved from a very different angle, one could elaborate on the subtleties that make activism (depending upon how it is executed) either a mechanism that can lead to fair change, or something that preserves the status quo. According to quantum science, protests as a part of activism need to be peaceful in order to be effective. Meanwhile protests that escalate to violence will by universal law undermine the very basis of the protest. Stated simply, those being protested against will always have a vested interest in a violent protest, since this is when universal laws make it so they are the least vulnerable to change.

How does this relate to protests staged at Montebello over the last few days in response to the North American Security and Prosperity partnership? Whether one is considering this situation from either conventional or philosophical perspectives, the protesters have a vested interest in being "peaceful", while the police, certain political players and our adversarial institutions have an interest in a protest situation that escalates and news coverage to distribute such images.

Both the footage of the event and the analysis that followed demonstrates that it is not implausible that proponents of enforcement and security would want to “stir it up” at such gathering in Montebello. This is perfectly straight forward and logical. What is less straight forward is the philosophical questions I leave you with here…

1. Are the benefits of a violent protest (ie. police testing toys, justifying their large budgets for security the need for a summit on a security) simply by-products resulting from the stimulation of certain universals laws that are far more precise than that of public opinion?

2. Did this alleged attempt by the police to manipulate the escalation of a peaceful protest into a violent protest backfire because of shifting public opinion or these universal laws?

I realise these questions are literally “the chicken versus the egg”. Nevertheless, where conventional analysis of these Montebello protests were represented by “the chicken”, and the philosophical analysis of this situation were represented “the egg“, any absence of a structured philosophical perspective and broader methodology would typically deny that “the egg“ ever existed.

Whether or not the conventional and philosophical interpretations of this situation express themselves via identical outputs (a backlash against process manipulation), we must weigh the order in which we consider those respective interpretations to be of primary or secondary importance (absolute or open to interpretation). Where some consider conventional analysis to be a matter of interpretation, proponents of the “philosophical lens” would consider their interpretation of this situation to be absolute, due mostly to the absoluteness of the methodology driving the interpretation.

My question in considering also the philosophical interpretation is this: were those behind the “provocateurs” (and with a desire to manipulate the protest) counting more on the possibility of swaying public opinion, or the precision of quantum theory to bring them victory in this situation? Conspiracy theorists want to know!

Is Bill Clinton's approach to citizen activism pro-establishment or pro-justice?

2007-07-11T22:26:00.000-04:00

Bill Clinton’s new book on citizen activism could define him as either pro-establishment, or possibly far more distinguished, like a Mahatma Gandhi (??) for example. This all depends on the approach he has taken to dealing with this topic.

Clinton’s new book was written by Clinton himself. His approach to this topic could tip the scales as to whether the "philosophical" interpretation of Bill Clinton's commitment to positive change via citizen activism is one that reflects a very common understanding of what is "activism", or something that is much more.

For those who are interested in considering the concept of activism though the lens of quantum physics, violent or adversarial protest to matters of injustice can attract more injustice than justice, and are possibly the strongest form of defence against positive change. Meanwhile, "peaceful" protest tends to generate more peace, positive momentum and resolution. It is at this level of subtlety that most activists do not tend to know.

This was a message not only held by Mahatma Gandhi, many great people through history have long understood that "like attracts like" when it comes to generating societal change. For example, the great psychologist Carl Jung wrote "what you resist persists". Who are these other people? The answer to that question will be dealt with in future articles.

This brings us back to the original question about Clinton. How does he really understand the world and did he write this book while considering methodologies that have defined the belief systems of some of the greatest persons in history? Apart from those who will have early access to his book, the rest of us will have to wait until at least September 4th to know. Even then, the answer to this question will also depend to what extent the public is willing to consider important such subtleties in approach.

Quantum physicians would tend to consider any recommendation by Clinton to proceed with "protests by marches" as being something that services exclusively the establishment ... something that could serve to define his legacy if he wasn't careful. However, if Clinton is shown via this book to have considered the subtleties that distinguish successful forms of protest from those that reinforce the status quo, much more will be known about those methodologies to which Bill Clinton most reverently subscribes. Or still, it may be neither. The other possibility is that this book will only reflect what "Slick Willie" is willing (or permitted) to share with the general public.

Either way, I look forward to reading it.

Rest in peace my dear friend… you helped me to understand what I should have known all along.

2007-07-01T13:35:00.001-04:00

On the 139th birthday of my favourite nation in the world, I am grateful that my Canada Day began at 7:00 am with my paying my last respects in my own way to quite possibly the finest person I have ever known. Because I got to know him late in his life, it is hard to know to what extent he had always been the great person I came to know and to love. Was he always this way? Or, did he continue to grow throughout his life to become the truly exceptional person that I knew him to be in his final years?

These are important questions to ask given that we all need reflect on our own lives from time to time and with humility look at where we have been and where we are going. What is it going to be like when we finally “get there”? Depending upon how you look at it, it is either ironic or serendipitous that the final month of my dear friend’s life was also possibly the period where I experienced in my own life the most learning and positive change. It is easy to repeat mistakes that are familiar to us because of just that … they are familiar. My friend provided the gift of "awareness", which helps to break the familiar links with that which is not emotionally positive.

The good news that in the final days of the life of my dear friend I may have uncovered the most “powerful methodology” I have ever come across in all my travels. The “Laws of Power” haven’t got anything on this stuff, baby.

In a peaceful kind of way, it was only because these were the final days of my friend’s life that I was able to receive possibly the greatest gift ever. With this, anything I set my mind to do is possible. Thank you for that. This “stuff” is similar to that which made the great philanthropist, Walter Russell, experience an awe inspiring life in the previous century. I mention Mr. Walter Russell because …

I now “understand” what Walter Russell was getting at all along …
And, Mr. Russell and my late friend share different parts of the same name.

All in all, both were highly inspirational people who deserve credit in helping me to have the confidence to craft an absolutely perfect life. After all, if one is really inspired by the thought of having a view from the water‘s edge, I assure you it shall manifest.

With that being said, the Edgewater Views’ theme that I have developed since July 2006 at viewsfromthewatersedge.blogspot.com must evolve with the “thinking”. It is possible that making that which is ‘unjust’ just via activism may have been attracting more injustice than justice at the end of the day. This does not mean that governments should be released of their obligation to compel the justice industry to be gender neutral when handling matters of the family. This also does not mean that Justice Marvin Zuker should not be held accountable for not living up to the standards of performance that are needed to maintain the credibility of the judiciary.

However, if the mission at Views from the Water’s Edge is really about blogging to help improve the world, with my recently acquired wisdom brings with it a new approach. In the honour of my late friend (who helped me to understand more in less than one month more than I ever did previously), I retire as a “blogger-activist” as of today.

In the future, my articles at Views from the Water’s Edge will be about creating positive change in a way that is more in line with that of a “blogger-philosopher”.

One last thing you should know about about my dear friend is this … he wasn’t quite as old as Canada, but he was getting there. What made him “Russ” is that he would genuinely appreciate the humour in my having pointed out such an observation. After all, we had a good laugh in February when the last birthday card I had the privilege of giving him made a reference to how very old he would be in “dog years”.

Thank for everything dear friend … I love you. (R.E.C. 1914-2007)

Mr. Dion please ask Mr. Harper: where is our political and corporate gender parity?

2007-06-16T14:15:00.000-04:00

Has anyone else sought to understand why some very obvious inequities exist in our society? How come women collectively still make less money than men? Why are there so many fewer elected officials who are women than men? Why are the top corporate positions filled overwhelmingly with men more than women?

Quite rightly, measures have been taken at some levels to fix this. Legislation exists to preserve the principle of equal pay for equal work. Some political leaders, like Stephane Dion, are trying to undo this trend: Mr. Dion committed to running more Liberal women candidates in the next federal election (33% to be exact), to increase the percentage of women sitting in the House of Commons. The goal is to one day achieve gender parity.

What is Steven Harper doing to remove barriers for women who would like to serve and deserve to rise to senior political and corporate levels?

WHAT ABOUT THE PRIVATE SECTOR?

My observation about the private sector's role in all of this is also one that I gleaned long before I became one myself. As such, if the decision making attributes of the corporation were measured against the standards that are set for humans in our society, the corporation would be institutionalised because its decision making process is "anti-social". Compassion, empathy and forgiveness would never be tolerated at a board meeting if it took away from the 'sole' purpose of the corporation, which is profit. Charity and giving back to the community etc. (to be accepted by the corporate elite) would need to be ultimately about "marketing the goodwill" of the corporation for ultimate purpose of increased profits – otherwise it could never be justified). Tax write offs via charitable donations and/or the creation of foundations provide only "the illusion" that the corporation can behave in manner we would expect our most noble citizens to live up to.
With that being said, would anyone agree that the corporation has little incentive to on its own promote "gender parity" amongst its top executives, unless this objective could be shown to be either profitable or an effective manner to "market the illusion" of the one’s corporation having admirable human attributes compassion, sensitivity and fairness. Apart from that (or if it were quantifiably more profitable or legislated), is there any incentive for corporations to allow women to reach parity with men in the top corporate positions?

Are there any disincentives? Well, some men who already hold those jobs might feel threatened if access to their positions and closed business networks were made widely accessible to those who might currently considered "outsiders". What about those who feel women are less capable to perform in such positions because of their gender? What about those who believe the best place for women is in the home raising their children? What about those committed to preserving "patriarchy" in spite of the ever more powerful women's movement and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms adopted in 1982.

For those most adamant about preserving patriarchy and the advantages that had been bestowed upon men (at the expense of women in business and politics) by those who founded our great nation, could there a way to institutionalise the preference by some that women are to be primarily in charge of the home and the children while men are in charge of everything else?

FEMINISM

When I was a graduate student I spent the better part of term reading and writing papers about feminism. I recall reading Rosemarie Tong's "Feminist Thought: a comprehensive introduction", which helped me to better understand the "big tent" called feminism and appreciate it for what it is worth.

In reading this I understood that most of feminism was about fairness, equality and other universal principles that are consistent with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Tong's premise is that only one branch of feminism, Radical Feminism" is either about blind advocacy, reverse discrimination or possibly "man hating".

The original feminist, recently deceased co-founder of the National Organisation of Women Betty Friedan, split with others in the feminism movement years ago because it was taken over by radicals / and or special interests. Ironically, some of these special interests are groups of both men and women whose objective is either about institutionalising patriarchy and/or giving women outright advantages with respect to their homes, children, marriages - all matters having to do with the family. Please consider that there are also women who are proponents of patriarchy (sometimes euphemised it as chivalry) and would take the key to unlock the door that gives them domestic power even if it means foregoing the key to unlock the door that would give them political or corporate power.

With that being said, the feminist movement is still on many pages when it comes to defining what is equality and which advantages in society the Collective would most like to pursue. This lack of unanimity and polarisation within the feminist movement has left the door open to some - who for the sake of simplicity I will describe as "old boys" - to determine which advantages shall be bestowed onto women and which will not.

THE JUSTICE INDUSTRY: THE MOST POWERFUL LOBBY OF ALL

To what extent the State should be involved in helping to sort out complex situations affecting lovers, married persons and of children is a topic where there could be much debate. Some persons, such as Pierre Elliot Trudeau, were adamant that the State has no role in the bedrooms of Canadians. This left the door open to modifications in our laws to allow same sex couples to find a legitimate place in our society.

However, the opposite is true with respect to when the State becomes involved matters of the family affecting Canadians who choose to separate or divorce. The State is arguably “way too involved”. Why? It is profitable for the police, the lawyers and the judges – collectively “the justice industry”.

When it comes to shaping our public policy, the “gun” and / or “pharmaceutical” lobbies have got nothing on the “justice lobby”. After all, the “justice lobby” has infiltrated our governance processes including how we formulate our public policy and what it is that we legislate and how. Given who it is who is involved, is it implausible to consider that public policy is sometimes made to also consider of the funding / profit and /or other benefits that would benefit the police, lawyers and judges?

Policing for profit: a gender based approach to domestic violence

We have seen recently corruption with the police at the level of the RCMP with misappropriation of its pension fund monies. We also saw last week a murder – suicide committed by Acting Inspector Kelly Johnson of the London Police, who was responsible for the domestic violence file at that institution, whose whole philosophy in policing is that “men are the aggressors” and “women are the victims”. This is in spite of the fact that these are patriarchal assumptions that are contradicted by a study of 177,000 cases domestic violence cases by Martin S. Fiebert from the Department of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach. Dr. Fiebert examined 196 scholarly investigations, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.

What is the truth? ... and why the spin?

Opportunism by lawyers...

We have seem an entire industry of lawyers change their areas of preferred practice to “ride waves of litigation”. Where insurance became less viable for many with no-fault insurance becoming the norm in parts of the country and changing rules around the laws of tort, family law has become more and more popular and more and more profitable. In the early 1980s, the movie Kramer versus Kramer with Dustin Hoffman and Merryl Streep highlighted the vulnerabilities persons undergoing divorce face personally, financially and with respect to their families. The result, find a good lawyers or else.

In Canada, the State and the adversary system (lawyers, judges and courts) rightly or wrongly become involved in complex family breakdowns where finances and children needed to be shared. Is this the best way for “families in transition” with or without children to resolve their differences? Perhaps such intervention should be restricted to cases where a husband or wife is not “being fair” with respect to finances and / or children and according to “objective criteria”. There are rules that could be applied via mediation of other dispute resolution mechanisms to standardise the outcomes without the need for persons who once loved one another to become entrenched, make decisions out of fear or an adversarial process.

But where would that leave the too many lawyers who compete for too little work?

The Judiciary: loyal to "blind justice" or to the lawyers they once were?

In a common law system, jurisprudence is where judges build upon and use the decisions of other judges to justify future decisions. Current Supreme Court Justice Rosalie Abella had a progressive career as both an Ontario Supreme Court judge and an Ontario Court of Appeal judge. Two decisions from time when Justice Abella was a rising star judge seem to have led to the justice industry having almost exclusive control over those families who choose to divorce:

1. if either one does not seek independent legal advice when settling a family matter, the Court can overturn that agreement at the request of the plaintiff or the defendant (so you had better get a lawyer).

2. If it can be shown that either party did not do “full financial disclosure” the court can re-open an agreement to re-distribute monies 10 or even 15 years later.

Such jurisprudence forces Canadians to use more the courts in matters of the family, making it expensive financially and emotionally. On the other hand, many persons argue the State has no legitimate role apart from levelling the playing field, especially if these two underlying assumptions are upheld: 1. that it is in the children’s best interest to have meaningful relationships with both parents; 2. that partners in a marriage both have roles and responsibilities with respect to the home, family and children, as well as the finances.

IS PATRIARCHY AT THE HEART OF OUR FAMILY LAW SYSTEM?

The Court and the adversary process can become inappropriate in matters of the family post charter when certain patriarchal principles drive it. Even though there was a time (way back when patriarchy was accepted and expected) when parents, typically bread-winning men, could leave their families in the lurch following a divorce. That is why laws were created to protect against persons who do not honour their family responsibilities. At that time, the tender year’s doctrine protected the special relationship between mothers and their children.

With the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, patriarchy was forced underground. At the same time, the appropriateness of "tender year’s doctrine" wore off with the entry of women at equal levels into the workforce, the frequency with which men care for their children while their wives work, the discovery that special relationships also exist between children and their fathers.

So, how can it be that, with all other things being equal, gender is the single most important factor in the determining of child custody in Canada in 2007?

Is it unreasonable to think the main reasons for this are:

1. profits for legal industry;
2. continued corporate and political power for “old boys” who believe the place for women is "in the home" and "with the children"?

WOULD FIXING FAMILY LAW ALLOW WOMEN TO BE EQUAL?

Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is all about removing race, religion, language, age, gender etc. from how our policies and laws treat the various issues facing Canadians. If justice is going to be blind, (a fundamental principle of our justice system) merit and need, not gender and/or entitlement needs to be the factor used by judges in determining who receives primary care of their children and who pays support to whom. As such, the role of women “in the home with the children”, as “caregivers not breadwinners” would no longer be forced upon (or taken advantage of) by men and women who choose to divorce by the State.

If the principles of the Charter were treated as a set of standards designed to filter out unacceptable or biased policy and practices, the “justice industry” would not be able to succeed in continuing to deliver a gender biased family law system under the auspices of “keeping justice blind”. Spin, such as the best interest of the child is to be with the mother apart from extra-ordinary situations, could then no longer be used successfully to bypass (veto) the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when it comes to matters of the family, which has been a common justification for a really unfair system.

Should 50% of Canadians who divorce be forced into traditional roles as defined by their gender?

Is the world considerably more patriarchal post divorce?

Is life after divorce (i.e. following when one has been trapped by and dealt with by justice industry) very different?

Does the State build in the obligation for men of divorce to support the family by forcing them to be proficient at the level of the corporation?

Does this mean there is less room for women at "corporate clubs", who may have no choice but to stay home or hang out with those who garner less influence?

Would breaking this trend liberate us from institutionalised patriarchy via the justice industry's approach to dealing with matters of the family?

CONCLUSION

Would such changes to remove “gender” from all decision-making as per the Charter really have an impact on the extent to which women have greater access to political and corporate power? It would certainly stop stereotypes around roles being reinforce by our institutions. It possibly could make "merit" and "need" the most important factors in determining who does what with their lives.

Are all issues women’s issues? What about men’s issues? These are polarizing terms. If all issues were people issues, would it not be more about who chooses to play what roles as they positively contribute to our society?

Proponents of patriarchy as well as those who ‘profit’ from patriarchy in our society may not like this type of thinking. However, if we are going to live in a fair and just society, we cannot pick and choose what to favour and what to reject depending upon how it affects us personally. The tendency some of us have to try to manipulate processes under the aupicies of a fair and equitable system is where it all breaks down

The methodology we have adopted, legislated and are collectively proud of as Canadians is our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Why don’t we apply it fairly and universally and trust it will be to our advantage collectively and individually as Canadians?

Brothers, Sisters and Children, Happy Father’s Day 2007.

Edgewater Views.

Harper’s Failed Agenda: Murder / Suicide by police exposes spin and deception.

2007-06-10T13:39:00.000-04:00

By now, many of you have heard the terrible story about the two police officers from London (Ontario) who were found dead in a van this week. It turns out the deaths were the result of a murder / suicide between two police lovers who worked with one another at the London Police Department.

The alleged murderer was Acting Insp. (Mrs.) Kelly Johnson, 40, a passenger in a vehicle driven by her former superior and lover, superintendent (Mr.) David Lucio, 57. It appears that Mrs. Johnson shot Mr. Lucia dead via a single bullet to his temple before she turned the gun on to herself. The van Mr. Lucia was driving then crashed into Mrs. Johnson’s apartment. Both police officers were found dead inside the van.

Acting Insp. Johnson had attained the highest rank of any female officer in the force. She was set next week to assume the position of inspector. She served for several years as the detective sergeant in charge of the sexual assault and child abuse section and supervised the force's domestic violence co-ordinator.

How can this be?

Even though she had seemingly gained the respect of many in the “anti-violence” community, it appears that it was known within the force that Acting Insp. Johnson had some issues of her own. She had multiple previous sexual relationships with her male colleagues at the London Police Department. She married and later separated from fellow London police officer, Steve Pearson. One account following the incident suggested Mrs. Johnson had been known to be “controlling and abusive” in her intimate relationships. Another suggested that she had used her gender and “sex appeal” to rise through the ranks of the London Police Department.

I quote Alfred William Watson from New Brunswick who wrote the following letter to the editor to the London Free Press site on Friday June 9th 2007.

“A married female officer was having a sexual affair with a married male officer. The female officer had risen quickly through the ranks, obviously too quickly, and was about to replace her retiring husband as a senior officer. The same female officer was sexually involved with an even more senior, married officer. Sleeping her way to the top as it were. All the participants in this incestuous police charade were heavily armed and had unrestricted access to restricted firearms.”

What did the Police Chief and “anti violence community” say?

In spite of eye witness accounts and some very strong evidence suggesting that Mrs. Johnson was the murderer, London Police Chief Murray Faulkner has been reluctant this week to assign blame his domestic violence protégé for the incident. Is this all the police chief could say to avoid “eating crow” in front of his community? In 2006 Chief Faulkner was quoted as suggesting that domestic violence is a gender problem directly attributable to men.

"The problem here is gender. The problem here is men,” Faulkner told a crowd gathered at city hall. “What is it to be a man in our society? We need to approach this as a gender violence (and) a man’s issue. We need to have some frank conversations, man-on-man ..." "The vast majority of us, who are not involved in these violent acts, need to stand up to these other guys and say, "Listen' this isn't what a man's about. Don't remain silent. That's the worst thing to do." ~ London Ontario Police Chief, Murray Faulkner, at a news conference in 2006 to launch the Mayor's Task Force to End Women Abuse.

Assistant Inspector Johnson was also well known by Ms. Megan Walker, Head of the London women's abuse shelter; facilitating the lodging of victims at the shelter was a part Inspector Johnson's role as the Head of domestic violence at the London Police. Ms. Walker’s job exists as a result of the funding allocated to protect against domestic violence. Given that London has no comparable shelters for battered men (due to an absence of advocacy funding for men like there is for women), she benefits from the “men are the abusers” approach to domestic violence taken by the London Police Department. When asked about the murder / suicide she said this: "It's just a great personal tragedy for both families, friends and loved ones and anyone who worked with either one of them," Is it suprising she is very neutral in her comments about this particular incident?

Is domestic violence really a gender issue or simply a people issue?

Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is all about removing race, religion, age, gender etc. from how our policies and laws treat the various issues facing Canadians. Yet, some of our police, politicians, governments (led by advocacy lobbies) insist that men are the problem when it comes to domestic violence. What is the truth?

In January I wrote the following (check out the link to see for yourself, please):

“There is considerable proof that the generalisation that "men are aggressors and breadwinners" and "women are victims and caregivers" is simply incorrect. For example, Martin S. Fiebert from the Department of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach examined 196 scholarly investigations, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the studies reviewed by Dr. Fiebert in helping him to conclude this exceeds 177,100.”

Then, why is it there are shelters for women and not for men? Why is the common policy by the police seems often to be about automatically assuming that “men are the perpetrators of domestic violence”, even if unsupported allegations are the sole source of information leading to an arrest. Why is there not another measure to navigate through a “he-said, she-said” situation than assuming that men are the aggressors and women are the victims?

Is this not really about using a “cookie cutter” to sort out complex family situations? If one gender is given the benefit of the doubt in such situations, where is the accountability to ensure that false allegations are not used as a matter of control? What if persons use this bias to create an advantage in case of divorce? What if this enables an emotional and / or physical abuser to continue abusing because their gender makes it so they will not be held to account by the State?

Does gender bias serve “justice industry”: police, lawyers and the judges?

Is all about Stephen Harper's "law and order agenda"? Or, is it bigger than that?

For those of you who have read my articles in the past, I am a very big proponent of finding remedies to gender inequalities that have affected women over the course of history. My 94 year old grandmother was not considered a “person” when she was born, and her Canadian sisters could not vote. I also recognise that many of these same gender inequalities continue to affect women in 2007. Women are not yet equal to men when it comes to pay or the top corporate positions. Women also represent a strikingly low percentage of elected members to the House of Commons.

I consider these facts to be travesties of our society. Why do some still exist now? Many “old boys” would not want to give up the advantages that had been bestowed upon them by their forefathers when they were faced with the women’s movement and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, especially when it comes to corporate and political power. Would it still be possible post Charter to preserve the hierarchies and principles of patriarchy?

If I were an old boy, one plausible remedy would be to “throw the women’s movement a bone” when it comes to having an advantage when it comes to matters of the family, divorce and domestic violence. If executed correctly, this could delay in perpetuity the pressing need to give up both corporate and political power, since much publicity elsewhere would distract from where the real problems lie for women in our society … and all one would have to do would be to sacrifice those men in our society who are vulnerable to divorce. In so doing, the “justice industry”, meaning the police, lawyers and judges can all profit from shifting power structures. This institution could conceivably be largely supported financially by a gender biased system, while allowing patriarchy to live on in our institutions and in our society.

If accepted by the women's movement and society at large, there would be the political impetus and pressure to design and implement family policy around the assumption that "men are the aggressors and the breadwinners" and "women are the victims and the caregivers". Would such policy foundations that are taken advantage of by both men and women not insitutionalise patriarchy post Charter? For women, is accepting this seeming advantage in matter of the family not a deal with the devil for those who yearn for equality and true gender parity?

Is advocacy funding part of the problem?

One obvious question is whether those who use advocacy monies to lobby governments, politicians and policy makers and influence the public via publicity are intending to promote patriarchy? An even better question is whether those who administer the distribution of advocacy monies willfully use it as an instrument to promote patriarchy?

I have five more questions that raise for me a doubt about the motives behind the law and order and justice agenda when it comes to family policy and domestic violence:

1. does an advantage for women on matters of the family, including domestic violence, insitutionalise women to come second in maters involving corporate and political power?
2. Does advocacy funding indirectly preserve this hierarchy in perpetuity?
3. Are advocacy monies responsible for creating a disadvantage for women outside of the home?
4. Do women who are seeking promotion and prominent careers still have to resort to "sex appeal" like some are now saying Kelly Johnson chose to do? This is even though she was still the highest ranking police woman in London, did the old boys make it that way by institutionalising patriarchy (a glass ceiling) and distributing the "pork" to those who sell out?
5. What about merit for talented women who deserve promotion who would in a pure and "free market" system represent 50% of top corporate positions and 50% of top political posititons?

Or, I would hate to think that anyone would say that women are less capable to lead corporately and politically. Affirmative action created a similar backlash in the United States that has kept some persons assuming that minorities and women were promoted for the wrong reasons.

In December 2006 I wrote:

The bottom line is that advocacy funding is only legal under the Charter if it does not put the rights of one gender ahead of the other. Therefore, it is inappropriate for these funds to flow to organizations who seek to delay further changes to the federal Divorce Act. All funding should meet the gender neutral standard demanded by the application of Canada's Charter principles.Some funding by the Status of Women has been paid to lobbies who seek to delay changes to the Divorce Act, especially since 1998, when a federal report recommended changes that would ultimately make "access" as much of a priority as "child support" in Canadian law and would arguably stop the unilateral flow of child support from men to women. The current situation has been preserved in part via advocacy funding. This is simply inappropriate due to its patriarchy.

I also wrote at that time:

In Canada, where Harper's conservatives have reopened the debate, it is essential that Liberals encourage the government either restrict the flow of advocacy funds to those organisations promoting gender discrimination, or fund men's groups who seek to change the Divorce Act for the sake of children, men, women and second families. Perhaps western democracies who make advocacy funding available to organizations that seek to make gains at the expense of the other gender should listen less to highly organized pitches and politics by certain lobbies and focus instead on the objective criteria of gender equality. Fairness would suggest that either advocacy funding must be made available to those seeking to make access a priority in family policy or restrictions on inappropriate gender funding are needed.

Conclusion

I hate to have to piggy-back on an absolute tragedy to demonstrate the problems that exist in our society with respect to which gender has the current advantage when it comes to matters of the family and who ultimately benefits from gender biased approaches to interpreting domestic violence. All I want anyone to take from this article is this:

Violence is a people issue not a gender issue.
Decisions about who sees their children should be made on the basis of merit not gender.
Family policy is set and continues to benefit Canada’s police, lawyers and judiciary and continues to hurt men, women, children from both first and second families.
In the meantime, women lack the corporate, institutional and political power they deserve in a fair and just society because the old boy’s well guarded solution to finding remedies to historical gender inequities lies once again at the level of the family, which furthers the patriarchy.

In a truly just society with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, men would not be absent of power in their home and in relation to their children and women would not be absent of power when it comes to pay, promotion or political representation.

Brothers and sisters, we should all be on the same page here.

Republicans distance themsleves from liberal values ... and Bush too

2007-06-06T13:50:00.000-04:00

With my being in the Desertville, USA this week, I have caught more political news about America than about Canada. While I look forward to catching up shortly, this presents a good opportunity for me to both report on what I have gleaned is the current political mood here, as well as a way for me to try my remote blogger feature.

What I noticed in watching the Rebublican debates on TV last night was this: there were some very interesting differences (and similarities) in how some of the candidates were choosing to re-position the Republican ideology and build upon past successes. Interestingly, these successes do not seem to include anything done by Bush's current adminsitration. More on that after.

Some lesser known candidates were firing off bold ideas about restricting immigration and linking the right to become an American by the extent to which 'new Americans' were willing to set aside their heritage and buy into the 'melting pot.

Others, like Rudy Guliani and John McCain were applying well developed methodologies to give depth to their answers. For example, Rudy Guliani spoke about the principles of Abraham Lincoln to describe who is most deserving of becoming an American - those who believe in freedom and liberty yada yada yada..

John McCain, who is a senator from Arizona, gave credit to Hispanic Americans for their contribution to America, and their devotion to American values, and their willingness to risk their lives to fight for American values (at least those who are legal he was careful to say).

The sole point of commonality by all the prospective candidates was the extent to which all chose to distance themelves from George W. Bush and the current administration. Bush was literally 'thrown under the bus' by his Republican colleagues.

Is this the final 'nail in the coffin' in further foreshadowing what shall be a very weak legacy by the younger Bush indeed?

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Accountability missing for an Ontario judge ... even though he edited the record

2007-05-24T12:39:00.000-04:00

Even though judicial appointments are for life and in spite of the fact there is no real accountability for "subtle" misconduct, there is accountability for those judges who blatantly break the rules ... at least in theory. Unfortunately, it seems an Ontario Family Court judge is not being held to the same standards as others for whatever reason.

The Toronto Star reports today that Justice Marvin Zuker acknowledged he committed judicial misconduct when he altered court transcripts in 2005, after learning they were to be used in an appeal case. Because of his "clean" record Justice Zuker was let off with a warning even though the panel reviewing the case could have ordered the removal of Zuker from the bench.

While I appreciate the principle of "forgiveness" especially when persons who have done wrong take responsibility, judges need to be held to higher "standards". This is especially when they demonstrate that they can be motivated for self interested reasons to break fundamental rules upon which depends our justice system and our society at large.

This is especially so because there already exists a lack of any accountability on the basis of decisions by judges, especially those preceding over the the family court. Arguably, many family court judges violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms everyday by making decisions about child custody on the basis of gender rather than merit.

It is important to consider in all of this that judges are typically political appointees and former lawyers, some of whom hold their allegiances to the legal industry in higher regard than to the principles of equitability and justice. And, all of this occurs in a society where the State offers the same discretion and trust to judges that Plato might only have offered to his philosopher kings. The Guardians' innate ability to be solely about "the collective interest" makes proponents of our current judicial system look naive or perhaps manipulative. As evidenced here, our judicial appointees are not at all living up to the level of altruism that would need to be in place to warrant such little accountability.

Whether the panel made the right decision here or not, I leave that up to others to decide. From my perspective, this case does highlight once again the extent there is inadequate accountability for judges, especially when it comes to conduct that would typically result in a much more severe rebuke for anyone else in our society.

Self preservation or the right thing to do? Senators block term limitations.

2007-05-09T20:28:00.000-04:00

In a move that could be viewed as self-preservation, certain senators postponed again the passing of a bill that would limit Senate terms to eight years.

Stephane Dion supports term limitations for Senators. However, his plan would limit such Senate term limits to 12 years. This position by the Liberal Leader distances the new Liberal Party from certain mostly Liberal Senators who could be seen to be most concerned with their own career security given another bill proposing an elected senate that is on the table. Nevertheless, Dion's Liberals continue to oppose a separate Conservative bill proposing the election of senators.

In a bizarre and kind of ironic move, Stephen Harper intends to appoint his first so-called elected senator, Bert Brown, a Conservative, to replace retiring Liberal Senator Dan Hayes.

So let me get this straight: this is still a partisan move by Harper and it is still an appointment. The only difference is that Brown, a farmer from Kathyrn, Alta., once ploughed the message "Triple-E Senate or Else" into a barley field and was "elected" in a unilateral and un-recognised electoral process that has been taking place in Alberta since 1989. The first elected senator was appointed in 1990 by then-Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney. Mulroney appointed Stan Waters, the first elected Senate nominee in Canada.

Is this Stephen Harper's latest move to institutionalise conservatism in Canada? By again demonstrating a preference for optics over substance, Harper's government continues to be mostly about tactics and process manipulation. Could anyone tell me where or how this continuing 'dodgy' manoeuvring demonstrates any leadership by the current Prime Minister?

While I like the Liberal radio ads ... the gender discriminatory one needs to go

2007-04-27T19:52:00.000-04:00

Just as I decided I was going to recharge my blogger batteries for a few days while in the mountains, I caught one of the new Liberal radio ads in the car.

This ad went sort of like this ..."Many single parent families live in poverty and eighty percent of single parent families are led by women. While Stephen Harper does nothing, what more would Stephane Dion do about this?..." or something like that.

I appreciate the Leader's office trying to put distance between Stephen Harper's performance on social policy compared to Stephane Dion's vision. I also appreciate these ads seek to court the women's vote.

What I don't appreciate is the fact that the Liberal party's strategists are choosing to continue to use stereotypes about matters of the family inappropriately, much like they did during Mr. Chrétien’s and Mr. Martin's terms as prime minister.

Once and for all, all issues are people issues. When gender is used as a distinguishing feature, there is an increasing possibility that any issue might violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when considered carefully. Why touch it?

For example, rightly or wrongly (and in spite of the Charter), gender is still single most important factor used by judges to determine which parent can have custody of their children and which parent cannot, barring extraordinary circumstances. This is also in spite of tragedies involving children that show that some parents to be unfit, in spite of their gender.

This failure to consider that gender discrimination against men in Canadian family courts (not indifference or belligerence by parents of the male variety) is why 80% of single parent families are led by mothers.

Perhaps those trying to differentiate Dion and the new Liberal party from Harper's Conservatives should come up with a new angle on matters of the family that does not habitually violate the Charter of Right's and Freedoms pending interpretive spin that makes "the best interests of children congruent with the preferences of the mother". This is a poorly considered genderalisation that may give credence to gender biased judicial decisions on the surface, but also dangerously makes gender preferences by judges trump basic human rights. And, I dare to say, much to my chagrin, that many judges who most blatantly allow gender to dictate who can be with their children and who cannot are Liberal appointees.

Perhaps those responsible could refrain from putting out the same old garbage with respect to family policy that continues to haunt the legacies of M. Chrétien and Mr. Martin. This is at least the case in the eyes of Liberals who believe in fairness and equality, many of whom happen to be Liberal children of divorce, men, women, second families and children of second families.

I am certain M. Dion is not aware of how this ad could offend many Liberals, especially since he made a point of committing to putting all Liberal policy through "gender sensitive" filter as a part of his policy to increase female representation in the House of Commons. This also must apply to policies that may negatively affect men.

Bad policy is bad policy, and the Party is fortunate to have navigated through its poor record on the issue so far. Those positioning this should be more careful not to bring back this tainted baggage.

Judges ... more proof we all put our pants on one leg at a time.

2007-04-24T13:07:00.000-04:00

I read this article on the CBC site. It describes both an (ex) judge and prosecutor in Colorado who have shown themselves to be human, rather than the absolutely benevolent persons the system relies on them being given existing accountability structures (or an absence of adequate accountability structures)

Since jurisdictions south of the boarder make lawyers judges in a slightly different way than in Canada, I take from this that improvements in how judges are chosen and are held accountable is a more universal phenomenon.

Déjà vu ...odd timing and reason for fraud charges against a Liberal in Niagara.

2007-04-18T13:52:00.000-04:00

I was as shocked as anyone to hear about the charges against James Curran. The Niagara Falls review (and CTV.ca) reports today that fellow Liberal Jim Curran has withdrawn from seeking the federal Liberal nomination in Niagara Falls because of the charge of “cheque kiting”. This is apparently the practice of writing a cheque from one bank account to cover off another cheque from another bank account. There is a law against this.

To offer the benefit of the doubt for a minute to Curran, a fellow blogger, (who is quoted as expecting to be fully vindicated in this matter), business people who do deals especially in real estate need to juggle monies between accounts all the time. If the timing of the clearance of one cheque does not match the other, a mistake or simple misfortune could be construed as “cheque-kiting”, especially if there are those who want to interpret it that way. The level of deliberateness would make this either fraud or not.

Whether there is any merit in these charges, it is too early to tell. However, it is clear the timing of these charges is particularly bad – or good – depending upon one’s political stripes. Healthy skeptics might see a parallel with the timing of these charges (following an alleged two month investigation) and last year’s RCMP investigation into alleged leaks by Liberal government officials into rule changes for income trusts during the last federal election. Although any connection between these leaks and any Liberal government officials were disproved shortly thereafter, the publicity created by an RCMP investigation during an election campaign seemed to break the “stalemate” in the polls between the Liberals and the Conservatives that had existed since day one of the campaign to the favour of the Conservatives.

When all Liberal government officials were exonerated earlier this year, there were questions about whether the Conservative Party’s “Law and Order” agenda played any part in the decision to investigate such a thing during a federal election. The RCMP and its senior officials have been under fire for other matters ever since.

In the case of Jim Curran, the dynamics are both similar and different at the same time. The police force involved in his investigation is the Niagara Regional Police. Politically, who benefits from the removal of a Liberal threat in the federal riding of Niagara? It is pretty clear that the primary beneficiary is current Conservative MP, Justice Minister and Attorney General, Rob Nicholson. And, the Conservatives took the opportunity to try to use this against the Liberals in Question Period today. Rightly or wrongly, Minister Nicholson needs not worry quite as much about retaining his riding in Niagara in the next election today - as much as he did yesterday – given that his biggest political threat has been neutralized. And, the CPC is trying to milk this too as a tactic or perhaps a distraction from them falling in the polls as of yesterday.

Like the “income trust” investigation during the last election, I find it amazing how convenient this whole thing is for Nicholson and the Conservative Party. And, as a secondary benefit, perhaps this also takes the heat off Michael Fortier’s personal $400 million scandal as Public Works Minister a little bit. I look forward to reading the results of a fair and balanced investigation, even though I lament that Jim Curran’s political career is in jeopardy as a by-product in the meantime. Que bono?

2/3 of Canadians want elected judges: judiciary/lawyers call it a bad idea.

2007-04-09T17:27:00.000-04:00

I read earlier today the results of a Strategic Counsel poll suggesting that 2/3 of Canadians favour elected judges. It did not surprise me that both Canada's legal industry and the judiciary immediately came out with reasons as to why this is a very bad idea.

The Globe and Mail reports that Ontario Chief Justice Roy McMurtry said in an interview that he couldn't see how impartiality could be maintained in a system of elected judges: “it could really destroy the very best traditions of an independent judiciary. I think it would be a tragic initiative for the administration of justice.”

I also read Devin's blog today from the roll ... should I be surprised (since we agree to disagree on this subject) that he would support Chief Justice McMurtry's angle by posting the blog title: "Keep Justice Blind"?

Even the Conservative Party has stopped calling for elected judges now that they are in power, in spite of its previous concerns about the power of judges in Canada. Former federal justice minister Vic Toews said last year: “That's just not our tradition…I actually think our system is pretty good. It just needs to be fixed.” This is very convenient for a party led by a man whose private objective is no less than reforming the ideology of Canadians via massive decentralisation and institutionalised conservatism.

I find it alarming that those with the most to lose from judicial reform frame this sign of discontent by Canadians with our (arguably) unaccountable system of judicial appointments in such a narrow/fear based manner. Would anyone expect lawyers and judges to say anything against the "love in" between lawyers and judges? Among other things, our current system acts as if judicial appointees are like Plato’s Guardians and beyond self-interest. Our judges are appointed by the political party in power, they are appointed for life and they are not accountable to anyone. The only way to remove a judge from the bench is with the agreement of the Governor General, Parliament and the Senate and this has never been attempted. Does this not sound like a blank cheque?

Furthermore, this unprecedented power gives Supreme Court Justices in particular in essence a "veto" as strong or stronger than the notwithstanding clause on matters of Canadian public policy via strategic jurisprudence. When the by-product of specific jurisprudence can provides a marked boost to revenues collectable by the legal industry, there is reason for concern. After all, our judges all began their careers as lawyers and have been known to make controversial decisions that benefit their “brethren“ sometimes more obviously than others.

As a means of demonstrating just how “on the mark” are the instincts of many Canadians on this topic - who know there is a problem with a lack of accountability but do not know exactly what is the solution - I republish gender the discrimination ratings of 22 Ontario Court of Appeal Justices over 10 years (1996-2006). More than 800 cases were reviewed to determine the results. The methodology of the study is explained here and here:

D = % Female Wins - % Male Wins, Discrimination count, Category (or extent gender was a factor in judicial decisions on matters pertaining to the family)

For Abella JA D = 76.5 - 6.4 = 70.1 % (heavy)

For Feldman JA D = 72.7 - 13.3 = 59.4 % (heavy/high)

For Charron JA D = 70.0 - 7.4 = 62.6 % (heavy)

For Simmons JA D = 80.0 - 23.8 = 56.2 % (high)

For Lang JA D = 50.0 - 0 = 50.0 % (high)

For Wheiler JA D = 77.8 - 26.1 = 51.7 % (high)

For McMurtry CJO D = 69.9 - 40.0 = 29.1 % (moderate/high)

For O’Connor DCJO D= 80.0 - 30.0 = 50.0 % (high)

For Goudge JA D = 77.8 - 39.1 = 38.7% (high)

For Borins JA D = 70.0 - 27.3 = 42.7 % (high)

For Rosenburg JA D = 71.4 - 33.3 = 38.1 % (high)

For Armstrong JA D = 66.7 - 26.3 = 40.4 % (high)

For Moldaver JA D = 52.6 - 6.7 = 45.9 % (high)

For Macpherson JA D = 62.5 - 14.3 = 48.2 % (high)

For Gillese JA D = 85.7 - 50.0 = 35.7 % (high)

For Juriasz JA D = 60.0 - 0.0 = 60.0 % (high/heavy)

For Blair JA D = 50.0 - 9.1 = 41.9 % (high)

For Cronk JA D = 66.7 - 42.1 = 24.6 % (moderate)

For Sharpe JA D = 33.3 - 11.7 = 21.3 % (moderate)

For Catzman JA D = 63.6 - 43.7 = 19.9 % (moderate)

For Labrosse JA D = 61.5 - 45.0 = 16.5 % (moderate)

For Laskin JA D = 55.5 - 47.0 = 8.5 % (slight)

.
The data show that Justice McMurtry himself was rated as favouring female litigants close to one-third of the time more often than male litigants on matters pertaining to the family.
.
That is neither here nor there. What is of most concern here? The two worst offenders according to the study,- Rosalie Abella and Louise Charron - now sit on the Supreme Court of Canada. Because of the current structure, does this not mean that Justice Abella and Justice Charron are two of the most powerful Canadians when it comes to shaping our public policy? ... stronger than Parliament both collectively and individually?
.
It seems Canadians are perhaps "right on the mark" when it comes to our being uncomfortable - sniffing out - matters that lack sufficient accountability, such as this. After all, would any of us really buy the argument that any of our Justices have "philosopher-king" like attributes that makes accountability unnecessary? Or, would anyone dare say the adversary system, rules and procedure keeps judicial decision making perfectly in check?

Canadians know there are problems with the current system of judicial appointments. If a poll is worded so that Canadians understand "elected" to be perfectly congruent with "accountable", the framing of this proposed solution by Justice McMurtry, Devin and Vic Toews as having similar baggage to that of the American system sounds like spin to me. There are many ways to make our judiciary more accountable without any drastic risks. It just takes political will and courage to stand up to those who benefit from the status quo.

Private Member's Bill to fix the Divorce Act carries: more work is required...

2007-03-21T23:45:00.000-04:00

Anyone observing the happenings in the House of Commons between 5:30 pm and 6:30 pm today might have observed something entirely rare: it seems a Private Member's Bill, c-252 to amend the Divorce Act: access for spouse who is terminally ill or in critical condition, passed unanimously. If I counted correctly while watching the vote, all Liberals, NDP, Bloc and Conservatives, voted in favour of the Bill.

The Bill goes like this: "a former spouse's terminal illness or critical condition shall be considered a change of circumstances of the child of the marriage, and the court shall then ensure that the former spouse is granted access to the child as long as it is consistent with the best interests of that child."

The Bill was motivated by a mother in Alberta who had lost custody of her children and who was being denied access to her children by her ex-husband. The mother, who also had terminal leukemia, had wanted to reconnect with her children before her death. Sadly, this did not happen and she was unable to reconcile with her children, who will likely be affected emotionally for not having been able to make peace with their mother before her death.

The Bill went through 7 reports by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights Committee who amended the bill to consider the "best interests of children". The Bill also passed three readings in Parliament.

This is a good start, however, many more changes to the Divorce Act are required. At the end of the day the federal government must protect children's rights to have meaningful access to both parents, whether one parent is terminally ill or not. Children are best served by having meaningful access to both of their parents, except in rare cases. In spite of this, there is no federal policy preserving this right, and no affordable, accessible, timely or non-litigious way of resolving situations of parent-child access denial, even if the reasons for the access denial are entirely frivolous.

This case is the extreme exception and not the rule: more women deny their ex-husband access to their children than the other way around - though the decision to deny access or not is never a gender issue - it is a people issue. The spin sometimes suggests otherwise, but don't be fooled. This is because 25 years after the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (made it illegal to discriminate on issues of gender) gender is still the single most important factor in determining who will retain custody of children in cases of divorce. As a consequence, this also determines who pays child support to whom, making child support yet another gender based transfer payment, regardless of need and the relative incomes of the parents involved.

Therefore, a small number of a large percentage of women who have custody of their children deny access, while a smaller number of a (much) smaller percentage of men who have custody do the same thing. While both men and women sometimes deny access because of their character (rather than their gender), women have more opportunity because JUDGES preceding over the family court make gender congruent still with the best interests of children of divorce.

Why are matters of the family not subject to the standards set by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Do judges have an obligation to upphold Charter principles in relation to all adjudicated decisions or does the "tender years doctrine" trump individual rights? This collective interpretation by the judiciary of where the Charter applies and where it does not, as a byproduct, keeps lawyers in lots of work, the "blind advocates" at bay and monies flowing from men to women. Gender rather than character is the determining factor, which does not make the cut with respect to the standards set by the Charter, no matter how you slice it.

This Bill opens the door to fixing the Divorce Act that had been suggested without action by federal reports in 1998 and 2002. More equitable federal policy on child / parent relationships will put the onus on the provinces to live up to such standards and apply family policy through the provincial courts in a gender sensitive manner. This could also neutralise the dangerous trend that has resulted the highest court in our land setting family policy that coincidentally (or not) has made the practice of family law more profitable by the way it rules on matters of the family.

Unfortunately, "blind advocates” seem want to spin this tragedy into a "men victimising women issue" on a child access issues. For those who work in the system or who have lived through a divorce, especially where children are involved, they would admit that the trend actually goes the other way ( if they were being perfectly honest) .

Women have a clear advantage when it comes to matters of the family. Because there is no place to consider gender so acutely in a just Canadian society, "blind advocacy", like the "boy who cries wolf", has no credibility. Furthermore, "blind advocacy" on this issue is dated and now comes off as pure “spin”. All issues are people issues ... in contrast gender should never be the distinguishing feature in a society with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

So, in the spirit of fairness and equality, I re-publish a strong Liberal contribution to fixing the issue of child -parent assess. The Resolution on the Rights of Children to have Meaningful Access to both Parents, is gender neutral and was passed by the Lac Saint Louis Federal Liberal Riding Association and unanimously by the Quebec Liberal Women’s Commission in November 2005:

Resolution on the Right of the Child to Have Meaningful Access to Both Parents

Whereas the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child stipulates that children should have access to family members;
Whereas it is in the best interest of the child to have access to and strong relationships with both parents;

Whereas the federal government has not implemented policy that is in the best interest of the child or the blended family, despite reports in 1998 and 2002;

Whereas non-residential parents can be unilaterally and with no involvement of a higher authority denied access to their children without adequate, timely or accessible remedies.

Whereas the federal government had prioritized child support and remains inactive on child access;

Whereas children and their non-residential families stagnate under lopsided policy priorities;

Whereas the provinces administer and interpret the federal Divorce Act, with long delays and inadequate remedies to child access issues that hurt child-parent relationships;

Therefore be it resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada urge the Government of Canada to implement policy prioritizing access and protecting the rights of children to have access to both parents.

be it further resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada urge the Government of Canada to implement policy giving equal weight to relationship support between parents and children as to financial support.

be it further resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada urge the Government of Canada to create standards and legislation to support provincial and territorial governments in the enforcement of child access similar to those set up previously to support the enforcement of child support.

As long as special interests do not get in the way - and block equitable change on this issue like they did after federal reports in 1998 and 2002 - we may actually get somewhere now. After all, the political will is an invaluable asset when it comes to making fair change.

Could bad policy help bring down an Ontario Minister in her own riding?

2007-03-19T20:38:00.000-04:00

It seems the Government of Ontario is spinning faster than ever via a strategically timed communications strategy. This campaign is an attempt by the government to offset a possible "political lemon" and "minefield" in an election year - except when it comes to special interests.

Recent policy by the Government of Ontario has shown how it is possibly ignorant, opportunistic and/or highly influenced by special interests. The reasons why the Ontario Liberals screwed up are published here and here and at Views from the Water's Edge on Saturday and in January when the latest enforcement policy was announced. Premier Dalton McGinty and persons at the Government of Ontario now understand why this recent policy is both short-sighted and gender discriminatory. At the very least, it will go down in history as some very bad policy. Why don't we get tough on crime and possibly start a war while we are at it?

Rather than taking responsibility or taking measures to account for the shortcomings in its policy, the Ontario Liberal government instead came out today with more spin promptly reported on by CTV, which claims Ontario's policy to post the pictures of "deadbeat dads" on the internet has been successful so far in "shaming" 5 dads into paying up.

Claims of success six weeks after launching the controversial website is absolutely premature. No qualitative or quantitative exercise could acurately claim to measure and correctly interpret these 5 results, let alone correctly give credit to one policy action over another so soon after this website's implementation. What about coincidence especially with a sample of only 5. How many dads pay up in a slow month?

Is the release of this information in such a vague way before there is an appropriate sample or any acurate way of assessing the results a sign of panic by Community and Social Services Minister Madeleine Meilleur? Was this a convenient coincidence for Minister Meilleur that needed to be promoted now? I challenge Minister Meilleur to be more specific about who are these 5 dads and how a six-week old website contributed to them “paying up”.

Should Canadians believe that the “Good Parents Pay” website has been successful in motivating those who owe support to pay? What about those other very intrusive enforcement mechanisms that will kick in first and must fail before the website is an option. These include (in the order in which they come into effect): the garnishing of wages, the garnishing of bank accounts, the removal of drivers licences, and 120 days non-payers will spend in jail.

Minister Meilleur, did any of these 5 persons report their lives were ruined by the website, while the hand of “big brother” in their affairs and 120 days in jail were not equally motivating? I also did not see any pictures of women on the site. Is this because all "good mothers pay" already”, or not? Meanwhile, Minister Madeleine Meilleur is now acting like a Conservative and it seems she is hunting for "cheap political points" in an election year by promoting even more child support enforcement than necessary or reponsible.

This is in spite of best practices in family policy that show a relationship between fathers who see their children and fathers who pay their child support voluntarily. In the meantime, out of either ignorance or belligerence, the Minister has missed opportunities to create policy that would to seek to collect otherwise uncollectible child support by working with the Attorney General's Department to preserve the rights of children and their non-custodial parents to have meaningful access with one another.

Organised groups who are proponent of policy that would make child-parent access a fundamental right, are currently planning to hold the Minister accountable in her home riding of Ottawa-Vanier in the time leading up to the upcoming Ontario election. Inter-provincial forces are planning to set up in her riding and concentrate their efforts to topple Minister Meilleur as an MPP with campaign made up of local publicity, information that will be distrubuted to every consituent and a door to door campaign and daily rally/protests in the Ottawa-Vanier riding to help elect anyone but Madeleine Meilleur. More on this later...

For today, I leave you with an excerpt from a very thoughtful article written by family law lawyer © 2005 Karen Selick which is published here on her website and previously in the February 2005 edition of Canadian Lawyer under the title: the Politics of Child Support. She calls this iteration “Demonizing Deadbeat Dads”:

…So far, it appears that the only purpose was to score points with voters by appearing to do something—anything—to benefit children. However, the benefits
are nebulous.
…The statistics that might really have been useful were missing: for instance, whether case loads and compliance have been affected by the major policy changes of May, 1997—i.e., the introduction of the child support guidelines and the abolition of tax deductions for support payments. As a family law practitioner, I believe these changes greatly increased the net cost for most payers. Is this more onerous burden reflected in higher default rates?
…Has anyone in the Ontario government actually looked into the factors that are known to correlate to good payment history? Two of the most portant seem to be the parent’s ability to have some input into his children’s upbringing and his right to maintain regular contact with them.
…Then there was the 1998 report “For the Sake of the Children” produced by the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access. It recommended abolishing the inflammatory terms “custody” and “access” in favour of a system of shared parenting. The federal government hastily shelved the report (ideology again?), but there’s nothing preventing Ontario from implementing changes along those lines. If Ontario really wanted to do something for families, it should quit the ineffectual posturing and start looking at the measures that might really help.

Politicians like Premier Dalton McGinty and Minister Madeleine Meilleur have for whatever reason turned a blind eye to best practices in family policy. This is backed up by Karen Selik here and there are plenty of statistics to show how much they are off course. Ontario's opposition parties have so far missed opportunities to highlight bad family policy by the Liberals, perhaps because special interests have gotten to them too. Who other than "child-parent access organisations" are going to hold accountable these enablers of ongoing gender discrimination?

Will Madeleine Meilleur need to be sacrificed for the greater good or will she come to her senses first? Please stay tuned...

A shocking truth: one blogger gets CRIES FOR HELP from people around the world...

2007-03-17T10:35:00.000-04:00

Are others being terrorised?

I wrote my last blog about Dr. Kenneth Dickie last weekend. Since writing the Dr. Dickie series, I have been contacted by others living inside and outside of Canada who are also targets of bad family policy in Canada. One man in exile in Europe contacted me ... he no longer has a Canadian passport or a drivers licence. He described himself as being "hunted and cornered" by the FRO (Family Responsibility Office). What's next? Dawg the Bounty Hunter hunts down "deadbeats" for a live TV audience?

Historically, non-payment of financial support for children to ex-spouses is in part because of an inability to pay. Also, there are those who are unwilling to pay to retaliate for illegal denial of child /parent access by custodial parents. Do proponents of excessive support enforcement consider these types of situations too?

Illegal access denial without penalty is possible because of a lack of non-litigious or institutional remedies to matters of child-parent access issues. Rightly or wrongly, custody is still awarded to mothers because of their gender (rather than because of their character). Can anyone who interprets the Charter see this as being anything other than gender discriminatory?... but I digress. Because of a lack of policy on access or deterrents to the denial of access, some custodial parents self-interestedly limit access (to punish the other parent) even if psychological research shows that such behaviour negatively affects children emotionally.

Nevertheless, Canadians who divorce and do not (or cannot) honour their financial responsibilities lose their drivers licences, their passports and their children, because of legislation that wrongly assumes further enforcement will motivate people to "pay up". Only after that, those who don't pay what they are due could spend 120 days in jail. After that, Ontarians and/or Albertans who still don't pay will end up with their picture on the internet and labelled a "deadbeat".

I once read we have enough nuclear weapons to blow up the world 50 times over... for those who get off on that, wouldn't once enough? How much support enforcement do we really need?...Does Dalton McGuinty's Liberal government truly believe the posting pictures of "deadbeats" on the internet is really good family policy? Or, is this simply "good politics" in an election year? Is this, as George Bush once said, to "smoke them out of their holes"?

Excessive support enforcement helps keep children away from their fathers

As a by-product, even those who always intended to pay their first families (what some say is excessive and miscalculated yet legislated child and spousal support) will invariably lose all contact with their children. Then again, "access" (which serves mostly men because of the gender preference in custody decisions by Canadian judges) does not matter. Many parents also end up in exile and may lose everything, including their homeland. Some, like Dr. Ken Dickie, end up in jail simply, because they cannot pay.

"Debtor's prison" was eliminated a long time ago in all matters other than the family. So, is this OK because only "divorced dads" are at risk of such incarseration? Is this also a form of state-orchestrated child-parent alienation for mothers who may want to have that card to play just in case? One father in exile suggested in an e-mail to me that politicians have created a "monster (in the FRO) and now they don't know what to do with it"? Are Minister Madeleine Meilleur and Premier Dalton McGuinty responsible out of ignorance, opportunism or pandering to special interests? Will they pay politically for making short-sighted and bad policy decisions (for political reasons) in an election year in Ontario?

Is Canada's judiciary more loyal to legal industry or to fairness and equality?

On New Year' Day I wrote about "discrimination ratings" by Ontario Court of Appeal judges. I highlighted Supreme Court Justice, Rosalie Abella, as an example of a (former) Ontario Court of Appeal judge with one of the worst discrimination ratings.

I previously knew of Justice Abella because of the anecdotes made flippantly by lawyers who I know in Ontario. Some consider Justice Abella to be responsible for much "rain-making" for the legal industry in family law - either the "hero" or the "zero" - depending upon one's perspective. Jurisprudence under her watch made it so that separation agreements in divorce could be could be reopened - because of either "missing financial disclosure" or "inadequate independent legal advice".

Cynics might consider that jurisprudence of this type ensures that the legal industry is fully in control in of the break-up of families in Canada whether that is appropriate or not. Consider this: Canadians must consult a lawyers while separating or divorcing in order to avoid being completely financially vulnerable. This jurisprudence is precisely for why Kenneth Dickie and others have been ostracized by Canada and are in exile.

Are these persons victims of a money grab and a takeover by a legal industry (along with their judicial accomplices) which produces more lawyers than there is legal work? What ever happened to transparent money grabs - like "ambulance chasing"? When children are involved, is it really in their interest for matters of the family to be sorted adversarially?

Are major law firms are "flippant" about family law inequities? Que bono?

This article in its entirety provides an overview of “advocacy dominance” and “superior representation” by certain Canadian law firms in matters of the family. The article was posted on the website of one such firm as a testimony to their ability to provide fair representation in family matters. Healthy sceptics might consider this to be more about assurances (from those who profit from bad family policy) that it is possible, post-agreement, to go after one’s ex-spouse for everything they can. This is via litigation on family matters, even if matters were previously resolved via a supposed “binding contract” in the form of a separation agreement. Would business people agree to such terms?

As such, I leave you with an excerpt from that article below, which also shows another case where Mr. Harold Niman represented a female client pro-bono. Why?

"If my client assured me that she was familiar with her husband’s assets, then it’s possible, perhaps, to do a settlement without full disclosure," says Sadvari at McCarthys tentatively. The risk, however, isn’t really the wife’s - if she later feels she got too little, the fact that the settlement was made without full financial disclosure leaves the husband vulnerable. The courts have shown themselves perfectly willing to reconsider agreements more than a decade after settlement - tow it, Bailey v. Plaxton. Married in 1965, divorced in 1985, Beverly Bailey - represented pro bono by Harold Niman of Niman Zemans Gelgoot - and Alan Plaxton - represented by Stephen Grant of McCarthy Tétrault - were back in the courts in March 2000, to revisit spousal support 10 years after payments, in accordance with their divorce agreement, ceased."
This seems too similar to the financial arrangement Harold Niman allegedly had with Mrs. Dickie to be a coincidence. Is Harold Niman also representing these clients for a larger purpose? You tell me…

Persons from Toronto making an information war about Dr. Dickie: Did their latest move backfire?

2007-03-10T11:39:00.000-05:00

I would like to finish up on this theme, however, it seems persons from Toronto are making many efforts to control the flow of information about Dr. Kenneth Dickie. Should this make me stop writing? Well, at least the Freeport News appears to be acting objectively.

A Canadian Deadbeat in the Bahamas?

In case some of you are just tuning in, I have written four posts about Dr. Kenneth Dickie since February. The first one on February 10th was kind of "tongue in cheek" because I was relying on what the Canadian media was reporting as my only source of information. My issue with Dr. Dickie at the time was that he had seemed to leave Canada for the Bahamas to escape family support obligations and that the bad publicity would make it more difficult for those of us left behind to fix a very broken family law system in Canada.

My post of February 24th was more balanced, since it was based on my own interview with Dr. Dickie and the exlcusive radio interview on Chin Radio in Ottawa with Ernie Tannis. I discovered that Dr. Dickie paid $1.25 million to his ex wife over ten years. He had also set up trust funds for all his kids for them to go to university or college after his support obligations expired which is usually when children turn 18. One month before all of Dr. Dickie's obligations were to have been fulfilled, his ex-wife reopened their separation agreement with the help of her lawyer, Mr. Harold Niman, and the rest is history. Dr. Dickie was put in jail for 45 days previously. He is currently in exile in the Bahamas because at the time he couldn't get a bank guarantee to back up 250K in future support payments to his ex wife for his grown children who already had educational trust funds.

While you are at it Mr., why don't you also chop off Ken Dickie's hand for stealing a loaf of bread? The unknown circumstances of this case are almost as horrifying as the fact the Canadian media has chosen not to report on them.

Since then, I have had to republish that February 24th article twice, once on March 3rd with a foreword and again on March 9th with a public plea and a call for corporate support via the search engines in not suppressing on the internet the information I wrote telling Dr. Ken Dickie's side of the story.

In my blog of March 9th I explained how all evidence of my previous post about Dr. Dickie had disappeared from Google's ordering program. I presume, correctly or not, that this is being accomplished by the threats of litigation used by those who either specialise in civil litigation or those with a vested interest in restricting freedom of speech and controlling information because financially and reputationally it is worth it for them to do so. Would the large amounts of money that will flow to the legal industry as a result of the Dickie vs. Dickie Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence warrant them spending time and making efforts in liaising with the search engines to suppress people's access to Views from the Water's Edge?

After my March 3rd post vanished from the ordering program on Thursday, at least this had not happened at Yahoo. I reported about this. And, this is what showed up until earlier today on Yahoo as the top two results when one looks for information about "Dr. Ken Dickie":

1. Views from the Water's Edge... the exclusive radio interview with Dr. Ken Dickie
on Chin Radio, 97.9 in Ottawa ... Dr. Ken Dickie is the Ontario plastic surgeon
and alleged "deadbeat dad" who ...viewsfromthewatersedge.blogspot.com - 255k - Cached - More pages from this site
2.Views from the Water's Edge: What do Leper's Island, Debtor's Prison and "deadbeat dad" have in common?: online ... ... the exclusive radio interview withDr.
Ken Dickie on Chin Radio, 97.9 in Ottawa ... Dr. Ken Dickie is the Ontario plastic surgeon and alleged "deadbeat dad", who ...viewsfromthewatersedge.blogspot.com/2007/03/... - 83k - Cached- More
pages from this site

If you like, I recommend you go see what shows up when the phase, Dr. Ken Dickie, is searched using Google and what happens when the same words are typed into Yahoo today. Please tell me if you don't think someone is intervening? It would be a relief, so please, though I would first recommend your visiting my other posts on this topic to see for yourself Views from the Water's Edge at the top of Google's search results initially.

Why not just shame Dr. Dickie in the Bahamas and make him public enemy #1?

I also found out this week that "someone" in Toronto has approached the publisher of two major Bahamian newspapers, the Freeport News and the Nassau Guardian, and asked them to accept a fax containing copies of numerous newspaper articles from Canada - possibly the same information or worse that led me to understanding a "biased" truth when I wrote my first article about Dr. Dickie on February 10th. Was this, as George Bush once said, to "smoke him out of his hole"? When this type of intervention is combined with what I have discovered about persons motivating the search engines to suppress information (possibly via threats), I start to wonder whether this quest is just a movement or a full blown cover-up/conspiracy?

Well, at least journalism in the Bahamas seems to be more balanced, as they apparently went to Dr. Dickie to look for his side of the story. As such, Dr. Dickie was given the opportunity to provide them with other information, including my articles at Views from the Waters Edge.

In the name of freedom of speech, gender equality and innocence before guilt, I strongly recommend you check out this article about the Dickie vs. Dickie case by The Freeport News. It puts to shame anything reported by the Canadian media on this topic.

Does anyone else have problem with this? Is anyone else starting to wonder why it is so important to some to control information about Dickie and to suppress his side of the story? Que Bono? What type of society are and journalism are we proponents of here?

Newspeak on Dr. Dickie...great lengths taken to bury the truth: Why?

2007-03-09T00:36:00.000-05:00

I wonder if I am the only blogger reading this post who has seriously thought s/he was at risk of having her/his blog "pulled" from Blogger for reasons of censorship and/or self-interest.

This is the scenario:

1. On February 24th I published a post about Dr. Ken Dickie who is the alleged "deadbeat dad" who is in exile in the Bahamas. This is because the Supreme Court's decision to overturn a lower court's ruling will put Dr. Dickie in jail if he returns to Canada. Dr. Dickie told the story in an exclusive interview that suggests he may have been sacrificed in exchange for jurisprudence that should generate $$$ billions $$$ for the legal industry.

That post generated lots of hits and came up near the top of page one on any Google search containing the name: Dr. Ken Dickie.

2. On Wednesday February 28th all evidence of my post (that told the other side of Ken Dickie’s tragic story) mysteriously vanished from Google’s search results. All references to Dr. Ken Dickie in that post were no longer picked up by Google’s ordering program. It was as if I had never written about him - even though the posts were still up.

3. On March 3rd I republished that article on Dr. Dickie in a new post. I added a foreword that raised questions about why it seems my previous post had been censored out of Google’s ordering system. I also started an experiment to see if my re-publish of that post would be “struck” from the search results again. I have been checking each day since more than once in order to report on any subsequent intervention and threat to freedom of speech.

4. Sometime after 3:00 pm (Eastern time) March 8th (approximately 9 hours ago maximum), the post link to my blog http://viewsfromthewatersedge.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-do-lepers-island-debtors-prison.html) stopped showing up in Google searches for the words “dr. ken dickie”. However this time, the information has only been censored partially. Result number 15 is the site viewsfromthewatersedge.blogspot.com. Nevertheless, the specific post has been removed from Google’s ordering sometime in the last eight hours.

15. Views from the Water's Edge - [ Traduire cette page ]
Dr. Ken Dickie is the Ontario plastic surgeon and alleged
“deadbeat dad” who lives in the Bahamas. He was officially placed in exile two
weeks ago by the ...viewsfromthewatersedge.blogspot.com/ - 250k - En cache
- Pages similaires

5. Then I checked Yahoo. The top two search results at the moment are similar to the order I viewed earlier today on Google when I enter "dr. ken dickie". The top two Yahoo results are currently my blog and my blog link below so what's up Google?:

1. Views from the Water's Edge
... the exclusive radio interview with Dr. Ken Dickie on Chin Radio, 97.9 in Ottawa ... Dr. Ken Dickie is the Ontario plastic surgeon and alleged "deadbeat dad" who ...viewsfromthewatersedge.blogspot.com - 255k - Cached - More pages from this site

2.Views from the Water's Edge: What do Leper's Island, Debtor's Prison and "deadbeat dad" have in common?: online ... ... the exclusive radio interview with
Dr. Ken Dickie on Chin Radio, 97.9 in Ottawa ... Dr. Ken Dickie is the Ontario
plastic surgeon and alleged "deadbeat dad", who ...viewsfromthewatersedge.blogspot.com/2007/03/... - 83k - Cached
- More pages from this site

What is the big deal?

Does anyone else find this creepy? Who is this “big brother”? Why should anyone care about Dr. Dickie’s side of the story or suppressing my blog for that matter? Did someone threaten to sue or is this an order from “on high”? Or, is this the preference of someone inside the search engine? Who gave the word to “pull it”?

If self-preservation rather than the universal principles of (freedom of speech, gender equality and innocence before guilt) were my motive I would probably have “gotten the hint” and I would stop posting on this topic. After all, someone(s) unknown keeps going to great lengths to suppress Dr. Ken Dickie’s side of the story.

Unfortunately, so far Dr. Dickie’s side of the story is represented almost exclusively by this post. Could someone else carry the torch in the event that Google who controls Blogger decides to eliminate my blog? Who then will tell Dr. Dickie's story?

Why would anyone care?

The jurisprudence created by Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling about Dickie v. Dickie is bold and powerful.

1. Does this represent the “nuclear bomb for women in matters of the family?

2. How could our highest court bring back “debtor’s prison” for matters of the family, even though such a concept has been banned in modern times?

3. How could an untold story in a civil matter result in jail when that same situation in a criminal matter would never result in jail?

4. Is there any credibility left in the judiciary after this very bold jurisprudence?

5. Who benefits most? The legal industry? Proponents of patriarchy? Those who seek to preserve the flow of monies in divorce from men to women?

6. Is this type of cover-up the work of “old boys” who presume women’s groups will make less of a fuss about gender inequality if they are given the upper hand in matters of the family? If so, the pursuit of corporate and political gender equality is slowed down because women can instead focus on enjoying the edge they have in family matters while divorced fathers like Dr. Dickie are sacrificed.

What about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Shouldn’t gender be taken out so that the objective gender equality is across the board rather than there being some issues that benefit men and others that benefit women?

Will evidence of this post be disappear too?

Perhaps the better question would be this: will someone try to take down my blog altogether? I obviously have not gotten the hint. Stay tuned. If this blog and persona disappears because I went too far, please consider those who seek to conceal information that may exonerate Dr. Dickie have much riding on this. After all, who is charged with concealing the porn and are they as successful?

Once again, in the name of freedom of speech, gender equality and innocence before guilt, I republish the post to balance the information available to the public with an interest in understanding Dr. Dickie and what this Supreme Court decision really means for the rest of us.

Saturday, March 03, 2007

What do Leper's Island, Debtor's Prison and "deadbeat dad" have in common?: online censorship shows that it is mostly about "the spin".

Over the last couple months I have learned a little about search engines and what makes them work. For the most part, information is sorted and is accessible regardless of content (unless objectionable). In the 21st century with so much information being shared by so many persons via much new technology, it is essential that principles such as "freedom of speech" be extended and preserved when these new forms of communication are the media.

Well, last week I told the other side of the story about Dr. Kenneth Dickie, the alleged "deadbeat dad" who is in exile on an island in the Bahamas. This followed the Supreme Court's 9-0 decision to overturn an Ontario Court of Appeal decision about Dr. Dickie, the Court $250,000 bond he was previously ordered to pay to his ex-wife for the education of his grown children. I wrote about the reasons behind his failure to pay following an exclusive interview on Ottawa radio the Thursday before last.

If you type in the words Dr. Kenneth Dickie into Google, you will understand why I needed to write what I did. There are dozen's of articles written explaining why the Supreme Court is right to make "debtor's prison" now appropriate for matters of the family and why Dr. Dickie needs to be locked up. My blog last Saturday reporting on Dr. Dickie's interview is pretty much the only piece of retrievable information by Google that raises questions about the appropriateness of the Supreme Court's decision on Dickie vs. Dickie.

Or, at least it was the only information - now there is nothing. Where last weekend my blog about Dr. Dickie was on page one of any Google search containing his name, by mid-week all links to that post via Google had mysteriously vanished.

Was this caused by someone(s) intervening somehow to ensure that this information was contained? How important is it to some to prevent the popular understanding of Dr. Dickie's side of the story? The vanishing of all links to that post raises further questions about the objectivity of the judiciary. This is especially so in matters where "controversial and highly interventionist" jurisprudence is created by consensus where a primary beneficiary happens to be the legal industry and the well funded special interests who spin until discriminatory words like "deadbeats" becomes a part of our popular terminology where other slurs are frowned upon.

In the name of freedom of speech, gender equality and innocence before guilt, I republish the post to balance the information available to the public with an interest in understanding Dr. Dickie and what this Supreme Court decision really means for the rest of us.

If these universal principles are important to you, please give the post a careful read. If you disagree, please let me know rather than enlisting the search engines in conspiring to commit some type of cover up.

Saturday, February 24, 2007

Debtors Prison for Deadbeats: a Nuclear Bomb for women who choose divorce?

Last night I arrived in Toronto from Montreal. I did not plan to write a post, however, on my way to my first appointment this morning, while driving past Queen’s Park, I changed my mind and I took a detour to the Lakeshore and I shot some “views”, including the one attached.

The situation is this: most of us assume that if we play be the rules, we should be able to avoid our being put in jail. After all, if we work hard, act responsibly and honour our commitments, there should be no problems, right?

Sadly, history has shown there are noble causes perhaps where ultimately and in retrospect the State looks foolish or self-interested. When Cassius Clay / Mohamed Ali was put in jail for avoiding military service in the US, this represented a class / race struggle with respect military service that led to change and the objective of racial equality. There are also situations of injustice because of blatant racial biases, such as Nelson Mandela’s life in prison as a result of decisions made by discriminatory governments in South Africa trying to prolong a very unjust status quo. In these cases the State had no regard for equality or human rights and no qualms about locking up certain persons to perpetuate the self-interested agenda of the State or those who represent the State. This is how these decisions are now judged by history.

Well, this week I discovered that Canada’s judiciary may one day be seen in a way similar to how we lament the previous lack of integrity by the US and in South African governments. Because some of the worst family policy in Canada comes out of Ontario (as well as Supreme Court Justices who have the worst “discrimination ratings”) when it comes to the likelihood of women winning and men losing decisions they adjudicate, my hotel in downtown Toronto is the perfect place for me to explain why all men (even those who never foresee them being affected by a divorce) should be on alert.

This week’s Exclusive interview with Dr. Kenneth Dickie from exile in Bahamas

Did anyone else hear the exclusive radio interview with Dr. Ken Dickie on Chin Radio, 97.9 in Ottawa hosted by Ottawa lawyer and mediator Ernie Tannis? For those interested in exploring which situations in life could lead to one being wrongly incarcerated, I recommend your requesting a transcript.

In this interview, Dr. Dickie broke his silence about his family law case, following much media hysteria in recent weeks celebrating the Supreme Court’s decision about “deadbeat dads”. This was followed by Olivia Chow’s ignorant comments in the House of Commons this week blaming “deadbeats” for child poverty in Canada. Dr. Dickie finally told his side of the story. More than ever, there is no doubt in my mind term “deadbeat” is a euphemism placed in our terminology to legitimise gender biased public decision making by certain governments and the judiciary.

What’s this all about?

Dr. Ken Dickie is the Ontario plastic surgeon and alleged “deadbeat dad” who lives in the Bahamas. He was officially placed in exile two weeks ago by the Supreme Court's decision 9-0 to overturn an Ontario Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal would not hold Dr. Dickie in contempt for not putting up $250,000 in financial security for the education of his grown children because his claims that he cannot pay had not been heard by the Court. The Supreme Court says that doesn’t matter, so now there is jurisprudence saying that matters of civil contempt when information is still missing by a respondent are now punishable by jail. This is unbelievably bold jurisprudence because matters of criminal contempt would never result in jail under similar circumstances.

Now, Dr. Dickie will be put in jail if the Canadian authorities actually get their hands on him. He has lost his passport, which prevents him from leaving the Bahamas. And, perhaps most importantly, the State has made an example out of him personally so that all Canadian men who might consider getting married and/or having children one day should be on alert that any failure to “pay up“ if one‘s marriage ends up in divorce could mean jail.

Rightly or wrongly, decisions like this should cause a decline in the number of marriages and the number of children who are born. Furthermore, because individuals do not have exclusive control over whether their marriages work or not, it might also be prudent for all married and divorced men to now practice how to prudently and defensively pick up the soap in the shower. Or at the very least to be completely safe, just make sure you never drop that soap again.

Why doesn’t Dr. Dickie not just put up the ‘freaking’ money?

Even if it is ‘way over the top’ to put people in jail for civil matters, why does Dr. Dickie just pay? Could it be true that he cannot? Also, was he always a deadbeat? Did he ever pay for his kids?

Apparently, Dr. Dickie and his ex-wife signed a separation agreement at the time of the divorce in the early 1990s that made him responsible to pay her $1.25 million dollars over 10 years plus a $120,000 educational account for the kids. Both parties had sought independent legal advice at the time.

He contends that he paid his ex wife the agreed $1.25 million and the $120K for the kids education. He also claims that after making all these payments and after the ups and downs of his plastic surgery business in both Canada (which he shut down) and now in the Bahamas, he does not have the money/ equity to secure with a bank a “guarantee” to pay in security another 250K for the future education of children.

If it has been 15 years, how old are his kids? A deal is a deal, right?Dr. Dickie was one month away from having fulfilled that separation agreement when his wife’s legal counsel sought to re-open a ten year agreement on the eve of its completion. After receiving monies from her ex that amount to what many people don’t earn in a lifetime, Mrs. Dickie retained Toronto family divorce lawyer, Mr. Niman, who went after more money to pay for the education of Dr. Dickie’s children. By this point, his kids were all in their late teenage years and early twenties. Some of them had jobs, even though the mainstream media covering the story continues to publish pictures of Mrs. Dickie with young children leading most readers and viewers to believe Dr. Dickie left his family in the lurch.

Dr. Dickie’s lawyer, Rochelle Cantor, explains that Dr. Dickie’s children are now all in their 20s. They have been in and out of school, they all have “trust funds” set up previously by Dr. Dickie to pay for their education. They have all been close to being adults since before Mrs. Dickie sought to reopen the separation agreement - for example, at least one has taken 6 years to pursue 3 year degrees, etc; and another is travelling the world in lieu of attending school using monies from savings and a “trust fund” to fund the experience.

Mr. Niman by reputation is a lawyer who specialises “lifestyle family law“. Some call this the exclusive practice of helping wealthy, sometimes angry divorcees take their ex-husbands for everything they are worth. Because collecting legal fees on a contingency basis is not accepted practice in Canada, Mr. Niman allegedly took on Mrs. Dickie’s case pro-bono. After all, further jurisprudence in family law that would create even more incentives for women to divorce would logically help Mr. Niman’s practice. Would this be an alternative way for Mr. Niman to recover fees in the future for the time put into Mrs. Dickie’s case?

Well apparently, Mrs. Dickie also declared bankruptcy, which, if he were to choose, would have allowed Mr. Niman to write off “paper receivables” from his income tax . So, it seems Mr. Niman not only may pay less tax to Canada and Ontario by representing Mrs. Dickie, he got very valauable jurisprudence (for someone who practices this kind of law) by the Supreme Court of Canada preserving and extending the profitability of his genre of law in the future.

To top it all off, federal monies allocated to the Status of Women funding paid for Mr. Niman to take this case to the Supreme Court. This dangerous jurisprudence was funded by the Legal Education Action Fund (Leaf) which was set up in 1985 following the Charter to push for equal rights for women.

The irony is, this decision makes Canada less equal for men who are “totally exposed” if they choose to marry or to have children. Therefore, federal monies were used to put the interests of women forward at the expense of men who become divorced, which is arguably when advocacy monies become a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The “Nuclear Bomb” for Women and continued profits for the legal industry

According to Rochelle Cantor, one of Mr. Niman’s arguments to the Supreme Court in pleading for them to allow for this jurisprudence via the Dickie vs Dickie case, was that it “gives women a “nuclear weapon in matters of the family”.

Does anyone else have trouble with how this has developed? What is the real point of all of this? Is this really about poor Mrs. Dickie, who is currently working as a nurse in Alberta? Or, is this about those deprived Dickie children who are grown, who have trust funds barely depleted and who are either working or have been in an out of school this entire millennium?

Or, is this about feeding the pockets of the legal industry who have more tools to terrorise further the lives of those men who end up getting divorced, their second families and the children of second families?

After my previously posting this and this about gender bias by our judiciary, I am starting to wonder whether the politicisation of judicial appointments and the controversy surrounding this issue currently raised by the Liberals about the Conservatives does not need to be looked at more holistically. Previous judicial appointments by Liberal governments are failing it seems and are no better than the anticipated results from the current process proposed by the Conservatives to select judges.

If judges individually or collectively make decisions while on the bench implicitly or explicitly because of their own preferences, way of viewing the world, or a subliminal desire to indirectly facilitate more future business to the legal industry at the expense of gender equality, human rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the whole system (as well as those currently presiding) requires a complete overhaul.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I repeat again, if you disagree with this post, please let me know. Do not seek to enlist the search engines in conspiring to commit some type of cover up.

Edgewater Views
12:36 am, March 9th, 2007

What do Leper's Island, Debtor's Prison and "deadbeat dad" have in common?: online censorship shows that it is mostly about "the spin".

2007-03-03T16:08:00.000-05:00

Over the last couple months I have learned a little about search engines and what makes them work. For the most part, information is sorted and is accessible regardless of content (unless objectionable). In the 21st century with so much information being shared by so many persons via much new technology, it is essential that principles such as "freedom of speech" be extended and preserved when these new forms of communication are the media.

Well, last week I told the other side of the story about Dr. Kenneth Dickie, the alleged "deadbeat dad" who is in exile on an island in the Bahamas. This followed the Supreme Court's 9-0 decision to overturn an Ontario Court of Appeal decision about Dr. Dickie, the Court $250,000 bond he was previously ordered to pay to his ex-wife for the education of his grown children. I wrote about the reasons behind his failure to pay following an exclusive interview on Ottawa radio the Thursday before last.

If you type in the words Dr. Kenneth Dickie into Google, you will understand why I needed to write what I did. There are dozen's of articles written explaining why the Supreme Court is right to make "debtor's prison" now appropriate for matters of the family and why Dr. Dickie needs to be locked up. My blog last Saturday reporting on Dr. Dickie's interview is pretty much the only piece of retrievable information by Google that raises questions about the appropriateness of the Supreme Court's decision on Dickie vs. Dickie.

Or, at least it was the only information - now there is nothing. Where last weekend my blog about Dr. Dickie was on page one of any Google search containing his name, by mid-week all links to that post via Google had mysteriously vanished.

Was this caused by someone(s) intervening somehow to ensure that this information was contained? How important is it to some to prevent the popular understanding of Dr. Dickie's side of the story? The vanishing of all links to that post raises further questions about the objectivity of the judiciary. This is especially so in matters where "controversial and highly interventionist" jurisprudence is created by consensus where a primary beneficiary happens to be the legal industry and the well funded special interests who spin until discriminatory words like "deadbeats" becomes a part of our popular terminology where other slurs are frowned upon.

In the name of freedom of speech, gender equality and innocence before guilt, I republish the post to balance the information available to the public with an interest in understanding Dr. Dickie and what this Supreme Court decision really means for the rest of us.

If these universal principles are important to you, please give the post a careful read. If you disagree, please let me know rather than enlisting the search engines in conspiring to commit some type of cover up.

Debtor's Prison for Deadbeats: a Nuclear Bomb for women who choose divorce?

Last night I arrived in Toronto from Montreal. I did not plan to write a post, however, on my way to my first appointment this morning, while driving past Queen’s Park, I changed my mind and I took a detour to the Lakeshore and I shot some “views”, including the one attached.The situation is this: most of us assume that if we play be the rules, we should be able to avoid our being put in jail. After all, if we work hard, act responsibly and honour our commitments, there should be no problems, right?

Sadly, history has shown there are noble causes perhaps where ultimately and in retrospect the State looks foolish or self-interested. When Cassius Clay / Mohamed Ali was put in jail for avoiding military service in the US, this represented a class / race struggle with respect military service that led to change and the objective of racial equality. There are also situations of injustice because of blatant racial biases, such as Nelson Mandela’s life in prison as a result of decisions made by discriminatory governments in South Africa trying to prolong a very unjust status quo. In these cases the State had no regard for equality or human rights and no qualms about locking up certain persons to perpetuate the self-interested agenda of the State or those who represent the State. This is how these decisions are now judged by history.

Well, this week I discovered that Canada’s judiciary may one day be seen in a way similar to how we lament the previous lack of integrity by the US and in South African governments. Because some of the worst family policy in Canada comes out of Ontario (as well as Supreme Court Justices who have the worst “discrimination ratings”) when it comes to the likelihood of women winning and men losing decisions they adjudicate, my hotel in downtown Toronto is the perfect place for me to explain why all men (even those who never foresee them being affected by a divorce) should be on alert.

This week’s Exclusive interview with Dr. Kenneth Dickie from exile in Bahamas

Did anyone else hear the exclusive radio interview with Dr. Ken Dickie on Chin Radio, 97.9 in Ottawa hosted by Ottawa lawyer and mediator Ernie Tannis? For those interested in exploring which situations in life could lead to one being wrongly incarcerated, I recommend your requesting a transcript.

In this interview, Dr. Dickie broke his silence about his family law case, following much media hysteria in recent weeks celebrating the Supreme Court’s decision about “deadbeat dads”. This was followed by Olivia Chow’s ignorant comments in the House of Commons this week blaming “deadbeats” for child poverty in Canada. Dr. Dickie finally told his side of the story. More than ever, there is no doubt in my mind term “deadbeat” is a euphemism placed in our terminology to legitimise gender biased public decision making by certain governments and the judiciary.

What’s this all about?

Dr. Ken Dickie is the Ontario plastic surgeon and alleged “deadbeat dad” who lives in the Bahamas. He was officially placed in exile two weeks ago by the Supreme Court's decision 9-0 to overturn an Ontario Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal would not hold Dr. Dickie in contempt for not putting up $250,000 in financial security for the education of his grown children because his claims that he cannot pay had not been heard by the Court. The Supreme Court says that doesn’t matter, so now there is jurisprudence saying that matters of civil contempt when information is still missing by a respondent are now punishable by jail. This is unbelievably bold jurisprudence because matters of criminal contempt would never result in jail under similar circumstances.

Now, Dr. Dickie will be put in jail if the Canadian authorities actually get their hands on him. He has lost his passport, which prevents him from leaving the Bahamas. And, perhaps most importantly, the State has made an example out of him personally so that all Canadian men who might consider getting married and/or having children one day should be on alert that any failure to “pay up“ if one‘s marriage ends up in divorce could mean jail.

Rightly or wrongly, decisions like this should cause a decline in the number of marriages and the number of children who are born. Furthermore, because individuals do not have exclusive control over whether their marriages work or not, it might also be prudent for all married and divorced men to now practice how to prudently and defensively pick up the soap in the shower. Or at the very least to be completely safe, just make sure you never drop that soap again.

Why doesn’t Dr. Dickie not just put up the ‘freaking’ money?

Even if it is ‘way over the top’ to put people in jail for civil matters, why does Dr. Dickie just pay? Could it be true that he cannot? Also, was he always a deadbeat? Did he ever pay for his kids?

Apparently, Dr. Dickie and his ex-wife signed a separation agreement at the time of the divorce in the early 1990s that made him responsible to pay her $1.25 million dollars over 10 years plus a $120,000 educational account for the kids. Both parties had sought independent legal advice at the time.

He contends that he paid his ex wife the agreed $1.25 million and the $120K for the kids education. He also claims that after making all these payments and after the ups and downs of his plastic surgery business in both Canada (which he shut down) and now in the Bahamas, he does not have the money/ equity to secure with a bank a “guarantee” to pay in security another 250K for the future education of children.

If it has been 15 years, how old are his kids? A deal is a deal, right?

Dr. Dickie was one month away from having fulfilled that separation agreement when his wife’s legal counsel sought to re-open a ten year agreement on the eve of its completion. After receiving monies from her ex that amount to what many people don’t earn in a lifetime, Mrs. Dickie retained Toronto family divorce lawyer, Mr. Niman, who went after more money to pay for the education of Dr. Dickie’s children. By this point, his kids were all in their late teenage years and early twenties. Some of them had jobs, even though the mainstream media covering the story continues to publish pictures of Mrs. Dickie with young children leading most readers and viewers to believe Dr. Dickie left his family in the lurch.

Dr. Dickie’s lawyer, Rochelle Cantor, explains that Dr. Dickie’s children are now all in their 20s. They have been in and out of school, they all have “trust funds” set up previously by Dr. Dickie to pay for their education. They have all been close to being adults since before Mrs. Dickie sought to reopen the separation agreement - for example, at least one has taken 6 years to pursue 3 year degrees, etc; and another is travelling the world in lieu of attending school using monies from savings and a “trust fund” to fund the experience.

Mr. Niman by reputation is a lawyer who specialises “lifestyle family law“. Some call this the exclusive practice of helping wealthy, sometimes angry divorcees take their ex-husbands for everything they are worth. Because collecting legal fees on a contingency basis is not accepted practice in Canada, Mr. Niman allegedly took on Mrs. Dickie’s case pro-bono. After all, further jurisprudence in family law that would create even more incentives for women to divorce would logically help Mr. Niman’s practice. Would this be an alternative way for Mr. Niman to recover fees in the future for the time put into Mrs. Dickie’s case?

Well apparently, Mrs. Dickie also declared bankruptcy, which, if he were to choose, would have allowed Mr. Niman to write off “paper receivables” from his income tax . So, it seems Mr. Niman not only may pay less tax to Canada and Ontario by representing Mrs. Dickie, he got very valauable jurisprudence (for someone who practices this kind of law) by the Supreme Court of Canada preserving and extending the profitability of his genre of law in the future.

To top it all off, federal monies allocated to the Status of Women funding paid for Mr. Niman to take this case to the Supreme Court. This dangerous jurisprudence was funded by the Legal Education Action Fund (Leaf) which was set up in 1985 following the Charter to push for equal rights for women.

The irony is, this decision makes Canada less equal for men who are “totally exposed” if they choose to marry or to have children. Therefore, federal monies were used to put the interests of women forward at the expense of men who become divorced, which is arguably when advocacy monies become a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The “Nuclear Bomb” for Women and continued profits for the legal industry

According to Rochelle Cantor, one of Mr. Niman’s arguments to the Supreme Court in pleading for them to allow for this jurisprudence via the Dickie vs Dickie case, was that it “gives women a “nuclear weapon in matters of the family”.

Does anyone else have trouble with how this has developed? What is the real point of all of this? Is this really about poor Mrs. Dickie, who is currently working as a nurse in Alberta? Or, is this about those deprived Dickie children who are grown, who have trust funds barely depleted and who are either working or have been in an out of school this entire millennium?

Or, is this about feeding the pockets of the legal industry who have more tools to terrorise further the lives of those men who end up getting divorced, their second families and the children of second families?

After my previously posting this and this about gender bias by our judiciary, I am starting to wonder whether the politicisation of judicial appointments and the controversy surrounding this issue currently raised by the Liberals about the Conservatives does not need to be looked at more holistically. Previous judicial appointments by Liberal governments are failing it seems and are no better than the anticipated results from the current process proposed by the Conservatives to select judges.

If judges individually or collectively make decisions while on the bench implicitly or explicitly because of their own preferences, way of viewing the world, or a subliminal desire to indirectly facilitate more future business to the legal industry at the expense of gender equality, human rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the whole system (as well as those currently presiding) requires a complete overhaul.
----------

If anyone has a problem with this post, please let me know why. When one first opts to censor a very important perspective in all of this, it just makes the family law conspiracy seem that much more plausible.

Debtors Prison for Deadbeats: a Nuclear Bomb for women who choose divorce?

2007-02-24T13:03:00.000-05:00

Last night I arrived in Toronto from Montreal. I did not plan to write a post, however, on my way to my first appointment this morning, while driving past Queen’s Park, I changed my mind and I took a detour to the Lakeshore and I shot some “views”, including the one attached.

The situation is this: most of us assume that if we play be the rules, we should be able to avoid our being put in jail. After all, if we work hard, act responsibly and honour our commitments, there should be no problems, right?

Sadly, history has shown there are noble causes perhaps where ultimately and in retrospect the State looks foolish or self-interested. When Cassius Clay / Mohamed Ali was put in jail for avoiding military service in the US, this represented a class / race struggle with respect military service that led to change and the objective of racial equality. There are also situations of injustice because of blatant racial biases, such as Nelson Mandela’s life in prison as a result of decisions made by discriminatory governments in South Africa trying to prolong a very unjust status quo. In these cases the State had no regard for equality or human rights and no qualms about locking up certain persons to perpetuate the self-interested agenda of the State or those who represent the State. This is how these decisions are now judged by history.

Well, this week I discovered that Canada’s judiciary may one day be seen in a way similar to how we lament the previous lack of integrity by the US and in South African governments. Because some of the worst family policy in Canada comes out of Ontario (as well as Supreme Court Justices who have the worst “discrimination ratings”) when it comes to the likelihood of women winning and men losing decisions they adjudicate, my hotel in downtown Toronto is the perfect place for me to explain why all men (even those who never foresee them being affected by a divorce) should be on alert.

This week’s Exclusive interview with Dr. Kenneth Dickie from exile in Bahamas

Did anyone else hear the exclusive radio interview with Dr. Ken Dickie on Chin Radio, 97.9 in Ottawa hosted by Ottawa lawyer and mediator Ernie Tannis? For those interested in exploring which situations in life could lead to one being wrongly incarcerated, I recommend your requesting a transcript.

In this interview, Dr. Dickie broke his silence about his family law case, following much media hysteria in recent weeks celebrating the Supreme Court’s decision about “deadbeat dads”. This was followed by Olivia Chow’s ignorant comments in the House of Commons this week blaming “deadbeats” for child poverty in Canada. Dr. Dickie finally told his side of the story. More than ever, there is no doubt in my mind term “deadbeat” is a euphemism placed in our terminology to legitimise gender biased public decision making by certain governments and the judiciary.

What’s this all about?

Dr. Ken Dickie is the Ontario plastic surgeon and alleged “deadbeat dad” who lives in the Bahamas. He was officially placed in exile two weeks ago by the Supreme Court's decision 9-0 to overturn an Ontario Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal would not hold Dr. Dickie in contempt for not putting up $250,000 in financial security for the education of his grown children because his claims that he cannot pay had not been heard by the Court. The Supreme Court says that doesn’t matter, so now there is jurisprudence saying that matters of civil contempt when information is still missing by a respondent are now punishable by jail. This is unbelievably bold jurisprudence because matters of criminal contempt would never result in jail under similar circumstances.

Now, Dr. Dickie will be put in jail if the Canadian authorities actually get their hands on him. He has lost his passport, which prevents him from leaving the Bahamas. And, perhaps most importantly, the State has made an example out of him personally so that all Canadian men who might consider getting married and/or having children one day should be on alert that any failure to “pay up“ if one‘s marriage ends up in divorce could mean jail.

Rightly or wrongly, decisions like this should cause a decline in the number of marriages and the number of children who are born. Furthermore, because individuals do not have exclusive control over whether their marriages work or not, it might also be prudent for all married and divorced men to now practice how to prudently and defensively pick up the soap in the shower. Or at the very least to be completely safe, just make sure you never drop that soap again.

Why doesn’t Dr. Dickie not just put up the ‘freaking’ money?

Even if it is ‘way over the top’ to put people in jail for civil matters, why does Dr. Dickie just pay? Could it be true that he cannot? Also, was he always a deadbeat? Did he ever pay for his kids?

Apparently, Dr. Dickie and his ex-wife signed a separation agreement at the time of the divorce in the early 1990s that made him responsible to pay her $1.25 million dollars over 10 years plus a $120,000 educational account for the kids. Both parties had sought independent legal advice at the time.

He contends that he paid his ex wife the agreed $1.25 million and the $120K for the kids education. He also claims that after making all these payments and after the ups and downs of his plastic surgery business in both Canada (which he shut down) and now in the Bahamas, he does not have the money/ equity to secure with a bank a “guarantee” to pay in security another 250K for the future education of children.

If it has been 15 years, how old are his kids? A deal is a deal, right?

Dr. Dickie was one month away from having fulfilled that separation agreement when his wife’s legal counsel sought to re-open a ten year agreement on the eve of its completion. After receiving monies from her ex that amount to what many people don’t earn in a lifetime, Mrs. Dickie retained Toronto family divorce lawyer, Mr. Niman, who went after more money to pay for the education of Dr. Dickie’s children. By this point, his kids were all in their late teenage years and early twenties. Some of them had jobs, even though the mainstream media covering the story continues to publish pictures of Mrs. Dickie with young children leading most readers and viewers to believe Dr. Dickie left his family in the lurch.

Dr. Dickie’s lawyer, Rochelle Cantor, explains that Dr. Dickie’s children are now all in their 20s. They have been in and out of school, they all have “trust funds” set up previously by Dr. Dickie to pay for their education. They have all been close to being adults since before Mrs. Dickie sought to reopen the separation agreement - for example, at least one has taken 6 years to pursue 3 year degrees, etc; and another is travelling the world in lieu of attending school using monies from savings and a “trust fund” to fund the experience.

Mr. Niman by reputation is a lawyer who specialises “lifestyle family law“. Some call this the exclusive practice of helping wealthy, sometimes angry divorcees take their ex-husbands for everything they are worth. Because collecting legal fees on a contingency basis is not accepted practice in Canada, Mr. Niman allegedly took on Mrs. Dickie’s case pro-bono. After all, further jurisprudence in family law that would create even more incentives for women to divorce would logically help Mr. Niman’s practice. Would this be an alternative way for Mr. Niman to recover fees in the future for the time put into Mrs. Dickie’s case?

Well apparently, Mrs. Dickie also declared bankruptcy, which, if he were to choose, would have allowed Mr. Niman to write off “paper receivables” from his income tax . So, it seems Mr. Niman not only may pay less tax to Canada and Ontario by representing Mrs. Dickie, he got very valauable jurisprudence (for someone who practices this kind of law) by the Supreme Court of Canada preserving and extending the profitability of his genre of law in the future.

To top it all off, federal monies allocated to the Status of Women funding paid for Mr. Niman to take this case to the Supreme Court. This dangerous jurisprudence was funded by the Legal Education Action Fund (Leaf) which was set up in 1985 following the Charter to push for equal rights for women.

The irony is, this decision makes Canada less equal for men who are “totally exposed” if they choose to marry or to have children. Therefore, federal monies were used to put the interests of women forward at the expense of men who become divorced, which is arguably when advocacy monies become a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The “Nuclear Bomb” for Women and continued profits for the legal industry

According to Rochelle Cantor, one of Mr. Niman’s arguments to the Supreme Court in pleading for them to allow for this jurisprudence via the Dickie vs Dickie case, was that it “gives women a “nuclear weapon in matters of the family”.

Does anyone else have trouble with how this has developed? What is the real point of all of this? Is this really about poor Mrs. Dickie, who is currently working as a nurse in Alberta? Or, is this about those deprived Dickie children who are grown, who have trust funds barely depleted and who are either working or have been in an out of school this entire millennium?

Or, is this about feeding the pockets of the legal industry who have more tools to terrorise further the lives of those men who end up getting divorced, their second families and the children of second families?

After my previously posting this and this about gender bias by our judiciary, I am starting to wonder whether the politicisation of judicial appointments and the controversy surrounding this issue currently raised by the Liberals about the Conservatives does not need to be looked at more holistically. Previous judicial appointments by Liberal governments are failing it seems and are no better than the anticipated results from the current process proposed by the Conservatives to select judges.

If judges individually or collectively make decisions while on the bench implicitly or explicitly because of their own preferences, way of viewing the world, or a subliminal desire to indirectly facilitate more future business to the legal industry at the expense of gender equality, human rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the whole system (as well as those currently presiding) requires a complete overhaul.

Bad news, good news Charest: how do Quebec Liberal fortunes translate federally?

2007-02-17T23:57:00.000-05:00

Voters in the Province Quebec have very different ways of determining who to vote for at election time. Left-right ideological distinctions between parties come second to how political parties view Quebec's role within Canada.

The provincial Liberals vary greatly as far as who they shadow federally and whether their ideologies more closely resemble federal Liberals or federal Conservatives. Jean Charest, a former federal Progressive Conservative, is the only federalist option for Quebecers. Some say his party has moved way right, which will not stop left leaning federal Liberals (who live and vote in Quebec) from voting for Charest, even if there is an ideological disconnect.

The Parti Quebecois, led by the controversial Andre Boisclair, is traditionally a left of centre party and is known to have traditionally supported very good social policy consistent with the ideological centre of Quebecers (apart from the language issue). At voting time the PQ attracts support by those who seek sovereignty and some soft-nationalists (who seem to go back and forth between the Liberals and the Parti Quebecois) depending upon political climate in Quebec at the time in relation to Canada and how important ideology is in relation to federalism and Quebec culture at any given time.

The ADQ led by Mario Dumont has sought to find a place in the midst of this federalist -separatist debate. Dumont is arguably the most dangerous of the three, even if he is not looking for Quebec to separate. He is attractive to Quebecers who believe in the 'melting pot' and protecting Quebec traditions, language and culture in a united, albeit, a very decentralised Canada. Dumont is going after the rural vote on promises that he will strengthen and protect traditional Quebec culture and values via a Quebec Constitution. The resolution to ban hejabs in Herouxville, Quebec on behalf of Muslim women is seen as a "shot across the bow" on behalf of the protectionist thinking Dumont is spreading.

A provincial election in Quebec is anticipated to be called this week by Premier Jean Charest. What makes it scary for federal Liberals that Jean Charest have governed since 2003 according to the conservative style "bad news then good news agenda". Even though Premier Charest has been behind in the polls for almost his entire term in office, he seems poised to win a March election because his recent good news strategy has worked, as have political tactics, strategy, a superior organisation and good timing. The PQ, the only party of the others that conceivably could challenge Charest to govern Quebec, does not seem ready for an election and recently lost its lead in the polls to Charest's Liberals.

Charest seems to be just getting stronger now that his "good news agenda" has reached 'full speed'. Today Charest launched his election platform. In it his government takes credit for honouring a promise to improve health care. Charest also promises personal tax cuts if re-elected.

What does this mean for Liberals federally? Are Quebec Liberals more like provincial "Conservatives" because they have that latitude to manoeuvre from the left to the right and back without losing their core support? Do federal Liberals naturally gravitate to the provincial Liberals because of ideology or is it just to protect federalism?

What should federal Liberals be hoping for in Quebec? Do Charest and Harper have a plan to help each other to continue governing?

Following an election victory will Charest be deploying his 'organisation' in Quebec to help Harper's Conservatives win more seats federally. Or, will provincial Liberal organisers help federal Liberals, the federal Conservatives or neither depending upon who is running in which ridings (and what deals can be struck?)

It would be nice to know that any assistance provided by federal Liberals to provincial Liberals will not indirectly be helping Harper. Both seem to be quite good at tactics and strategy.

It is too bad that these ‘smoke and mirrors’ approaches both federally and provincially in Quebec will play such a large role in who gets elected in different jurisdictions in 2007.

In the end I trust 'good ideas' will prevail over tactics, manipulation, and 'matters of timing' in deciding who governs next federally.

Part 2: Dion's Plan: are all Liberals 'tous ensemble' on our running more women?

2007-02-11T13:20:00.000-05:00

On Friday I wrote about a backlash against Stephane Dion's plan to run more women in the next federal election by some questionable characters. Joan Bryden's CP story was picked up by some of the print media and it opened the door to some dissent. Questions were raised by some Liberal bloggers who seemed to be having trouble with Stephane Dion's plan, even though any perceived 'in fighting' does not bode well for the next election. Nevertheless, these things can happen and can still be of no consequence if they live for a few days and then go away.

At first, I thought this might have to do with Stephane Dion reserving the right to appoint, where necessary. Then, I thought this might have to do with some ambitious Liberal men who might find themselves being passed up right now for nominations, thus making Stephane Dion's July 2006 promise to run women in 33% of ridings in the next federal election a bitter reality. After that, I started to see some dissent from Liberal men whose time has not yet come where they could run, but who feel threatened that Dion's follow up to his promise might thwart their political ambitions in the future.

What does Michael Ignatieff think? I would like to know because he, like all the leadership candidates, made a policy. Michael's promise described here was to run 25% women candidates and the next election and 35% women in ridings where there is no incumbent or where the incumbent is not seeking re-election. So, Mr. Ignatieff had committed to running slightly fewer women than Dion, but he still set firm quotas nevertheless.

Unfortunately, I am starting to see a pattern on the part of former Michael Ignatieff supporters from Stephane Dion's home province. For example, after multiple subtle shots at Dion's current challenge to run women in 33% of federal ridings, Antonio at Fuddle Duddle makes public on Liblogs this conservative blog by 'blogging tories' Chuckercanuk complaining about this same issue (for a CPC audience).

Does this overt promotion of dissent elsewhere stop with Antonio or does this also represent the attitudes of other former Ignatieff organisers? What about their elected mentors? Do Mr. Rodriquez and M. Coderre quietly support this type of seeming dissent by Antonio because of their own private ambitions? Are they in 'love' still with and would prefer as leader Mr. Ignatieff? Does a failed Dion attempt to govern make Michael the 'heir apparent' and is this what these mega organisers would prefer for next time?

Before going too much further down the road towards an election (which will mean allot of hard work), I would like to know who I can count on and who I cannot. Where does the dissent start and where does it end?

So, in the spirit of leadership, I think it is essential that Michael Ignatieff make a statement in support of M. Dion's plan for women in the next election to show we are really 'tous ensemble'.

Thanks Antonio. The last thing we really need is another albatross within the Liberal party because your nose is 'out of joint' still. We are either 'tous ensemble' or not. To mitigate the damage the onus is now on your 'idol'. There have been rivalries in the Liberal party for too long and it is very important that we promptly 'nip this one in the bud'

Many thanks Dr. Dickie… for setting the rest of us back even further

2007-02-10T11:15:00.000-05:00

There was plenty of media coverage yesterday about Dr. Kenneth Dickie, the plastic surgeon who moved to the Bahamas with his new wife in part to escape child and spousal support obligations. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 (like they often do on child support issues like here because of this) that Mr. Dickie be held accountable and it looks like he is f-cked if he ever returns to Canada.

Thanks for the bad publicity, buddy… there are many of us who are working hard to fix a broken family law system that caused you to bolt. Now, the myth of the “deadbeat dad” is alive and well it is also “top-of mind“. Special interests who lobby hard for the need to have more and more enforcement of child support unnecessarily will use people like you to further their arguments.

On the other hand, from a policy perspective, there is an argument to be made that your departure from Canada, from the lives of you kids, job and friends could be viewed also as evidence that family policy is broken. After all, one measure of a successful policy is the extent to which those who are served and affected by policy comply with it voluntarily.

Dr. Dickie, either you are the ass that those who strategically use the euphemism “deadbeat” want to portray you as, or you discovered what many men themselves affected by family policy have already discovered : that the formula used to calculate child support according to the tables is based on flawed principles that not only make it unaffordable, make it so that it also benefits higher income mothers at the expense of lower income and who really need it. Why? The women’s groups who inputed into the process to create the tables focussed on mostly on themselves and the needs of higher income earning mothers, like lawyers.

Some say this issue is all about the money and to preserve the flow of monies from men to women, often inappropriately.

How are the tables out of whack and what are the signs that this arguably corrupt policy design process created an incentive (or no other choice) for Dr. Dickie to flee the jurisdiction and become a fugative on the run? What would Tie Domi think now that he has felt the intrusiveness of this system?

Here are the top five:

1. Where child support was previously tax deductible for fathers and income for mothers, in 1995, a Supreme Court decision changed this. Rather than making child support tax deductible for fathers and income for children (the intended recipients) which would make it tax free under $8600, the government did a tax grab and shifted the tax burden to fathers squeezing many even further.

2. Where child support is supposed to be for children of divorce to maintain their lifestyles in a way similar to how they would evolve in an intact family, the income of the mother is not taken into account by the child support tables - so the burden of paying for children lies solely on the father even if the mother’s income is higher (except in Quebec where the difference in incomes between mothers and fathers dictates the table calculation which is arguably the correct interpretation of the policy). Furthermore, these monies are paid to the mother who often use it to litigate against the child support paying father to selfishly keep him away from the children.

3. Child support according to the tables does not consider that in divorce families have to increase the number of homes supported by the same incomes from one home to two. Therefore, non-residential parents expenses go up because of the cost of housing, transportation infrastructure, and spending money for activities on weekends when the children will typically visit that is not considered when the table amounts were set.

4. Child support obligations can get in the way of non-residential parents being able to enforce access to their children, since a lack of federal policy makes it so that there is no non-litigious way to enforce access to children where a primary caregiver arbitrarily “denies it“. The cost of bringing a motion or a trial can become inaccessible for many who are already stretched to the limit by artificially high federal child support table figures.

5. While monies spent on litigation to collect child support are tax deductible while monies spent on litigation to enforce access are not. Family Responsibility Offices (FRO) are already there to enforce child support, with the power to remove driver’s licences, garnish bank accounts, incarcerate fathers and now, in Ontario, post the pictures of “deadbeats” on the internet. These same deadbeats (assuming like the State seems to do they are in the highest tax bracket) are paying 1 dollar to the lawyer and 1 dollar to the tax department to enforce access with their children via the courts. There is no institutional support for fathers enforcing access, notwithstanding that the FROs provide free enforcement to those who collect child support, 90% of whom are women.

There are many other indicators of failed and even gender biased policy, but this is not my point. My only other substantive comment is that the only way this case got to the Supreme Court was via advocacy funding from the Status of Women who give money to the Women’s Legal Action Fund (Leaf) to support litigation on issues such as this.

What about the 37.7% of fathers who don’t see their children because enforcing access for many men (with all these child support obligations a need to rely solely on slow, expensive and arguably biased family courts) is simply unaffordable? Proponents of change say there is just not enough money to do everything and financial support paid to mothers trumps relationship support for child/father relationships every time.

Also, with zero funding support from “Leaf” type organizations, is the administration of family policy also gender discriminatory on the basis of who gets funding and who doesn’t? Does the government have a role to play to help men in enforcing the frivolous denial of access by women who do it because the system is broken and they can without consequence? Or, does the State have an obligation to create institutional support to enforce child access much like other institutions previously set up to help enforce child support?

Yes, I am really pissed at Dr. Dickie, but for different reasons than those persons who like to use the words like “deadbeats”. At the same time, I would like to hear from anyone who disagrees that corresponding rules that affect child support (a policy for women because of how custody is awarded) and access (a policy for men because of how custody is awarded) are out of balance.

Is Dr. Dickie is a complete “ass” who deserved to be divorced, shamed, ostracised by society, aliented from his children and also locked up because he is cheap and doesn’t give a "rat’s ass" about his children? Or, were the financial obligations too much? Is it this that forced a man who was once respected and admired to go away in a form of "exile"? Is a system set up by and for wealthy (lawyer) women with access to billions of dollars in advocacy funds to lobby governments too out of balance for persons like Dr. Dickie to live comfortably in Canada?

Readers, you decide ...but please remember, it could also happen to you.

Dion’s plan: Tory media and self-interested Liberals show their stripes

2007-02-09T23:04:00.000-05:00

A self-interested backlash?

As someone who has written about gender discrimination against men frequently, I was surprised by the uproar in the media and on the blogs today about Stephane Dion’s plan to field more women candidates in the next federal election. After all, M. Dion announced in July that as leader he would run 33% women candidates in the next election. He also expressed a willingness to use the power of appointment if necessary to ensure that women can run in winnable ridings.

What is the big deal now? Much of it was driven by conservative elements in Canadian media. However, there has also been criticism by some Liberals. Are complaints about gender discrimination against men on the issue of political nominations about self-interest by ambitious male Liberals? Is this backlash because some men feel they have been left out this time in spite of merit, or that their “time has passed” now that quotas have been set?

Much of the time I am out there alone on the issue of gender equitability (on certain issues pertaining to the family). I have frequently argued that men are not treated fairly by family courts. When I released to the blogging community on New Year's Day a new report showing gender discrimination against men on the part of all 22 Ontario Court of Appeal judges, where were these people who were today taking issue with Dion? Is this proof that many some people are apathetic to blatantly unfair practices that they do not foresee ever affecting them?

Is it right what Dion is doing?

About Dion’s approach, I agree with the objective of gender equitability for both men and women. The House of Commons should be no different. Stephane is focussing on reaching his 33% objective for now preferably by nomination (but also by appointment where necessary). How much progress has been made in the percentage of women sitting in the House in the 25 years that have passed since the adoption of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Should the pursuit of parity in Parliament be sought more aggressively in order to elicit results more quickly? Are we behind schedule?

You’ve come a long way baby, or have you?

Proponents like me who are seeking change to Canada’s child custody and access system would argue that reverse-discrimination against men exists in the way custody is awarded. I am also the first to admit that on issues affecting women (other than family policy) such as pay equity and top job opportunities in politics or elsewhere, women are still not at par with men.

I am aware though that that progress for women has been made over the last 100 years. When my 95 year old grandmother was born, women still could not vote and were not even considered "persons". Even if there has been much progress, the lack of parity in Parliament is telling. I am not surprised there are still gender problems. Along with a lack of parity comes the question as to whether our political leaders have an obligation to intervene when necessary to encourage a Parliament made up of members representing the demographics of Canada. All Liberal leadership Candidates brought forward a plan to help more women sit in the House next time. I was very impressed with Ken Dryden’s Action Plan for Women in Public Life.

Am I a hypocrite, or are you?

With all that being said, I am a hypocrite if I complain that there is gender discrimination in how child custody is awarded if I don't recognise that 20% of women in parliament is too low. This is simply "residue" that is left over from a time when patriarchal principles dominated who could work and be fairly paid and what roles parents played in their children's lives. Arguably this is also evidence that the State has not done enough to create appropriate conditions for true equitability on either front.

Part of the problem is that issues of the family have been allowed to remain discriminatory against men and second families because of who profits currently from the status quo. Ironically, predominantly male decision makers (lobbied largely by special interests and by the legal industry) use gender discrimination against men on issues of divorce and the family as a "token issue" that tends to offset the many areas where women still come up short. Who benefits most from this, it seems, "trade off" of mutually discriminatory practices affecting different elements of both genders in parallel and in different ways.

The best part of Dion’s plan

The best part of Dion’s plan is that it could solve two problems at once. It should serve to increase the number of women representing federal ridings in the House of Commons. The plan may also help to evaluate and set the agenda for changes to the Divorce Act that would alleviate aspects considered by some to be gender discriminatory against men.

After all, Dion as prime minister commits to subjecting “all government policies and programs moving forward undergo a thorough gender analysis to evaluate their impact on men and women in Canada”.

This proposed process should identify and remedy family policy in Canada that currently discriminates against men. This will be as much a victory for those who yearn for a fair and just society as will be gender parity in Parliament.

(Part 1): finally... grassroots accountability for deniers of parent/child access

2007-01-27T23:00:00.000-05:00

In a naive move that exposes just how much influence special interests have with policy makers in Ontario, Dalton McGinty's provincial Liberal government via Social Services minister, Madeleine Meilleur, MPP from Ottawa Vanier, announced yesterday that her department will use "shaming" to encourage "deadbeat" parents to pay their child support. Therefore, parents who fall behind in their child support for any reason will have ultimately have their picture posted on the internet as a "deadbeat".

What percentage of these "shamed" people will be men and what percentage of these people will be women? Because custody is awarded along gender lines in an inappropriate way in a country with a Charter of Rights, 90% of child support flows to women. Most men who have custody of their children do not collect child support, sometimes because they are afraid their ex-wives will challenge them for custody of the children in a gender biased system not trusted by many. Also, the patriarchy/double standard that is pervasive in society promotes when it is convenient that men are the "breadwinners" and women are the "caregivers". Many men who are eligible are too proud. In any case, I would be surprised to see the pictures of women posted as deadbeats, apart from a token one or two to try to prove wrong this post.

Therefore, why isn't Madeleine Meilleur honest that this is really about going after just the "deadbeat dad" again and because well funded advocacy groups have forced an inappropriate policy choice.

I have written about this type of policy choice before in other jurisdictions, and why it is simply bad policy. On December 10th I wrote:

"Ironically, on a day when thousands march on behalf of highly organised advocacy organisations defence of advocacy funding in Ottawa and across Canada, the UK announces (like in the USA) that the names of "deadbeat dads" will be published on the internet to encourage compliance.

Please remember:
· 90.2% of fathers with joint custody pay the support due.
· 79.1% of fathers with visitation privileges pay the support due.
· 44.5% of fathers with no visitation pay the support due.
· 37.9% of fathers are denied any visitation.
· 66% of all support not paid by non-custodial fathers is due to the inability to pay.

Simple analysis of these data suggest that there is a relationship between fathers who have access to their children and fathers who voluntarily pay child support. Connecting the issues of access and child support it seems would go a long way to making almost all fathers comply voluntarily with their obligations. Or, if one insists on being punitive, why doesn't the UK publish the names of mother's who deny access of their children to the other parent, and stigmatise those types of persons in the same way?"

If I were still a member of the party in Ontario, this would be grounds to "terminate" my membership. Other Liberals who believe in a just " society" might consider the same. After all, this is simply "bad policy" that resembles more the New Jersey model used for too long by Mike Harris' Conservatives. This is not an approach I consider to be (l)Liberal.

The spin created by advocacy funding the puts the best interests of one gender over another in spite of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This has worn thin. Finally, movements to apply the Charter to issues of the family have taken root, sadly only because of the grassroots and not because of any political will to do the right thing.

Overshadowed by this announcement is a move by "child/parents rights" organizations that will from now on hold those who "deny access" accountable by posting their pictures on the internet too. Because custody is awarded on gender lines (not because women collectively are any better or worse than men), it just so happens that the majority of parents who deny access are women. Why have governments chosen not to make access as much of priority as the enforcement of child support? The lobbies and the spin! To be equitable, the State should also equitably apply such punative approaches of "shame" to Canada's most notorious deniers of parent/child access. Or, make policy that will encourge for now men to pay their child support voluntarily by promoting access, and mothers to allow their children to have meaningful relationships with their fathers, in spite of "broken" policy and in spite of any "anger" that still lingers following the divorce.

For now, that is obviously neither here nor there.

So, for today, the poster children of the denial of access are the enablers, Madeleine Meilleur and Dalton McGinty. These persons entrusted by the public have done nothing but create bad policy that perpetuate the myths "dreamed up" and promoted by those who receive advocacy funding. These groups lobby governments to make policy that benefits one gender at the expense of the other. Meanwhile children, men, women and second families suffer and are "second class" in this otherwise great country of ours.

When I left Ontario, it was in part because Mike Harris made Ontario a "police state". Unfortunately, Dalton has "dropped the ball" by doing nothing to help Ontario become the equitable and just society it needs to be under any Liberal government.

In am sorry that the provincial cousins of my federal Liberals have it seems simply "changed dirty underwear" with Mike Harris conservatives. As a ideological liberal, my opinion is that this is a derelection of Dalton's government's responsibility to govern fairly and to uphold the human rights principles also along gender lines. I am sad to say Dalton's team do not deserve to be re-elected provincially, especially with inequitable moves like this.

Perhaps David would talk some sense into his brother, please?

Will Tie Domi be frozen out? Guilt before innocence the norm in matters of the family

2007-01-22T21:31:00.000-05:00

I keep thinking I will be able to wind down on this theme. Unfortunately, new "garbage" seems to surface almost every day. Again yesterday, my social justice alarm went off and you get to read about it today.

Was anyone else not surprised to hear that Leanne Domi, seems to be doing everything the law will allow to destroy her soon to be ex-husband, former NHL hockey player Tie Domi. I'm not! And, she has many weapons at her disposal because of fundamental and inequitable flaws in family law.

In September I wrote a post when the story broke explaining how gender bias within the judiciary in Ontario's family courts could destroy Tie Domi. Now Leanne Domi is doing what so many persons do within a biased system (with their lawyers encouraging them) while they are still very angry. She is making allegations that are putting in question Tie's relationship with his children. CTV reports:

According to the documents, Leanne's lawyer is seeking an order "suspending (Domi's) access to the children, pending delivery of recommendations by the psychologists."

Leanne Domi seems to be using her dispute with Tie to go after her children's relationship with him. This is common in some cases of divorce. Some people who go though an already emotional divorce with conflict in an adversary system make decisions they might not otherwise make.

These are often also decisions that are not in the best interest of "the children" even if courts typically go first with the preferences of the primary caregiver, who is usually the mother, because custody is still awarded along gender lines. In spite of this, Canadian governments have not taken it upon themselves to create accessible, affordable or timely ways of protecting against access denial and/or divorce poison. Why? The lobbies and the spin. So what is the deterrent apart from this?

The facts are that children will not remain neutral in cases of high conflict divorce. If the residential parent is overly critical of the non-residential parent or not overtly supportive of the children having a relationship with the other parent, children will typically remain loyal only to the parent they perceive to be more powerful. Children will typically be loyal to the parent to whom they have most access.

In Ontario, where courts favour mothers, loyalty choices are made by children in favour of their mothers and at the expense of their fathers - even if they suffer emotionally as adults. For all intents and purposes, the courts will do nothing.

As such, citizens like Tie who were formerly respected and admired while a part of a nuclear family can become second class citizens if their marriages fall apart. With 75% of divorce applications in Canada being filed by women, is anyone really safe from such a tragic downfall? Could anyone lose their kids if the circumstances went sour?

Therefore, for parents like Leanne Domi who are so obviously angry at her ex because of the breakdown of the marriage, some children become loyalty pawns and may turn against the other parent. The clinical term for this condition is "parental alienation syndrome" where children demonstrate uncharacteristic "hatred" and "anger" against the estranged parent. "Malicious mother's syndrome" is another clinical condition which could be so in the case of Leanne Domi. Yet, courts at first will always turn a "blind eye".

From what I have read, Leanne seems so angry with Tie (because relationship breakdowns and alleged infidelity can cause people to make irrational decisions) if she were judging her own case she would take Tie for everything he is worth and she would also deny him access to his children. Do courts have a responsibility to catch such unjust behaviour? Or, is there also an obligation for governments to create, promote and enforce consequences for those who might go too far.

After all, it is without a doubt in the best interests of children to have meaningful relationships with both parents. Is this in the children's best interest? Is it because of her anger?Is it about getting even or more money? What is it?

As a gesture to try to recognise the needs of Tie's children in all of this, I republish again Sinestra's now famous policy resolution unanimously passed by the Quebec Women’s Commission in 2005. It became Liberal policy at the Quebec General Council in November of 2005 but it fell off the radar because LPCQ felt the need to replace it with new resolutions, including the Nation resolution, which were made in an ivory tower with the purpose of crowning one leadership candidate in particular.

Resolution on the Right of the Child to Have Meaningful Access to Both Parents

Whereas the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child stipulates that children should have access to family members;

Whereas it is in the best interest of the child to have access to and strong relationships with both parents;
Whereas the federal government has not implemented policy that is in the best interest of the child or the blended family, despite reports in 1998 and 2002;

Whereas non-residential parents can be unilaterally and with no involvement of a higher authority denied access to their children without adequate, timely or accessible remedies.

Whereas the federal government had prioritized child support and remains inactive on child access;

Whereas children and their non-residential families stagnate under lopsided policy priorities;

Whereas the provinces administer and interpret the federal Divorce Act, with long delays and inadequate remedies to child access issues that hurt child-parent relationships;

Therefore be it resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada urge the Government of Canada to implement policy prioritizing access and protecting the rights of children to have access to both parents.

be it further resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada urge the Government of Canada to implement policy giving equal weight to relationship support between parents and children as to financial support.

be it further resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada urge the Government of Canada to create standards and legislation to support provincial and territorial governments in the enforcement of child access similar to those set up previously to support the enforcement of child support.

The bottom line is that in a progressive society with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Tie should not be found guilty before being proven innocent of not being a good parent, like could happen here. Furthermore, his children have a right to have meaningful access to both parents even though it appears that Leanne cannot control her anger still. Where are the real problems?

Some people may stand up and say this is wrong. Some "healthy sceptics" may wait until they experience such injustices themselves before making a stand. Meanwhile fathers, women, children and second families continue to suffer while special interests (including the legal industry) continue to benefit. Go figure!

Stephane Dion: a dignified and universal approach to leadership

2007-01-21T16:40:00.000-05:00

Did anyone else take Sinestra up on her suggestion to read the very long article in the Globe yesterday about Stephane Dion? I did. I also realised you can see the Montreal Oratory on Mount Royal in this water's edge view taken earlier today in our humble leader's home town.

The article draws much on Dion's relationship with his family, events during his life and political career. Several defining situations in his life are described that provide further insight into our leader. Some of that insight comes from his wife, Ms. Krieber.

After watching in person the dignified way in which Mr. Dion treated his fellow candidates at convention, and all Liberals since, I can confidently say his collectively interested decision-making process bodes well for the future of the Liberal Party of Canada.

I can't help but share again the quote picked out of the Globe by Sinestra. It speaks volumes:

That was not enough for Paul Martin. When he took over from Mr. Chrétien in 2003, the new prime minister dumped Mr. Dion from the cabinet. Led by David Herle, the coterie of advisers that surrounded Mr. Martin considered Mr. Dion a liability in Quebec. The prime minister's Quebec lieutenant, Jean Lapierre, called the Clarity Act a “useless” piece of legislation.

“That was very hard for Stéphane,” says Pierre Pettigrew. “He was someone who had gone into politics for all the right reasons.”

Then a rival, Martin-backed candidate started selling Liberal memberships in Saint-Laurent—Cartierville. “When they tried to take away his riding, that is the moment he became a politician,” Ms. Krieber declares. “It was not an ideological debate. It was a power struggle.

“They could have asked me how to get rid of him and I would have told them: ‘Leave him alone, ignore him.' Instead they provoked him. . . . You know, my husband is a romantic knight.”

Ms. Krieber is correct to say the best approach sometimes is to leave well enough alone. Ironically, Mr. Dion took an irritation and turned it into something positive. And, along the way, he seems to have become exactly the kind of leader the Liberal Party of Canada needs at the moment.

The formula so far seems to be about some universal principles that make me quite comfortable with Dion's leadership: merit, loyalty, fairness of process and perhaps a touch of Machiavelli as per Sinestra which is great to ensure there is some accountability.

Well done Stephane!

Do Canadians divorce more because current family policy makes it better for some to do so?

2007-01-20T16:48:00.000-05:00

The National Post published a front page story today about senior women who are filing for divorce at an alarming rate. The Edmonton Journal published a story in December suggesting that more couples over 50 are pulling the plug on their marriages while younger persons are divorcing less frequently.

Never before have as many women in Canada and the United States chosen to live on their own. The most obvious analysis of these trends suggests that women live on their own more because they can better afford it now than before. Does this mean that increasing parity between the percentage of women versus men in the workforce (along with much greater pay equity) has given women more options with respect to how they choose to live?

Is this a good thing? It could be. Or, does this represent a further indication that divorce itself benefits women more than men?

There are those who are proponents of government policies that create incentives for families to stay together. Others argue that the State needs to make divorce accessible for “victims of violence” to be able to leave their marriages more easily and comfortably. If family policy were designed around the assumption that "men are the aggressors and the breadwinners" and "women are the victims and the caregivers", the correct policy choice might be to make it more difficult for men to leave a marriage while making it easier for women to leave ) as need be to escape the violence and especially with the children.

This seems to be precisely the ongoing message of the Canada’s influential women's lobby. If that message were true, Canada's current approach to the issue of divorce would be more or less right on the mark. However, if this were proven to be 'spin' and not really true, incorrect assumptions by policy makers could be responsible for alleged policy failures with respect to the family and divorce.

What is alarming and what gives credence to the possibillity that this is simple advocacy spin are the numbers. Statistics Canada shows that between 1991 and 1994, men made applications for divorce 25.77% to 23.87% of the time while women did so between 67.85% to 68.10%. The number of shared applications for divorce in those years grew from 6.38% to 8.03% of the time. Statistics Canada also shows a downward trend for male applications and an upward trend for female applications in recent years.

What if the assumption that men are both the “breadwinners and the aggressors” was incorrect? Would that be proof that the Divorce Act has been shaped by a set of incorrect assumptions?

This entire package of domestic public policy could be “off track” because policy makers have a incorrectly recognised arguments by special interests that are based on patriarchal values used only when it is convenient to do so. This is in spite of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is arguably only valuable as an enforcement mechanism on issues of the family . Practically speaking, the Charter may not be practically applicable in cases of possible “reverse” gender discrimination. Jurisprudence could change that.

There is considerable proof that the generalisation that "men are aggressors and breadwinners" and "women are victims and caregivers" is simply incorrect. For example, Martin S. Fiebert from the Department of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach examined 196 scholarly investigations, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the studies reviewed by Dr. Fiebert in helping him to conclude this exceeds 177,100.

Furthermore, the stereotype that men are not important as to the development of their children has been disproven by other psychologists, including Dr. Richard Warshak. This is in spite of the fact that Canadian family policy and the application of the Divorce Act still seems to be driven by the principles of the "the tender years doctrine", which traditionally protected the “special relationships between mothers and their children. Arguably, the appropriateness of "tender year’s doctrine" wore off with the entry of women at equal levels into the workforce, the frequency with which men care for their children while their wives work, the discovery that special relationships also exist between children and their fathers. Warshak’s research confirms this and suggests instead that children are best served by having meaningful access and relationships with both parents.

Given this research, should we be looking to fix the Divorce Act so that it is not administered in a way that benefits one gender over another? Federal reports commissioned by the Liberal Party in 1998 and 2002 recommended this so perhaps change is long overdue. Could our approach to the issue of divorce be Canada’s biggest social justice problem at the moment? Perhaps. Has advocacy funding administered improperly to put the interests of one gender over another contributed to the acceptance of certain myths that have helped shape our current policy and legislation. It sure looks that way.

Only when incentives and/or disincentives to divorce are shared equally by men and women will Canada’s policy or lack of policy on divorce begin to demonstrate the standards that are demanded by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If individuals divorce their spouse (or become divorced by their spouse) for reasons contained within the relationship and the corresponding alternatives, all’s fair. If public policy creates an incentive for one gender to divorce and another to stay in the relationship, it is logical to conclude divorce policy in Canada is very “broken”.

For the sake of families and especially “mature families”, which seem to be falling apart at an increasingly frequent rate, I hope the involvement of the State will have a less a destructive influence in the future than it has in the past.

New Quebec Constitution: Mario's idea ... Harper's motion.

2007-01-15T22:23:00.000-05:00

A letter to all Quebecers obtained by the Canadian Press could be designed to garner some political attention for Quebec's third political party, the Action Democratique (ADQ).

In a period leading up to an election announcement in Quebec which is anticipated shortly, the ADQ and its confusing "middle-ground" ideas on Quebec have been nearly invisible recently. That is, unless one considers Stephen Harper's November Nation motion to count also for the ADQ.

The party's leader, Mario Dumont, has struggled to find room politically between the federalist ways of Jean Charest's Liberals and the soveignist Parti Quebecois (PQ). In the past he has tried to differentiate the ADQ from the "Liberals' submission to status quo federalism and the Parti Québécois' obsession with referendums on sovereignty." He has also previously proposed for Quebec to adopt its own constitution, collect all federal taxes and break federal laws if necessary to ensure full development of the province's hydro-electric capacity.

The Gazette publishes the CP article which explains that Dumont argues for the drafting of a Quebec constitution that would set out reasonable compromises to be granted to religious and ethnic groups. He calls reports of recent compromises granted to ethnic or religious groups a greater threat to so-called old stock Quebecers.

Dumont also said "the integration of newcomers to Quebec is something that Premier Jean Charest and Parti Quebecois Leader Andre Boisclair would rather ignore out of political correctness but it must be addressed. A Quebec constitution would be one way to achieve that".

Is this Dumont simply recycling an idea previously used that helped the ADQ gain some attention in 2004? Dumont, who has been known to flip-flop on occasion, shocked some in 2004 by proposing "an aggressive nationalist shift to turn the province into an autonomous state within Canada".

To me, this sounds familiar... oh yeah. is this the beta version of Stephen Harper's Nation Motion?

Either way, both Dumont and Harper are more tactical than true to any specific set of consistent values, unless one considers their extreme decentralist tendencies to be because of a common ideology.

New poll suggest Dion is correct: linking taxes and environment popular with Canadians

2007-01-14T17:09:00.000-05:00

A new Decima Poll suggests Stephane Dion has the support of Canadians in linking green performance with tax cuts. In the face of other polls recently that suggest the "honeymoon period" following Stephane Dion's victory as Liberal leader is over, this poll adds a dimension of day-to-day performance of the federal leaders.

It shows the Liberal party may be able to earn a renewed popularity with Canadians on the basis of sound sustainable policy. This, coupled with Dion's use of 'town halls' to assist with the perceived integrity of policy design outputs and their implementation, seems to resonate with Canadians.

The Toronto Star writes:

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion has advocated tax breaks tied to green behaviour, such as the purchase of energy-efficient appliances or the installation of home energy generation systems. The Conservatives have avoided any linkage between tax policy and environmental reform. The hypothetical Liberal promise that was put to poll participants by Decima outperformed the Conservative promise in every part of the country except Alberta. In that province there was a 46 per cent versus 37 per cent preference for the no-strings option. Nationwide, 50 per cent of men and 52 per cent of women preferred the Liberal promise. It was preferred by every age, income and education group and by urban (54 per cent) as well as rural (46 per cent) voters.

The recent series of victories on matters of policy by the Liberal party under Stephane Dion's leadership bodes well for the Liberals ability to earn a victory of war on the ground leading up to an election. Apart from in Alberta, any positives by Stephen Harper's gang recently have been purely tactical and have had little to do with the creation of good policy.

Does this show a tendency for Steven Harper to choose optics over substance? For the CPC is this about giving Canadians cabinet shuffles and caucus acquisitions over ideas? On the policy front there have already been failures for the Conservatives that Canadians won't forget quickly, such as former Environment Minister Rona Ambrose's Green Plan and the 'military' (instead of 'peacekeeping') mission in Afghanistan.

Announcements by Harper's party recently have all been about the promise and eventual delivery of good governance, rather than anything in the present. Nothing has been done to demonstrate to Canadians day to day that the Conservatives have any good ideas. After all, even policy process choices by Stephane Dion, such as Town Hall meetings, seem to be emulated by Harper and his Conservatives.

If Harper continues to specialise only on political tactics and not policy, the appropriate use of ideas will continue to be to the advantage of the Liberals. It seems that good policy and quality leadership will win the hearts and minds of Canadians, at least according to Decima's most recent research.

Casino Billionaire battles insurance company after making a $54 miilion hole in his Picasso.

2007-01-14T09:38:00.000-05:00

While some consider it to be tragic, others find it quite funny. Las Vegas casino mogul, Steve Wynn, accidentally ripped a hole in a painting he owns by Pablo Picasso worth an estimated US$139 million. He considers the latest offer from the insurance company to settle his damage claim "ridiculous".

What is tragic is that this great work of art will never be perfect or absolutely the same. This is even though a team of experts with much technology have been working to repair the painting. Apparently, the repaired version is only worth $89 million. Hence, Wynn is fighting to recover the $54 million difference from the insurance company.

The painting in question is Picasso's "Le Reve" (pictured above). It is his favourite painting. He named his Las Vegas show after it. He was planning to sell "la Reve" to billionaire collector Steven Cohen for $139 million, which would have been a record for the sale of a piece of artwork.

The deal was done until Wynn showed the painting to friends who were in town (including writer/director Nora Ephron, who has since written about her having been offended by the painting's penis-shaped face). While showing it to the guests, Wynn accidentally gestured his hand a little too close to the painting, and his right elbow went right through Marie-Therese Walter's left forearm. According to Ephron, Wynn told his guests, "Oh shit. Look what I've done". "Thank God it was me". Ephron said everyone else was left speechless.

To what extent Wynn will be able to leverage his wealth and power to obtain an appropriate settlement? My bet would be that he will get pretty close.

What about Steve Wynn emotionally? Perhaps such a settlement would offset some of the guilt and regret he may feel for damaging such an important work of art.? Or, is it all about the money?

Durham Region's threat to banish students ignores Charter of Rights

2007-01-12T21:57:00.000-05:00

This article by CTV reports that "more than 1,000 students in Durham Region could be suspended from school by next week if they can't find immunization records to prove they have received the necessary shots." The article reports that "letters sent home to parents in November said that Durham District School Board students whose vaccinations are not up to date will be forced to stay home. "

The article adds that The Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine does not agree with the hard line approach. Spokesperson Dr. Shehab El Hashemy says many people in his profession are against immunization.

Even if a student has been immunized, there is now a consequence for not reporting that fact to the Durham Health Unit. Often this is simply because of disorganisation or lack of prioritisation. If students have not been vaccinated, but their parents intended them to be, this threat really "lights a fire" under them, doesn't it.

Some may take issue with the enforcement based approach adopted by the Dunham Health Unit to encourage mass compliance with school board level vaccination rules. Are there better ways to bring about voluntary compliance? Perhaps. Can we assume such measures create compliance with rules are in the public interest and not in conflict with the rights of indicidual Canadians? That is the more challenging question.

What these letters to parents do not explain is that this consequence cannot apply to everyone because of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Article 15.1 guarantees equal protection under the law and equal protection of our rights. Equal protection includes freedom of religious or philosophical belief under article 2 section A and B.

As such, if one's religion, "belief system" or philosophy does not agree with the concept of mass immunization (like Dr. Shehab El Hashemy) for example, one is "off the hook" and cannot be prevented from attending school. So, in reality, these letters are only really applicable to those students and parents who have been too lazy to get shots or too disorganised to report it to the school board.

For some, compliance will be motivated by the fear of children potentially being sent home from school (or the associated and expected stigma). Those who do not understand their rights might just give in. Those who do understand their rights will have to demonstrate to the school board a religious or philosophical reason for them to grant an exception. Canadian school boards are fully aware of this and tend to face such challenges every year.

It is hard to say what will be the result of this "big threat" collectively. However, I am curious how big or small a mail campaign this would be if letters were only sent out to the disorganised relatives of lazy non-immunised Durham students.

What is the point of this exercise, really?

Child / Parent Access Interference: New York Court removes custody from mother.

2007-01-10T17:46:00.000-05:00

I have written multiple posts about a lack of federal policy in Canada on child-parent access issues. There are still no accessible, affordable and timely remedies to incidents of access interference in cases of divorce with children. In Canada, these situations invariably require the involvement of the court initiated by the 'victim' who is required to do a "private prosecution" to find accountability (with their own after-tax funds). If not, child-parent relationships suffer.

Nevertheless, when one can help to finance judicial accountability mechanisms to the finish line, there can be justice. Late last week in New York State, a mother lost custody of her child for not having allowed that child to have meaningful access with the child's father.

Although this type of accountability should be as common as is "access interference" itself, the Supreme Court of New York reversed custody and awarded it to the father. New York attorney Daniel Clement writes: "While the Court's decision does not detail exactly what the mother did, the decision evidences that there is a growing judicial intolerance of one parent interfering with the other parent's visitation rights." The decision is published here.

There are precedents in Canada. In January 2005 a similarly striking adjudicated response happened in an Ontario Court. Justice Lorna Snowie fined a mother $10,000 and another $15,000 sentenced her to 30 days in jail and reversed custody for not encouraging her 16-year-old daughter to participate in family counselling aimed at helping her reconnect with her father after many years of access denial.

From a policy perspective, what needs to happen is this: institutions need to also be created to enforce meaningful access between children and both of their parents similar to those already set up to enforce the payment of child support.

...more institutionalised conservatism: Rona, Alberta's Tory government and the Nation Motion

2007-01-07T13:18:00.000-05:00

Did anyone else find it convenient that Alberta is now "banging its chest" about it being a nation one day after Rona Ambrose was shuffled to manage to Intergovernmental Affairs portfolio?

The Calgary Herald reports Friday that "Alberta is "the bad boy" of Confederation and that Alberta's Intergovernmental Affairs Minister, Guy Boutillier, said "that and will fight for its own rights as a nation, including a provincial immigration program and equitable treatment in Canada".

Minister Boutillier also said "Alberta and other provinces and territories are owed the same rights associated with the Quebec nation, a distinction recently approved by the House of Commons. Each province is a nation within a nation".

Should we be surprised now that more than a month has passed since the passing of CPC's Nation resolution that Alberta is calling for the same rights as was awarded Quebec? Was this a part of Harper's plan at the time: to force a massive decentralisation whether he opens up the constitution or not? Is Rona Ambrose a part of this plan? Is this really about pandering to Alberta and to the separatist movement outside of Quebec? Or, is this really about institutionalising conservatism?

Time will tell...but it might be prudent for those Canadians who believe in a strong federation to prepare against the dilution of Canada and the hypothesis that the institutionalisation of conservatism is a part of Harper's master plan.

Who earn more: Professional referees or Canadian jurists?

2007-01-06T20:55:00.000-05:00

If one were mapping out a career as a "third party neutral" and one were motivated by status, income and leisure, what would one aspire to be? Sports is one option as a referee or umpire. Another could be mediation. Yet another could be if one were appointed to the judiciary.

Leaving aside mediation as well as leisure question which is har to measure (apart from the fact that NFL football referees work less - 16 games give or take), how would the incomes of judges in Canada compare to those of professional referees?

The salary of a federally appointed judge is $216,600 CDN (other than a chief justice or a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada). A Chief Justice of a Supreme Court earns $278,400 per annum. Other Justices of the Supreme Court make $257,800.

NFL referees currently earn between $42,295 and $120,998 US per season. Major League baseball umpires earn anywhere from $100,000 to $280,000 during a 162 game season, plus they get a generous expense account. NHL officials make between $115,000 to $220,000 US per season, based on experience. Professional referees also have to do extensive travel.

If the ego of a professional referee were to get out of check, the league would find some accountability; perhaps they would not work the full playoffs. There seems to be an internal way that works, because variations in how to call games seems to be tightly controlled centrally. Professional referees need to work hard to make the "big leagues" by demonstrating an ability to be fair and neutral, as well as an ability to manage games effectively. Merit demonstrated by strong performances year after year will keep them at the top, even though others certainly aspire to replace them.

For aspiring judges there is no real way to be appointed apart from "who you know". Judicial immunity and the weight of the law makes it less important for judges than for refs to be anything but authoritative. Refs seem to need to primarily encourage voluntary compliance under the threat and enforcement of punative measures that correspond with an agreed upon set of rules.

With judges, there is also no direct accountability because judicial appointments are for life (or 75 years of age typically). Does judicial review provide any real accountability? The Governor General along with the House of Commons and the Senate could remove a judge in deriliction of duty, but this has never been attempted in Canada Is it then even an accountability option? Perhaps it is now because the technical mechanism to find justice for judges has now been mentioned here.

After considering job security, benefits, and other factors, the life of a Canadian judge looks pretty good. When compared directly, how does the guaranteed and much longer career of a judge look in comparison with the career of a professional referee ?

Myriam Bedard: "“I’m only thinking of her well-being”: Maude's best interest or advocacy spin?

2007-01-05T12:39:00.000-05:00

Myriam Bedard is back in Canada and, for about one hour, she has been out on bail. This article from the Toronto Star explains that "She was given bail with conditions, including supervised visits with her daughter, not being allowed to leave Quebec and surrendering her passport."

The article also reports that she claims to be making decisions for Maude's sake as opposed to her own preferences: “I’m only thinking of her well-being.” Now, how should the law reconcile priorities that interfere with one another? Is it in Maude's best interest to be with her mother (even in another jurisdiction) and even if that interferes with Maude's ability to have meaningful access and a relationship with her father?

This case is a microcosm of what family courts must consider everyday. If the starting point is that Maude is best served by being with her mother, Myriam's relationship with Maude will take precedence over Maude's relationship with her dad, even if this represents a sacrifice and something Maude may regret as an adult. Some would instead argue that the most important factor is a matter of child rights, i.e. Maude's right to have meaningful relationships with both her parents (assuming both parents are involved and interested).

The State will tend support the former option. If Maude were less than 12 (usually between 8 and 10), the "special relationship" hierarchies (that are arguably gender discriminatory and inconsistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) would make it so that Maude's relationship with her mom would be a priority. Now that Maude is 12 , she would be asked about her preferences. These will typically reflect what she is used to. The problem here is that many children who are asked to make loyalty choices at a young age will regret those choices as an adult. Maude may later lament what she missed for the State not having enforced her rights to have meaningful access with both of her parents. Unfortunately, there is often a psychological toll on the child associated with such choices.

Where this article is flawed is that it does not clarify whether Maude's father, Pierre, has been denied access to Maude previously or if he is a disinterested father, which Ms. Bedard's lawyer, Me John Pepper, has claimed: The article explains:

"Bedard’s father, Pierre, was in court and has had little contact with his daughter in recent years." The next line in the Star is quite ambiguous:

“I haven’t talked to her in four years,” he said."

Has he not talked to Maude or his Myriam in four years?

I have written the Star to seek clarification on this ambiguous point.

Part 3: Judicial Review: Is there a relationship between bias and Supreme Court appointments?

2007-01-04T12:00:00.000-05:00

In my post on New Year’s Day I chose to share with the Liblogs and Progressive Blogger communities confidential data just released that in essence shows a judicial bias at the Ontario Court of Appeal. The post generated allot of hits, some exceptional enthusiasm, some comments, some skepticism, and some indifference.

I especially appreciated those wanting to know more details, such as Canadian Tar Heel, Anonymous Gayle and Devin. Gayle and Devin concluded with the information I had provided that the study was “flawed”. We had it out a little bit in the comments section of the post. In the end I disagree with what I consider to have been pre-mature conclusions. Nevertheless, we can agree to disagree, which is perfectly fair. Healthy skepticism keeps the world moving. It would be good to know if after this post we still disagree.

As for the very skeptical and borderline belligerent, “decoin”, there is a case at the Court of Appeal today that is using this report as evidence.

I may have been short-sighted in identifying as an example only Supreme Court Justice Rosalie Abella’s discrimination rating. Another former Ontario Court of Appeal Justice with almost as bad a discrimination rating was appointed by then Justice Minister, Irwin Cottler, to the Supreme Court of Canada on the same day in 2004 as Justice Abella.

If you refer back to the results that I posted on January 1, Justice Charron was not far behind Justice Abella on the gender report's discrimination rating. Justice Charron favoured women over men 62.6% of the time, which is considered “heavy discrimination also. Her results in brief are as follows:

For Charron JA D = 70.0 - 7.4 = 62.6 % (heavy)

Wikipedia has this to say about Justice Charron:

Charron (born March 2, 1951 in Sturgeon Falls, Ontario) is a Canadian jurist. She as appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada in October, 2004, and is the first native-born Franco-Ontarian Supreme Court judge. (This distinction has sometimes been ttributed to Louise Arbour, but Arbour was born and raised Québécoise.)

Charron received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Carleton University in 1972, her Bachelor of Law degree from the University of Ottawa in 1975, and was called to the Bar of Ontario in 1977. She practiced civil litigation, and then joined the Crown Attorney's office in 1980, and then became a law professor at the University of Ottawa. She was appointed to the district Court of Ontario in 1988, and to the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1995. She is eligible to sit on the bench until 2026 when she reaches age 75.

I am sensitive that interested bloggers may like more information on how to define a win, the difference between pure wins and partial wins, and the number of men versus women who made these appeals. The following is an extraction from another report called “Judicial Bias at the Court of Appeal I”, which used “quick law” to consider the cases that were before Justice Abella and Justice Charron over time.

"For Justice Abella the total cases can be summarized as follows:

Appellant, Number, Win All, Lose All, Win/Lose Some
Male, 28, 2, 23, 3
Female,13, 10, 2, 1

It can be concluded a man had a 82.1 % chance of losing on all issues, but a woman had a 84.6 % chance of winning on at least some issues when appearing before a panel with Justice Abella on it

For Justice Charron the total cases can be summarized as follows:

Appellant, Number, Win All, Lose All, Win/Lose Some
Male, 27, 3, 22, 2
Female, 10, 7, 2, 1

It can be concluded a man had a 81.5 % chance of losing on all issues, but a woman had a 80.0 % chance of winning on at least some issues when appearing before a panel with Justice Charron on it"

Please let me know if more information is required to show the legitimacy of this research at this time. Otherwise, I would like to know whether there is an interest, or just apathy in looking further as to whether our judiciary is upholding its Charter obligations with respect to gender neutrality or not.

Is Canadian Olympic champion still in a US jail because she blew the whistle?

2007-01-03T23:04:00.000-05:00

This CBC article reports that Myriam Bedard's US lawyer claims that his client is languishing in jail because she is a "whistle blower":

Kevin McCants, Bédard's American lawyer, said Bédard and her second husband, Nima Mazhari, believe Canadian authorities have left Bédard to languish in jail as a way to punish her for the role she played in the federal sponsorship scandal.

Is this paranoid, advocacy or is this worth considering?

Part 2: Judicial Review - Data from 10 year study proves a judicial bias

2007-01-01T12:02:00.000-05:00

I have written some posts in the past relating to current events that arguably demonstrate a gender bias in Canada’s Superior Courts. If there were any doubt still, last week I got the hard evidence.

I received these data from a reliable source who shall remain anonymous for now. These data represent a brand new ten year study called “Judicial Bias at the Court of Appeal III”. The study is being presented via a motion this week at the Court of Appeal. The motion requests that the court declare itself a “non-independent and impartial body“.

Do I have an obligation to share this evidence even if names of certain esteemed jurists are mentioned? Some say “yes“, while others warn about this exercise being too specific. I conclude that since all information is in the public domain, there is nothing wrong with presenting it to the public a more organised version of this same information. Plus, let's start off the year and the 60th post at Views from the Water's Edge with the universal themes of "fairness" and "accountability". For those behind creating the methodology, preparing the data and organising this research, thank you for your efforts.

The methodology seems logical and the results are no less than SHOCKING. These data show some level of discrimination on the part of ALL TWENTY TWO judges tracked between 1996 and 2006. Perhaps more shocking is that there is “heavy/high” discrimination by more than 75% of these judges. Not one judge favoured men over women over time, the closest being Justice Laskin who ruled in favour of women 8.6% more often than for men.

Now, before I say anything more, I would like to remind all readers of the pertinent sections of our dearest Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

Equality Rights Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. 28. Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.

The methodology of the study is described below:

This study analyzes the decisions of 22 judges at the Ontario Court of Appeal. It is an extension of the 2 previous studies, Judicial Bias at the Court of Appeal I and II. This study traces differences in decisions based on the sex of the appellant, as can be determined by judge, issue, and year. Over 800 decisions on the public records of judges of the court are included. All the available family law entries from the Canlii database for Ontario Court of Appeal were used. Specific cases are listed by judge in Appendix A, and by year in Appendix B, from 1996 to 2006.

Part one of the study is called “Discrimination by Judge”.

“Discrimination indexes are used to compare the differences between judges. Discrimination indexes are defined as ; D = % female wins - % male wins. A negative value would indicate discrimination against females, and a positive value, discrimination against males. Specific values for 17 of the justices were computed in the earlier studies Judicial Bias at the Court of Appeal I and II and the data is included in Appendixes 1 to 17. The values for the remaining 5 judges were derived from Appendixes 18 to 22 using the same techniques. Procedural issues, penalties, equalization, costs, and issues generally designated as other are not included in this analysis. Discrimination categories have been assigned as : 0 to 15 % is slightly discriminatory, 15 to 30 % is moderately discriminatory, 30 to 60 % is highly discriminatory, 60 to 85 % is heavily discriminatory, and 85 to 100 % is fully discriminatory.”

The key results are as follows:

D = % Female Wins - % Male Wins, Discrimination count, Category

For Abella JA D = 76.5 - 6.4 = 70.1 % (heavy)
For Feldman JA D = 72.7 - 13.3 = 59.4 % (heavy/high)
For Charron JA D = 70.0 - 7.4 = 62.6 % (heavy)
For Simmons JA D = 80.0 - 23.8 = 56.2 % (high)
For Lang JA D = 50.0 - 0 = 50.0 % (high)
For Wheiler JA D = 77.8 - 26.1 = 51.7 % (high)
For McMurtry CJO D = 69.9 - 40.0 = 29.1 % (moderate/high)
For O’Connor DCJO D= 80.0 - 30.0 = 50.0 % (high)
For Goudge JA D = 77.8 - 39.1 = 38.7% (high)
For Borins JA D = 70.0 - 27.3 = 42.7 % (high)
For Rosenburg JA D = 71.4 - 33.3 = 38.1 % (high)
For Armstrong JA D = 66.7 - 26.3 = 40.4 % (high)
For Moldaver JA D = 52.6 - 6.7 = 45.9 % (high)
For Macpherson JA D = 62.5 - 14.3 = 48.2 % (high)
For Gillese JA D = 85.7 - 50.0 = 35.7 % (high)
For Juriasz JA D = 60.0 - 0.0 = 60.0 % (high/heavy)
For Blair JA D = 50.0 - 9.1 = 41.9 % (high)
For Cronk JA D = 66.7 - 42.1 = 24.6 % (moderate)
For Sharpe JA D = 33.3 - 11.7 = 21.3 % (moderate)
For Catzman JA D = 63.6 - 43.7 = 19.9 % (moderate)
For Labrosse JA D = 61.5 - 45.0 = 16.5 % (moderate)
For Laskin JA D = 55.5 - 47.0 = 8.5 % (slight)

There you have it. And, these data were made available to you first. Oh yeah, did anyone else notice that one of the worst offenders of gender discrimination in this study is Rosalie Abella at 70.1%? Justice Abella is no longer a judge at the Ontario Court of Appeal because former Prime Minister Paul Martin appointed her to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2004.

For those who don’t know, Wikepedia explains the following about Justice Abella: “Abella was born in a displaced persons camp in Germany, and moved to Canada with her family in 1950. She graduated from the University of Toronto Law School in 1970, and practised civil and family law litigation until 1976, when she was appointed to the Ontario Family Court, becoming the youngest and first pregnant judge in Canadian history. She was then appointed to the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1992.”

What are my personal recollections of Justice Rosalie Abella’s contributions as a jurist?… I recall her having turned family law "upside down" by recognising the need to have “independent legal advice” for a separation agreement to be binding. Arguably, this was the catalyst for a huge “make work project” for the legal industry in family law. More recently, her fingerprints were all over a couple troublesome 2006 Supreme Court decisions, one of which was retroactive child support.

There is much that can be written about Justice Abella, which will have to wait until another time. However, in the meantime I can’t help but wonder whether persons will need to account for failing grades when it comes to gender bias in our judiciary?

Happy New Year from Edgewater Views!

2007-01-01T01:59:00.000-05:00

To everyone, may 2007 be the best year ever!

"Court Orders" versus "Common Sense": how can we reconcile our child custody policies?

2006-12-30T10:32:00.000-05:00

It has been a strange December with respect to battles over the custody of children involving both Canadian and American jurisdictions. First, Myriam Bedard has been in the news for weeks for having abducted her 12 year old daughter, Maude, her arrest in the United States on an international warrant, and her continued detention in a Maryland jail.

Now, a 49 year old American woman has been arrested in Ottawa for not returning her 17 month old twins to the couple in North Carolina who had adopted the twins at birth. The mother, Allison Lee Quets, had visitation rights as a custody battle following the adoption this year from December 22 to December 24th. Ms. Quets and the twins were discovered in Ottawa after Custom officials confirmed the place and time that she had crossed into Canada from the United States.

Ms. Quets now claims that she agreed to give up the twins under questionable circumstances. She says she had panicked and made the wrong choice because of her insecurities about adequately being able to take care of the babies, but changed her mind 12 hours after their birth. The parents adopting the children refused and a custody battle has emerged. Unlike many jurisdictions, the laws in North Carolina do not provide a grace period for mothers who plan to give up their children at birth to change their mind.

Orders of the court are the supreme measure of what is right and what is wrong in cases such as this. It is the same if the children involved were instead someone's property. However, because we are talking about children and not just property, should we consider whether the State also has an obligation to use some "common sense"?

In Canada and in the United States, family policy affects in some way close to 50% of the population. Most involved agree, family policy is cumbersome, inequitable and inaccessible, and also one of the most profitable areas of law for lawyers. This is in spite of the fact that decisions made in by an "inadequate system" directly affect the lives and futures of our society's children and their families.

Some argue that the current system is gender discriminatory: patriarchal principles that have been abandoned otherwise or are considered to be inappropriate in other aspects of life remain at the heart of policies surrounding custody, child support and child access.

From a policy perspective, a primary sign of a failed policy is when those who are served and affected by policy choose not to comply with it voluntarily. So, whether it is Ms. Quets who risks everything to be with her children, or a non-profit father's group who shuts down a bridge in Montreal (to protest fathers collectively not having appropriate access to their children), those who set the agenda should take note.

Since the 1990s changes to our family policies have been in the queue. Federal reports in 1998 and 2002 called for such change. What if those recommendations had been implemented? Is possible we could have avoided these situations? These are clear signs of failed family policy.

Of course, there are other priorities from year to year. And, special interests continue to profit from how the system is set up now. However, there comes a time when those setting the agenda need to consider what policies within their jurisdiction and responsibility are most acutely out of balance, and act on them for the sake of our striving to have a "just society".

I trust that by the end of 2007 we will be able to count on Canada being a more equitable and fair society because those setting the agenda will choose to do what is right for children, women and men from all types of families.

Montreal: Has winter finally arrived? What about global warming?

2006-12-29T14:44:00.000-05:00

Well, it seems the coldest temperatures this winter (2006-2007) were recorded today in Montreal. The low temperature was at 8:00 am today: -18 C.

Some people I spoke to before Christmas did not seem to think they would ever experience cold again. As silly as it might seem, this thinking was kind of contagious. Still others were musing that our weather patterns had changed drastically. How long would our boots would remain in the closet?

"Are we were going to have a winter like in Vancouver?" asked the Korean-Canadian man at the depanneur near my house.

"This will be the first green Christmas in my lifetime" I replied to the small talk.

I also recall at the time considering briefly what I was going to do with my new winter coat. Was this a silly "pipe dream" or acceptance that there is no going back to the winters that our ancestors experienced 100 years ago?

Ironically, in previous years warm Decemeber weather would have been seen as a "good fortune". This year some had replaced any sense of enjoyment/convenience with their guilt over global warming.

So, did the warm December of 2006 help place global warming squarely on the political agenda and for good? Will Steve ever again be in a position to say with any credibility the "so called global warming"? What were Steve and Rona thinking when they set the environmental agenda and responded so inadequately?

Is it serendipitous for Liberals that in a period leading up to a federal election that Canadians were made to reflect about our own contributions to this environmental crisis? Did a particularly warm December in 2006 elicit "common regret" about the choices we make as a society? We may never know: the answer may be buried in the environmental policies and promises that will surface in the months to come.

Is it too late for the Conservatives to "save face" on this issue? The election results will provide a clear and definite answer to that question.

Myriam Bedard's child abduction: the impetus for domestic policy change or "status quo"

2006-12-27T18:50:00.000-05:00

If you had asked me one-week ago to predict what I expected Myriam Bedard’s "defence" to be for the alleged child abduction, my guesses would have been quite close to what Myriam Bedard's Quebec lawyer, Me. John Pepper jr., spoke about today.

Why are there excuses? In an adversarial system, there will always be excuses. It is how the system works, even when it is hard to see beyond one's suspected "hidden agenda". In reality, Myriam may be paying the price for parents who "legally" commit domestic abductions of their children every day in Canada.

These excuses are a microcosm of what "parents tell their friends", what "lawyers tell the judges" and what the "lobbyists tell the policy makers". These excuses are also why patriarchy drives the agenda around family policy, the laws and the courts who administer it. It is why current practices violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and why children and second families suffer while lawyers and other special interests continue to profit.

Myriam Bedard's lawyer said:

1. Myriam is being persecuted for being a "whistle blower". This is also apparently why she switched hotels in Maryland several times.

2. Myriam Bedard has "sole custody" and daughter Maude's father, Jean Paquet, had Maude's cell phone number and knew how to reach her, so this search for Maude was unnecessary and irresponsible.

3. Jean Paquet is in violation of not having exercised his visitation, and should therefore be seen as a disinterested father.

When it comes to issues of parenting involving divorced couples, unreasonable decisions are often made, even when otherwise "reasonable people" are involved. Mothers say they act on behalf of children's "best interests", which are often congruent with the mother's preferences i.e. Would it be in Maude’s interest to be in the USA (or Iran?) because of her mother's persecution, even if that means she will not see her dad very often.? The child’s best interest is therefore a very subjective measure and it often pits the care of one parent against another, and asks the State to prioritise.

The most common stereotypes are that "dad's are deadbeats with respect to child support" and that "dads are not sufficiently interested in being with their children". The spin of Me. Pepper is very familiar. Fathers are often painted as being not sufficiently responsible enough (or interested enough) to take care of their children. Studies and statistics show these stereotypes that have led to our current failed policies are incorrect.

So, why does Myriam even have sole custody when it is likely in Maude's interest for her parents custody to be shared? The system is setup that way. After all, how else could one justify treating fathers as second parents exclusively because of their gender, in a society known otherwise to be mostly fair and equitable.

Why is Myriam Bedard making lots of news - front-page news in Quebec? Is it because Myriam is a convenient example for the State? She is a whistleblower, after all. But, there are also benefits from an optics perspective for our institutions enforce a family abduction by a high profile Canadian mother and Quebec woman.

Will this take some heat off the provincial Superior Courts who are under much public pressure to be more gender equitable in family law in order to offset the allegations of gender bias? Enforcement of this case clouds allegations that the system is biased. It also dispels the allegations that the enforcement of access is a second class priority when compared to the enforcement of child support ( even though there are no non-litigious or institutional remedies for domestic access denial due to a lack of federal policy).

Nevertheless, it must not be easy for the system. There is a a lack of federal legislation on access to back up family court decisions. When this is combined with decades of gender discrimination in family law, change day to day must be quite difficult.

What would be most sustainable would be if access were made a priority on the political/policy agenda regardless of whether the offending parent enters another jurisdiction or not. Domestic child abductions are not treated with the same level of seriousness as this case involving a former Canadian Olympian.

Should we not fix this thing for the sake of all Canadians, equitability and the credibility of our Charter? Going after Myriam is either a next step or a smoke and mirrors “band aid”.

Unfortunately, if time shows the latter has prevailed, domestic injustices will continue sadly because of a lack of will and responsible action .

Part 3: "Pulp" Leadership Convention clips on YouTube

2006-12-27T10:40:00.000-05:00

Just as his speech gets rolling, delegates from other camps show support for Ken's vision for "A Big Canada". December 1, 2006 at 6:40 pm (5 minute original clip).

Part 2: "Pulp" Leadership Convention clips on YouTube

2006-12-26T23:29:00.000-05:00

This front row clip is only a minute or so into Ken's speech ... coast to coast campaigning was ... unbelievable.

Part 1: "Pulp" Leadership Convention clips on YouTube.

2006-12-26T21:27:00.000-05:00

A highlight moment...

Following Ken's speech...

from the floor...

at Palais des Congres...

on December 1, 2006.

1535, The First Christmas in Canada

2006-12-25T00:25:00.000-05:00

Historical contributions ... the following first Christmas in Canada article was first published by the Montreal Star. Imagine what it was like for Jacques Cartier and others in 1535 in a strange land at Christmas. It is currently available also at this website.
Jacques Cartier, 1535
The first Christmas observed in Canada, that of 1535, was kept -- but scarcely enjoyed -- by one hundred and ten souls in a tiny palisaded fortress on the banks of the Ste. Croix River (now the St. Charles), near the present City of Quebec. On the site of the latter was then the Indian Village of Stadacona.
...............................................
Jacques Carier and his advance guard of settlers were by --Christmas time beginning the struggle with the terrible hardships which during the winter beset the little band, killed twenty-five of its members, and reduced the remainder to a state of helplessness for many weeks.
..............................................
The French ships had come bravely up the river during the previous summer, and had been joyously welcomed by the Indians, who were well supplied with gifts by the newcomers. The Isle of Bacchus (the Island of Orleans) and the land on either side of the great river of Canada had been explored, and a plot of land at the mouth of the Ste. Croix Croix had been selected as the most suitable location for winter settlement. Jacques Cartier had made his way up as far as Hochelaga, and had returned to his band in time to over-see the final preparations for the cold weather.
.................................................
It became noticable before winter set in that there was a change of attitude on the part of the Indians. Outwardly they were friendly, but the Frenchmen soon became convinced that the two guides, whom they had carried off to France on a previous expedition and had brought back to serve as interpreters, were sowing disaffection among the people of Stadacona.
...............................................
Their influence on Chief Donnacona was marked, and the settlers took as their mottos thenceforward, "He who is watchful loses nothing." By the end of November the ships were frozen in and the little colony was beginning to discover the weak points in the winter preparations. The buildings could not keep out the penetrating cold. There were no cellars in which to keep supplies. All the drinkables were frozen hard, and melted snow had to be used for water, as rivers and streams were soon locked fast by the ice. Salt meat and stale vegetables formed the greater part of the diet, and by Christmas time health was beginning to suffer and the first whisper of the dread disease of scurvy was apparent among the whites.
..........................................................
The Indians hovered round, always watching. Sometimes they came to visit the settlement, and often they tried to entice the whites to visit their village on one pretext or another. There were ceremonious protestations of friendship on both sides, but the French were always conscious of the silent and observant movements of the natives. They, therefore, determined, above all, no matter how sick they were, to maintain a show of activity and strength about the fortress, lest, tempted by the obvious weakness of the garrison, the Indians should decide to attack it.
..............................................................
Christmas in those circumstances couldn't be a very merry affair. It came, however, before the worst of the winter trials, while the settlers were still buoyed up by the hope of future discoveries and by the tales of Donnacona -- a man of some imagination, apparently -- who told them of precious stones and metals to be found in lands beyond the country of Saguenay; of white men dressed in cloth like themselves who inhabited a region near a great inland sea of fresh water; of lands of luxurious vegetation south of the Great River, where other red-skinned people lived; and of a mysterious race of one-legged people living in some ill-defined territory far from the district known as Canada. All these things interested the adventurers mightily, and imagination, combined with a taste of the most precious of their food supplies, probably helped to make Christmas Day a little more cheerful than those which had preceded it. It was certainly far more cheerful than many which followed it, for there came a time when all but ten of the party were near death from scurvy. Courageous hearts alone enabled the little colony to hold out until the spring, and to deceive the Indians into thinking the band strong and prepared for attack in the days when they were threatened with utter extermination. - Montreal Star
_________________________________________
Merry Christmas 2006.
Edgewater Views

Myriam Bedard arrested in USA: how she could have gotten away with child abduction...

2006-12-23T10:59:00.000-05:00

Myriam Bedard is not alone in “pushing the system” to maintain sole possession of her daughter. This is at the expense her 12 year old daughter Maude's relationship with her father.

These types of shenanigans go on every day in Canada. Then, why is Myriam Bedard under arrest? Why are other parents who do the same thing in Canada able to get away with it without penalty?

Myriam Bedard is high profile Canadian, a divorced mother, and a "whistle blower". Not surprisingly she is amongst 90% of mothers in Canada who have sole custody or at least "primary care", which means 75% of time the child is with the mother and 25% of the time is with the father. This is when access between children and fathers is not denied altogether, which happens up to 40% of the time.

In these cases, child support is paid by the father to the mother regardless of whether there is access between them. Child support is paid to the mother who collects on behalf of the child and presumably spends it on the child (and not on legal fees to block access through the courts). There is no accountability for how these monies are spent.

Some consider this to be “gender discriminatory to men” and a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In Canada, reports commissioned by previous Liberal governments in 1998 and 2002 stressed that children and families would benefit if the language around custody were changed to "shared". In spite of this, custody today is still defined adversarially as "joint" or "sole".

Under most circumstances, Myriam would have been able to make her ex sign the papers permitting an extended trip to the US, or litigate. Unless she were considered a “flight risk”, the court would unequivocally award the trip by the judge who would also almost always make the father pay also the mother’s court costs.

Arguably and ironically, if Myriam had "joint" custody that was not supported by court order rather than "sole custody" by court order (because that is the “default” in cases of separation or divorce), she would have been in a much stronger position to get away with such an abduction. Flaws in the system would allow her to set up the abduction legally in Canada, first, before leaving the jurisdiction, even if the child and father could not have access to each other.

This could be done by choosing to deny access of her ex while in possession of the child (for no particular reason) to force her ex to litigate on the custody issue. The reason could be something completely unrelated and provocative, such as knowing her ex is short on money to litigate, for example.

If her ex did not take the bait and litigate right away, or if he really could not raise the money - $5,000 for starters - at that moment, she could make the access denial more or less permanent. This would happen because of a "passing of time" without the father seeing the child. If this window to challenge the access denial were missed, it would at a minimum take years of court processes and tens of thousands of dollars for the father to break that status quo.

Myriam Bedard did not know how to beat the system and she is now under arrest and in “shame”. Was her “whistle blowing” about the sponsorship scandal a factor? Did it contribute to her being ostracized by some, as she claims, and a “victim of persecution”? Did the system see this as an excuse for the abduction? No.

It is a bloody shame that such travesties can be allowed to continue in a progressive society with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is good that Myriam was found and that Maude will see her dad this Christmas. What would be even better is if the penalties and remedies for this kind of abduction were equitable and could also resolve “domestic kidnappings” in a similarly efficient way.

50th post at Views from the Waters Edge...

2006-12-22T13:51:00.000-05:00

What a jouney it has been since this new blog was created. Problems with the Beta Blogger upgrade made it impossible for me to continue with my "namesake" blog, Edgewater Views. There have been many twists and turns since that day in late September.

Here are the top 10 highlights, in chrolological order:

1. Karma or Accountability? Quebec recount a premonition for who should lead a pure and fair Liberal party.

2. Broken delegate election system series: 2 votes earn Rae 14 delegates in rural Quebec. (Parts 1-4).

3. LPCQ General Council and debate: observations only available to someone on the floor.

4. Policy Dictatorship at LPCQ: policy approved or not behind closed doors (Policy scraped in favour of Nation resolution and angry Quebecers).

5. The "Kill the Nation Resolution series", which ended with Ken Dryden bravely saying "no" to Harper's undefined position, much to the delight of "most" Canadians.

6. The Institutionalised Conservatism series (Parts 1-3): Harper, the nation, constitutional change and Duceppe.

7. Dion's fresh start for the Liberal party.

8. Advocacy funding and Charter implications series: be careful good Liberals...

9. Political Philanthropy: the man in red.

10. The Gay Marriage series: What should one do when their Liberal MP behaves like a Conservative?

Let's rock the world with the next fifty!

All the best for the Season,

Edgewater Views

Who will vote first? Quebec or Canada

2006-12-22T10:18:00.000-05:00

A federal election is pending now that our Liberal leader is in place. This is especially so with the NDP and Bloc Quebecois threatening to bring down Harper's government sooner rather than later.

The assumption has been that a federal election will happen before a Quebec provincial election, which is due later in 2007. The Globe and Mail reports today that "the timing of the election call is partly expected to be decided by the fate of the minority federal government". Charest’s Liberal caucus has been recalled to return to work two months ahead of schedule presumably to prepare for such an event.

What does this mean? Does the Quebec factor need to be considered more carefully now in relation to when federal opposition parties finally pull the plug?

I think some further analysis is required here as to what are all the possibilities, options and implications. What is for sure is that these two pending elections have become intrinsically interrelated.

Conservative style "bad news" before "good news" agenda adapted for Harper's minority

2006-12-20T22:55:00.000-05:00

Did Brian Mulroney pull off two consecutive majorities by executing a classic "bad news" before "good news" style governance, agenda setting and political prioritization?

Quebec Liberal Premier and former Progressive Conservative, Jean Charest, has attempted similar things it seems with his Liberal government majority in Quebec. Over his one term in power, Charest's use of this classic conservative formula may or may not prove in time to have been effective. In the face of voting patterns that are defined more by centralisation -decentralisation voter preferences than by left - right political ideologies, this classic conservative approach to governance may not be transferable to Quebec.

Has Stephen Harper tried to make use of aspects this approach too? Why were the Conservatives governing until recently like they have a majority? Without a Liberal leader in place (and similarly very little chance that the opposition parties would bring down the government), Harper's conservatives had to get as much out of this "leaderless" period as possible, and use the time to get tough things through (and ruffle any feathers if necessary).

Now that this "unaccountable" period is over (in spite of good opposition led previously by Mr. Graham and Mr. Goodale), Harper seems to be "cleaning up". He is preparing to remove the environment portfolio from Rona Ambrose and dump her into intergovernmental affairs (or something like that). Is a fresh start on the environment even possible for Steve's government?

The same thing applies to Harper's comments today with respect to Canada's role in Afghanistan. He says Canada's troops will return to a traditional peacekeeping role after the mission and because of the mission. He also says all Nato members must do more to support the military approach for now.

OK. Perhaps Harper's bad news (ahem, basically risk free fumble period) ended with the declaration of Stephane Dion as Liberal leader. The immediate deployment of a Liberal dream team who can hit the ground running makes each mistake by Stephen Harper from here on in that much more serious in leading up to another federal election.

Stephen Harper has been forced into "good news mode" by the election of our Liberal leader and the Liberal party's healing. What good news could Steve be "hiding up his sleeve" for an election he has known since last January would come sooner rather than later?

Liberals, please beware of attempts by shrewd Steve to force Canadians to question their values by dangling CPC driven "ballot box questions" specifically for centrist Canadians who typically vote Liberal. Prior to the next election, Steve will likely try to disrupt traditional voting patterns by supplanting some current issues and replacing them with other issues that could transcend or disrupt traditional left - right ideological voting patterns.

Liberals, please beware because it was exactly this strategy on "free trade" that led Mulroney to his second consecutive majority. Both Brian and Steve know that "breaking out of traditional ideological moulds" is the CPC's best shot at continuing to govern and/or that majority so dearly sought by Steve and other Canadians whose ideologies are less than progressive.

Judicial Review: Exploring how judges and lawyers survive in a biased system.

2006-12-17T01:18:00.000-05:00

Judicial appointments can be as partisan in Canada as in the United States. Judges tend to be appointed also for political reasons.

Ontario Superior Court appointees are responsible for presiding over areas of law in which they may have little or no experience. When criminal or civil lawyers are appointed to the Superior Court of Ontario, they also will oversee a certain percentage of Family Court cases.

How is this working out and does this help or hinder the administration of justice? The Family Court raises a controversy, because of alleged Charter violations that are built into its existing procedures, which also fall under the jurisdiction of the Superior Court.

Is it possible to explore the successes and failures of judges in a random way? In theory yes, because it is all in the public domain. Some of it is organised in Canlii.

Judges, especially those who are appointed for being more political and less meritorious, are sometimes criticized for their decisions. Is this because of the rules, because they are too political or because they have too much discretion within legal procedure? It is hard to say.

With family policy and its administration by provincial courts being arguably Canada biggest social problem at the moment, it is important to also consider the role of judicial appointments.

Here is one scenario:

The Honourable Justice Roydon Kealey was appointed to the Ontario Superior Court in 1996 by the Attorney General and Justice Minister, Allan Rock. Kealey, an expert in legal accounting, criminal procedure and general litigation, takes on his share of family law cases.

Whether it is by accident or a part of Ottawa Master Beaudoin's process, Mr. Kealey seems to end up with at least his fair share of "unrepresented" fathers in family court for various reasons. He is also no stranger to the appeal, such as this case involving former NHL player Chris Simon, and this case involving lawyer Hunter Phillips of MacKinnon Phillips, who represented the mother.

I am aware of more than one 'unrepresented' father case before Justice Kealey where the mother's lawyer is (Aharon) Ron Paritzky, who practices with Mr. Hunter Phillips at MacKinnon Phillips. Because lawyers like Mr. Ron Paritzky and Mr. Hunter Phillips are effective in using legal procedure to their clients' advantage, they seem to have developed an expertise in extracting 'costs' from child support paying fathers who represent themselves in court.

This is almost always because self-represented fathers lack the appropriate financial resources to have access to appropriate representation and justice, even if they make too much to be eligible for legal aid. After all, Ontario's Family Responsibility Office has estimated that as much as 90% of child support flows upon gender lines from men to women because of how custody is awarded. This is in spite of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is in part because MOST men pay their child support in after tax dollars and MANY then cannot afford representation costs in after tax dollars also to ensure visitation with their children. This is in part why close to 40% of divorced dads are denied any visitation to their children. For many it is not affordable to enforce access, after they have paid their taxes and child support, which legislatively are priority expenditures that will be enforced by publicly funded insitutions.

In contrast, women of a certain ethical strain can dip into their child support (tax free) to ensure they are always well represented. This is a minority of mothers but a statistically significant proprtion nevertheless. Furthermore, for some strange reason, monies spent to collect child support (mostly by mothers) are tax deductable unlike monies spent (mostly by fathers) to ensure reasonable access, which are 100% taxable. This typically means $1 to lawyer and $1 to the tax department.

Let's face it, fathers need to be in the highest tax bracket to have a reasonable likelihood of scraping together a retainer, without selling the "farm" - assuming there is one after the divorce - and/or the "soul". There is no dignity in that.

For lawyers of this type, who focus on legal procedures, female clients tend to be more profitable. Mr. Paritzky and Mr. Phillips know which clients have the money available to dispose on litigation and which do not. Is this within the rules? Yes. Is anything wrong with this? That is a more complicated ethical question.

In assessing how to fix Canada's broken family law system, is it best to look at only the federal and provincial systems, or do we need to also evaluate the Judges (like Roydon Kealey) and the lawyers (like Ron Paritzky and Hunter Phillips)? Or, do we need to consider how all of the aspects have contribute and maintained the problems with the family court system?

This is a chicken and egg type situation. Is Justice Kealey contributing to a broken family law system? Is biased procedure created by lobbying from special interests beyond Justice Kealey's control? Are Ron Paritzky and Hunter Phillips simply making an honest living by doing what the system will allow? Should they be blamed for continuing to profit from well funded moms who need vigorous advocates to ensure their child support monies continue to flow and that they will always remain the primary parents?

Equitability standards will in time eliminate the gender biases, even though children and second families suffer in the meantime - and special interests continue to profit.

If anyone disagrees with me that this should be on the agenda for change by the "new" Liberal party, I would like to hear from you.

Otherwise, I trust those Liberals who still yearn for a just and fair society will speak up at the appropriate time and support change in family policy at both the macro and micro levels.

Attention fellow Liberals ... be prudent with your technology.

2006-12-16T18:19:00.000-05:00

This goes without saying. We all make mistakes but...

... let's not end up hurting ourselves ...

... or our party.

We have a great thing going now ....

In spite of this, the party is still unscathed, this time.

...but a "slip of the hand" could do much damage, especially in an election year.

Besides, what is with the "jockeying for positions"?

Isn't that for the old Liberal party? May merit play a larger role, Monsieur Dion ... and collectively we will be in better hands for the long run.

Andrew Coyne criticizes Ken Dryden's speech at convention

2006-12-14T23:19:00.000-05:00

On the National tonight, Andrew Coyne suggested that Ken Dryden is the most overrated politician in Canada. He explained on a panel tonight that this is because of Ken's speech at the Liberal leadership convention was "too partisan".

Coyne suggests that Ken's inspiring words (and I was there) would only appeal to Liberals. He said that Canadians would not identify with Ken's vision or approach.

I don't trust these comments by Mr. Coyne not to be self-interested. How can they not be?

First of all, Ken Dryden's speech was unequivically the best speech made by any candidate convention. All Liberals I spoke to agree with this. Ken went after Stephen Harper primarily (as opposed to the other candidates).

Does not mean that Canadians outside the Liberal party would not support his vision? Would other viewers be offended by his criticizms of Harper? Perhaps hard line conservatives would not agree, but Ken's speech was crafted and delivered to inspire Liberal members and also ideological liberals.

Conservatives need not apply if the message does not resonate.

Ken delivered the speech of a lifetime primarily to an audience of Liberals. The goal of this exercise was to win over the delegates on site. Even though other Canadians were watching on TV, they had no vote.

What is with the jaded criticizm by Mr. Coyne? In the opinion of many that I talked to, Dryden's performance was beyond reproach and inspiring.

I met Andrew Coyne at Convention and I had multiple conversations with him. He seems reasonable. He is clearly smart. Nevertheless, his comments criticize one of the best political performances on record and I am confused. Ken inspired an audience of Liberals and Canadians.

Andrew Coyne split hairs tonight. Mr. Coyne has previously written about the extent his political predictions were way off throughout this leadership race. In retrospect, the last person Mr. Coyne should be critical of is Mr. Dryden, who brought vision, ethics and leadership to this race.

Furthermore, Ken's endorsement of Mr. Dion over Mr. Ignatieff on the last ballot represents Dion's margin of victory.

Ken had an impact on the issues that made the agenda. His ethical standards are a primary reason the other candidates did not go down the road of "broken rules". Throughout the campaign, other candidates borrowed Ken's "Big Canada" content. They obviously understood his vision and could not resist using it themselves.

Perhaps the "shadowing" of Mr. Dryden's policy by the other leadership candidates is a form of flatery for Ken. Should Mr. Coyne have given equal time to the universal adoption of Ken's vision before identifying Ken's brilliant speech as a failure? You tell me!

Child abductor? Canadian Olympic Gold Medalist wanted by police.

2006-12-14T07:52:00.000-05:00

In a situation that represents the extreme exception rather than the rule, Olympic medallist in 1992 and 1994, Myriam Bédard, is wanted by Canadian police for disappearing for over two months with her 11-year-old child.

In a country with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, women nevertheless overwhelmingly retain custody of their children. As such, it is ironic that the "mother" in this case is being pursued by police.

Why is this even news? The abduction involves another jurisdiction. And, because Ms. Bédard is known. Because another jurisdiction is involved, it is now a criminal matter.

What if the abduction were in Canada? What if Ms Bédard simply began "denying access" to her ex-husband for no particular reason (and if there were no court order on access)? The Family Courts would preside. Because Canada's Family Courts make decisions that favour one gender over another, the accountabilty for Ms. Bédard would be much different. This would not be a criminal matter and she would unlikely even get a "slap on the wrist".

Why? Myriam's ex-husband would likely have to spend his own after tax dollars to do a private prosecution to overcome the abduction. If he were to involve the Criminal Courts, the matter would be referred back to the Family Court and the onus would be solely on him.

Because gender is important in Canada's Family Courts, he would be swimming against the current. His potential to generate an affordable, timely or equitable remedy would be limited and unlikely.

Why is this type of blatant injustice as a part of Canadian domestic policy not on the agenda for change? Is this not Canada's greatest social problem at the moment, especially when one considers the Charter?

If someone were to ask me, I would attribute the lack of change to "special interests" that have had funding resources to block equitable change, as well as special interests with access to decision makers.

Most would agree that such influence in our policy design and implementation processes does not make for balanced or sustainable public policy.

Could we have some attention here? Let's evaluate and fix some very bad domestic policy, at the very least for the sake of our nation's credibility, please.

Further proof ideology is a "horseshoe": Left-Right Political boxes are not quite linear

2006-12-13T12:59:00.000-05:00

In a world where civil liberties seem best protected by left-leaning politicans, articles like this one create doubts about which end of the political spectrum better preserves the rights of all citizens.

Advocacy funding in UK goes after the "dead beat dad", again!

2006-12-10T13:08:00.000-05:00

Thousands are protesting today the closing of Status of Women's offices by Stephen Harper's Conservatives. The Honourable Bev Oda, Minister of Status of Women, is currently overseeing this changes.

She justifies the move by suggesting the cuts ensure that 17 cents out of every dollar of funding (instead of 31 cents) is needed only for administrative costs, which means more money is available to benefit women directly.

Such spin from all sides is neither here nor there.

The bottom line is that advocacy funding is only legal under the Charter if it does not put the rights of one gender ahead of the other. Therefore, it is inappropriate for these funds to flow to organizations who seek to delay further changes to the federal Divorce Act. All funding should meet the gender neutral standard demanded by the application of Canada's Charter principles.

Some funding by the Status of Women has been paid to lobbies who seek to delay changes to the Divorce Act, especially since 1998, when a federal report recommended changes that would ultimately make "access" as much of a priority as "child support" in Canadian law and would arguably stop the unilateral flow of child support from men to women. The current situation has been preserved in part via advocacy funding. This is simply innapropriate due to its patriarchy.

Nevertheless, advocacy monies are used to lobby for the status quo.

Ironically, on a day when thousands march on behalf of highly organised advocacy organisations defence of advocacy funding in Ottawa and across Canada, the UK announces (like in the USA) that the names of "deadbeat dads" will be published on the internet to encourage compliance.

Please remember:

· 90.2% of fathers with joint custody pay the support due.
· 79.1% of fathers with visitation privileges pay the support due.
· 44.5% of fathers with no visitation pay the support due.
· 37.9% of fathers are denied any visitation.
· 66% of all support not paid by non-custodial fathers is due to the inability to pay.

Simple analysis of these data suggest that there is a relationship between fathers who have access to their children and fathers who voluntarily pay child support. Connecting the issues of access and child support it seems would go along way to making almost all fathers comply voluntarily with their obligations.

Or, if one insists on being punitive, why doesn't the UK publish the names of mother's who deny access of their children to the other parent, and stigmatise those types of persons in the same way?

In Canada, where Harper's conservatives have reopened the debate, it is essential that Liberals encourage the government either restrict the flow of advocacy funds to those organisations promoting gender discrimination, or fund men's groups who seek to change the Divorce Act for the sake of children, men, women and second families.

Perhaps western democracies who make advocacy funding available to organizations that seek to make gains at the expense of the other gender should listen less to highly organized pitches and politics by certain lobbies and focus instead on the objective criteria of gender equality.

Fairness would suggest that either advocacy funding must be made available to those seeking to make access a priority in family policy or restrictions on inappropriate gender funding are needed.

Consider This a protest by "methods", which, like protests by marches, has its place in Canadian civil disobedience.

Peace Prize Winner Jimmy Carter Rebukes Canada

2006-12-10T10:24:00.000-05:00

Well it seems Jimmy Carter, a credible international voice, is critical of Canada's lack of balance in its approach to the Middle East. In particular he spoke out yesterday (using diplomacy as always) against the Harper government's choice to impose sanctions along with other countries on Palestinians.

His issue is that sanctions were imposed because Palestinians chose to elect a political party whose roots began as a militant organization. He thinks this type of decison making by democratic nations is very dangerous.

The former president is in Canada to promote his book "Peace not Apartheid", and he was interviewed on CBC last night. In this morning's print version of La Presse, Mario Girard writes a front-page story (which is not available online) quoting Carter as saying it is a crime that Palestinians are punished via sanctions for voting for their choice of candidates. The subtext when interviewed by the Canadian media is the lack of balance Harper's conservatives are taking to decisions about the Middle East, which closely resemble the approaches taken by George Bush's Republicans.

This is front page news in Montreal, as Quebecers collectively tend to view this issue somewhat differently.

The wisdom of this Nobel Peace Prize winner and father of the Camp David Accord is worth considering. Given that this is a dangerous issue politically, it is positive that Carter has the courage to critisize Harper's unbalanced approach to the Middle East while he visits Canada.

It seems Harper's Conservatives continue to embarass Canada on the world stage on multiple issues. We can't solely blame our deteriorating international reputation of "Canadian belligerence" on Rona Ambrose anymore. Other Conservatives must share in that blame.

What should one do when their Liberal MP behaves like a Conservative?

2006-12-09T00:18:00.000-05:00

This is the scenario:

One lives in one of the safest Liberal ridings in Canada.

It becomes apparent over time that one's MP uses an elected position to support personal preferences that differ considerably from the preferences of most riding constituents.

One's MP's church constituents are major campaign contributors; all funds raised at the riding level are applied to that member's election fund.

Local Liberals are either "in or out" depending upon whether they blindly follow the lead and quietly accept all decisions. Disagreement at any level or on any issue is seen as a lack of unequivocal support. Nay Sayers are ostracised.

One's MP votes against the majority of the Liberal party on legalizing gay marriage last year, even though the riding that one's MP represents is amongst the most progressive in Quebec and Canada.

One's MP votes along with the Party and the Conservative government in support of the Nation motion, even though the motion demotes 75%+ of constituents who are Anglos and Allophones to second tier citizens in Quebec.

One's MP votes against the Liberal party and the status quo in favour of re-opening the gay marriage debate this past week, much to the chagrin of many Liberals and local constituents.

Is this just one's personal philosophy on the role of elected officials in representative democracies, or is this strategic in going after the votes of ideological conservatives in the riding as well as steadfast Liberal supporters who will never vote another way?

Could this be a formula to govern in perpetuity? Is this brilliant or despicable?

Shhhh. Anyone who says anything may be muzzled or ostracised. Can we please keep this as our little secret?!

Gay Marriage Vote: did Mps vote on behalf of constituents, themselves or their church?

2006-12-07T21:45:00.000-05:00

The gay marriage free vote today raises questions about the decision making processes utilised by our of our elected members of parliament. What is one’s responsibility to their constituents in Canadian federal politics versus their own values. While I know what Plato’s answer would be, our members interpret their responsibilities in different ways. This was demonstrated by the voting patterns today.

One interpretation of representative democracy would suggest that elected officials have been voted in by their constituents because they have superior decision making skills. Once elected, they have free reign in theory to make decisions that will best serve their constituents. Elected officials who are proponents of this interpretation will only be held accountable for these decisions at election time - and that is about it as far as accountability. In the meantime, constituents need to respect that there is a method to the decision making process and that they will be better off at the end of the day. This is a top-down approach.

This is one interpretation of the responsibilities of elected officials in a representative democracy.

Yet another interpretation of representative democracy is that elected officials are surrogates of their constituents. They have a responsibility to consult with constituents on key decisions, and vote on their behalf, in spite of personal beliefs or preferences.

Somewhere in between these two interpretations lies the optimal representative role.

Then, what does it mean when one’s MP votes with their church (a campaign contributor) before the collective preferences of those who live in the riding?

I don’t know. This seems to have happened today for the second time on this issue. More than a few resididents and Liberals have taken note. Perhaps coincidentally or not, this same member voted against the preferences (and arguably) best interest of a majority of riding constituents on the Nation motion last week.

On the western side of the island of Montreal, the approach subscribed to most by those who serve is obviously the former.

When is advocacy funding gender discriminatory?

2006-12-07T12:37:00.000-05:00

While I am a proponent of advocacy funding (unlike the slash and burn cuts by this CPC government), poor administration has led to many programs becoming gender discriminatory according to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Where does the accountability lie in fixing social problems that have been created by the misuse of advocacy funds? Should the Auditor General be looking at this much like they did to discover the misuse of funds at Children's Aid in Ontario this week?

To clarify, I am only a proponent of advocacy funding if it does not put the rights of one gender behind those of the other. Yes we need to fund shelters and rape centres and educational programs. We need advocacy funding. But where it has failed is where patriarchal principles are insitutionalised because funding is made available to (1) make gender the determining factor in who gets custody of children in cases of divorce; (2) to make child support (which is 90% paid by men to women because of how custody is determined) a priority over access (which affects mostly men and has been in limbo since the 1990s). There is a definate gender hierachy and advocacy funding has been misused to create these dynamics and to preserve the status quo. In the meantime, men, children and women from second families have become second tier citizens to first families, and children suffer.

Unfortunately, the present system is way out of balance. It takes tragedies to elicit change. When one considers this tragedy and this other tragedy, people lament in retrospect "how could this happen. While when one considers this, people tend to think that is what men tend to do rather than this is what "disturbed people" do. Statistics show that breaking down psychotic behaviour on gender lines is pure propaganda and without merit. Meanwhile, public policy is developed unfortunately in accordance with these myths, in part due to advocacy funding.

As citizens, we need to look at what impact the misuse of advocacy funds have created and maintained in promoting these myths and gender based power dynamics.

I urge my fellow Liberals to bring back advocacy funds with appropriate measures to ensure they cannot and will not be used to further the agenda of one gender over another.

Our very own Political Philanthropist

2006-12-05T21:12:00.000-05:00

I have waited a few days before posting anything about Ken, because I am pleased in the end with Stephane as our Leader. But, I cannot say enough about Ken Dryden's approach to politics, which is different from anything else that I have seen in a very good way.

Last week I protested that silly article out of the UK comparing Ignatieff to a 'philosopher king'. The author got it wrong - Ken Dryden is much more in line with those characteristics as described by the ancient and great political philosopher.

Stated simply and as a condition of functional democracy, Plato needed representatives who would innately act on behalf of the 'collective interest' rather than their own 'self interest'. Only those who were enlightened were capable of behaving this way, and this is what Plato wrote was central to functional and pure representative democracies.

This is where modern democracy breaks down and why western and Canadian governments rely on external mechanisms of accountability, such as parliament (an adversarial one) and the Auditor General. However, these institutions are not adequate in making effective the functioning of political systems without the risk of scandal.

Nothing can even compare to Plato's vision, even if modern ones are still called democracies. What we have instead perhaps is the best of many bad form of government (except for Harper's, which lags much farther behind).

After having observed number 29 make his political decisions over the last few months from a sort of "side car" view, I see what doing politics differently is all about. This great man did not enter politics or seek the leadership because he is ambitious. He is not involved because he wants to exert further influence because of his ego. Nor is he doing it for his own gain.

Ken Dryden is involved in politics because he believes in sincerely in making this country better for all Canadians. His Big Canada is all about making Canada stronger by making its component parts stronger. As Pierre Trudeau adopted official bilingualism across Canada as a means to unify and identify, Ken's vision does the same, without the backlash.

The Liberal party is very lucky to have this man sitting in the front row in the House, one seat away from our new Liberal leader.

He was a hero of mine when I was a boy and now he is even more so.

Way to go Ken!

Day one in the House: Advocacy funding a possible timebomb for Dion opposition

2006-12-04T23:07:00.000-05:00

The brand new Stephane Dion led Liberal opposition took on a seemingly harmless and sensible grievance as its inaugural issue. Stephane Dion led the charge by asking about the absence of advocacy funding and the closing of Status of Women's offices across the country.

Not all Liberals agree this is the best starting point. Advocacy funding is important as a means of assisting grassroots movements in creating fair change. If it were to end there, this would be a non-issue.

Where this is dangerous politically is when advocacy funding crosses the line to favours one gender at the expense of another. This variation can be seen as a possible violation under the charter. Stated simply, when funding to advocacy groups becomes "blind advocacy" in support of one group over another, the Liberal value - to be able to challenge the establishment in an organised way via funding - becomes problematic and something the Conservatives could use to divide Liberals if Mr. Dion does not clarify his position.

If Stepahne Dion wants to protect against a possible backfire on this issue, he should clarify that Status of Women funding should not be used to maintain the status quo in federal family policy any longer unless an equitable amount of funding is provided to organisations who advocate on behalf of non-residential parents and second families.

Second families are typically concerned with "access" issues, while parents with whom children of divorce live are mostly concerned with child support, for obvious reasons. Status of Women has funded groups who have advocated the prioritisation of child support issues and delays in perpetuity to changes to the Divorce Act to scrap divisive terminology and gender hierarchies in the awarding of custody and access. This is in spite of recommendations by federally commissioned reports in 1998 and 2002.

Arguably, advocacy funding is also where the myth of the "dead beat dad" was spun up. After all:

· 90.2% of fathers with joint custody pay the support due.
· 79.1% of fathers with visitation privileges pay the support due.
· 44.5% of fathers with no visitation pay the support due.
· 37.9% of fathers are denied any visitation.
· 66% of all support not paid by non-custodial fathers is due to the inability to pay.

With respect to the Charter question, in 1998 a Canadian, Pat Ellis, argued that sex-specific funding by any level of government is prohibited by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Below is an excerpt from a legal opinion from a prominent Toronto legal firm regarding his action.

"Mr. Ellis had discovered an anomaly in the law under the equality rights provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") More specifically, he has found that subsection 15(2) of the charter with respect to the prohibited ground of 'sex" conflicts with subsection 28 of the Charter. It does not appear as though the issue of the conflict between the two provisions of the Charter has been litigated.
In that respect, this would be a test case. What might be required is an authorization to do a Constitutional Reference on this point to the Supreme Court of Canada."

"Section 28 of the Charter, provides that, "Notwithstanding anything in his charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons." Whether this provision supersedes subs.15(2) of the charter is an issue. The override clause of the Charter, section 33, does not apply to section 28 but does apply to section 15. This is further evidence of the anomaly."

"It appears to us that the gender bias argument of Mr. Ellis has merit, and is of considerable importance to about half the population of this country, who happen to be male, and have been or are likely to be subjected to the gender bias in the various laws of Canada, which may conflict with the supreme law of the land."

As a Liberal who cares about the future of the party, gender neutrality and fairness, it is important that Mr. Dion clarify that such advocacy funding not be meant for blind advocacy at the expense of others. Otherwise the "dream team" will be vulnerable to counter-critisism.

Dion can provide that fresh start: Out with the old... in with the new

2006-12-03T15:05:00.000-05:00

As delegates were leaving Montreal today, the season's first snow fell briefly this morning in Montreal. There was much traffic on the 20 and I hope nobody missed their flights.

In the meantime, it was still very peaceful by the water's edge.

I trust Liberals are also at peace with with the outcome of the leadership convention. Certain types of Liberals went the Ignatieff route. What are the distinguishing features of Liberals who went that route last April when the roster of candidates was still unclear?

Some wrongly anticipated Liberals would be admiring of Mr. Ignatieff having benchmarked himself as a standout amongst bright people globally. Others felt his academic smarts would translate into political smarts. Still others felt that superior organisational skills of his machine would carry the day.

The bottom line is that the Mr. Dion overcame the organisational machines that split and have dominated the party since Mr. Turner and Mr. Chretien's leadership battle in the 80's. Following that the organisational machines were born.

As a result, that power base is gone and the party can now heal - and that was clearly what this convention needed to pull off as an outcome at the end of the day for the sake of the Liberal party of Canada. Mr. Dion's victory was the cherry on top (because this would not have happened if the new leader were Iggy or Rae), which followed the very powerful messages that were sent along with Mr. Martin's rare praise of Mr. Chretien and vice versa. Mr. Turner was in the mix too for good measure.

The convention process and Mr. Dion's victory together represent renewal on a far more significant scale than could have been created alone by the Red Ribbon Campaign or the Renewal Commission, which were not at all immune from the influence of those same machines. The Nation resolution is just one of a series of bad ideas that only came about as a result of those self-interested power dynamics.

Now, Mr. Dion needs to ensure that those who at most missed the obvious risks from the Iggy route and at least those who lost control of the spin can no longer take such liberties without accountability. Those who would seek seek to manipulate interal processeses for personal gain or the collective gain of one part of the party at the expence of another must not be allowed to do so anymore.

This way, the potential for the Liberal party to emerge from its previous mistakes (which caught up with the party at the last election) and move forward in a way that will make the healing and renewal experienced by Liberals and non-Liberals watching at home over the last few days sustainable.

If Mr. Dion is able to ensure that the same power structures do not return (or creep back in), I am very confident he can successfully pull this off.

Well done!

Ken Dryden says "NO" to Harper's secret plan to force open the Constitution

2006-11-27T21:13:00.000-05:00

While most of the other candidates went along with it for no good reason, Ken Dryden showed leadership. What are we actually voting for in a leader this weekend? Is this someone who will just go along with something that does not feel right (perhaps out of fear), or someone who will stand up for what is not right and who will stand up against what is wrong. Do Liberals want a leader who will say "yes" or "no" because of what is right regardless of the status quo.

Laurence Cannon explained what this really is: it is recognising an ethnic nation and not a geographical or inclusive one - what is symbolic about that? That's a hierarchy. That means Anglo Quebecers, like me, are a little less important in our province right now. The gains of "francophone Quebecers" should not represent a loss for "other Quebecers". That is what everyone but 16 members of Parliament voted for today. What about the Charter?

Harper's key to insitutionalising conservatism in Canada is absolutely about re-opening the consitution, no matter what he says. He could never do that in public and hold onto his rural and Western "Canadian" support. So, he put it on the tee for the Bloc to drive it open. This is definately where this will now go politically.

After Meech and Charlottown, didn't Canadians swear we would not play with consitutional "fire" without being sure? Iggy either missed the point or was very imprudent.

Harper will now have "carte blanche" to decentralise, with the BQ blazing the trail to constitutional talks. Once open, Harper will have support to dilute the federation and to "give away the farm", if need be to hold the country together. That is far to much power for such an ideological conservative, if we want to maintain our current identities.

If Liberals can win the country back the federation will mean that much less. The writing was on the wall months ago that this is Harper's agenda - his anticipated legacy. This is very dangerous.

Which of the leadership candidates would stand up to this "garbage" on behalf of Canadians and Liberals? This became quite clear vith tonight's vote. Way to go Ken!

This will be a very interesting week. I look forward to experiencing this convention with my fellow Liberals from across the country in my home town. Welcome to this great city and I will see you on the floor.

EV

Part 3: Institutionalised Conservatism - Was Harper's Nation flip flop about forcing Liberals to vote?

2006-11-26T18:07:00.000-05:00

Last week at this time, it looked like the LPCQ's Nation Resolution was about to be pulled from the policy convention because of bad procedure. The Bloc did not want to lose the opportunity to split hairs by watching this thing die with Iggy. To avoid a lost political opportunity, the BQ chose to put a tough question to the house. Fear crept in, and Harper duped members of all parties and the party leaders (except the Bloc at the time) to support his way of thinking. A massive flip flop for the Prime Minister it seemed to be at the time. The way this was being reported at the end of the week, Harper had saved Canada and Liberals were bowing to his leadership.

Did Harper force Duceppe's hand too? The Bloc flip-flopped yesterday and will now be supporting the motion tomorrow. Some say it is just a flip-flop. Others think this vote now represents something very different than what Bill Graham encouraged the leadership candidates that are currently a part of the Liberal caucus to support last Wednesday morning at the 9:00am meeting.

With Duceppe's flip flop, our Liberal caucus members are voting on something that is purely symbolic for now. And, symbolically, this forces Liberals to support or reject Quebec (the francophone nation). Thanks Ig!

Where this get dangerous is if and when the BQ and PQ are successful in swaying soft nationalist public opinion that this nation symbol means nothing without constitutional renewal. Next they twist Harper's rubber arm a bit, and now we have an election issue over re-opening the constitution or not (unless it is Iggy).

After that, constitutional discussions will amount to either successful repatriation or not. If not successful, nationalist sentiments would be fanned and another Quebec referendum could be on the horizon. Great. Thanks.

Or, Harper will transform Canada into a place that is more conservative by giving away the farm to seal the deal. And, at the same time, he will limit federal spending on matters of provincial jurisdiction to save money and set a trap for Liberals, who will find it hard to govern any differently in this new diluted Canada.

Duceppe's flip flop changes everything, so Liberal caucus might want to think about changing its tact tomorrow before the vote. If this becomes an unanimous love in, Harper will have gained in a series of very strategic chess moves.

Politics can be tough and Liberals need to perform better or the convention will represent a lost opportunity in the struggle for momentum leading up to a possible spring vote.

Part 2: Institutionalised Conservatism - why Harper would rather face Ig even though he denies it

2006-11-26T13:36:00.000-05:00

It is very strange that journalists like Craig Oliver and Don Martin think Harper’s Nation motion will put Iggy over the top at our convention. This is either stupid or strategic. Both have their conservative tendencies, but that simplistic type thinking is just ignorant. The fact is that the other campaigns don’t want Iggy! This is because Iggy will represent the greatest attrition of delegates to “anybody but Iggy” campaigns on the floor next week. If these journalists actually checked to see what is happening on the ground, they would not say such things so flippantly. It is not at all that simple at all.

But maybe they do know. Maybe they are being aloof about the whole thing just like the one they admire most, Stephen Harper. But are they really that daft to think this thing is really that simplistic. To offer the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Oliver and Mr. Martin, I do consider both to be intelligent men - so this must be strategic or some type of big corporate media spin.

If I were Steve I would realise that many of the people in the Liberal Party who are against Iggy are steadfast and could leave the party altogether. No other candidate will make Liberals scramble and/or at least reflect on their ideologies, their loyalties and where they place their efforts.

Steve also knows that Iggy automatically moves the Liberal party to the right with his stands on Iraq and other matter. Students of Weber will know this favours Harper, the incumbent in the next election

Iggy also represents the one candidate who will help and not hinder Steve’s hidden addenda to re-open the constitution and dilute federalism. This reminds me of what it is like south of the border where states have so much autonomy.

While we are at it, why don’t we begin selling or giving away contol over our freshwater? We could also combine constitutions and start trading greenbacks.

What the hell is going on here?

Who is going to stand up and say “no” to this tomorrow! Even candidates who are Mps (and are bound to party discipline) could reflect on whether this whole ending is the latest thing cooked in the IggyNation's kitchen.

To control a Canadian federation with decentralised power in perpetuty is a small price to pay...it is still some power, right Ig.

Institutionalised Conservatism: Harper, the nation, constitutional change and Duceppe

2006-11-26T10:24:00.000-05:00

When I was a grad student at English university in Quebec, to graduate, I had to write a French test on the eve of my graduation to show I am worthy to have a graduate degree from a Quebec university. These rules were made in Quebec City and the onus was on my university (and program) to have such hoops in place, as a condition of funding - a provincial jurisdiction.

For the other students and me, this was for all the marbles. I still remember the topic: "centralisation versus decentralisation", which is serendipitous perhaps in light of evidence this week that confirms to me that Harper's primary goal while in office is to institutionalise conservatism in Canada and by using the Quebec problem (the Iggy nation) to do so. At the very least, this would lay down the tracks for future conservative governments to more naturally govern in a diluted/decentralised Canadian federation.

Stated simply, decentralisation is typically consistent with traditional conservative values /and inconsistent with traditional Liberal principles. Harper's vision it seems is more of a neutonian/reductionist approach to the distribution of powers and the redistribution of revenues which reduces the federation to the sum of its component parts (i.e. the provinces).

If this is consummated through constitutional renewal (which the CPC is denying but it will be hard to put the genie back in the bottle), the Canadian political spectrum will shift forever. It will be impossible for Liberals to govern from the centre because the centre will likely have shifted. Will our children and grandchildren have to be ideological Tories to avoid being off the off the scale left?...much like many Democrats have evolved to become in the United States?

So, history could show that Iggy's nation thing was the catalyst constitutional renewal, after all.

To avoid sovereignty via this process, Harper may re-open the constitution himself (or at least he will lay down the tracks for doing so) and in so doing pave the road to absolute decentralisation of Canada's federation . This would accommodate the political motives of those governing in Quebec (many of whom ultimately have sovereignist objectives). This will be rolling the dice unless the federation is diluted. The soveignists will take advantage of Harper's preferencess to weaken the federation, as long as at the end of the day Canada matters less and Quebec matters more: or no deal. As such, Canada will have a federation that is weakened considerably by these negotiations . There will be no going back.

What about the Liberal vision of federalism that would involve a stronger federation because the component parts are also stronger? To me, that is the Canadian vision. This is not about "throwing the baby out with the bathwater", is it?

This is where other scary conservative objectives may rear their ugly blue heads. While the constitution is open, why not limit federal spending in areas of provincial jurisdiction. This would save Steve some money if he is still governing, and, if he is not, his legacy will have been to have institutionalised conservatism in Canada, and the rest will be history. If I actually were ideologically conserative, like Steve, I would consider that to be a fine legacy, even if he governs only briefly.

Whether it is to sweep this under the rug before the leadership convention (or to save Iggy's butt), Liberals should be very cautious before voting for Harper's motion. Gigantic "flip-flops" like this one are usually about political survival, and not about good or sustainable policy.

Liberals should not walk into this "booby-trap".

Is Iggy Responsible for Nation fiasco? Ask Michael Bliss

2006-11-25T20:09:00.000-05:00

Is this nation thing Iggy's responsibility? I will reserve comment in favour of Michael Bliss, who writes:

"None of this would likely have happened if Mr. Ignatieff had not deliberately fanned the embers of Quebec nationalism in his campaign for the Liberal leadership. Without Mr. Ignatieff's publicizing of the issue, it probably would have simmered harmlessly. He is a classic example of the irresponsible intellectual who advocates what seem like good ideas, and only afterwards comes to understand and regret the unintended consequences of the positions he has taken. He did not learn the lessons of his ghastly Iraq folly. After making mistakes that would have humbled and silenced most thoughtful men, Mr. Ignatieff instead chose to bring his carpet bag of ideas back to Canada. Millions pay the price of the Ignatieff ego."

Liberals should think twice before allowing Harper to go this way without opposition, giving him a "red carpet" to limit federal involvement in provincial matters and to weaken our federation irreparably by institutionalising conservatism like the Borg sought to do in Star Trek - assimilate!.

Why are the leadership candidates being encouraged to go this way?

How to take advantage of gender discrimination in Canada’s family courts now: time is running out.

2006-11-24T14:05:00.000-05:00

People who have experienced Canada’s family courts (including divorcing couples, the lawyers working in the system and the judges), if they were to be perfectly honest, they would admit that gender plays a big part in the outcome. Some argue that gender is the single most important factor in determining custody. This is the worst kept secret by members of provincial bar associations. Loyalty to the higher order (and sheer profitability of family law for lawyers) has mostly contained any whistle blowing by barristers and solicitors. Because it is their discipline, they are overwhelmingly the ones who best understand this.

Whether this is a violation of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms adopted twenty-five years ago, it is hard to know for sure (though logic would suggest...what ?). This question has not yet been adjudicated.

When it is, family law as we know it will likely change forever. This will be much to the disappointment of lawyers and other special interests who profit from the way the system is right now. Monumental change is happening, so, if anyone looking for ways to use the present system to estrange one's children from an ex-spouse one really doesn’t like, the window is slowly closing - one had better get to it!

If this is really important, there is still time. There is still no non-litigious way of resolving a custody disagreement for divorcing couples on access. In the meantime, one could collect the maximum amount of child support (because child support is a priority and will be dealt with in a short number of days, for the sake of the children). One could use the child support money for litigation (nobody will check - it is paid to the parent :)) and those monies could be used to grind the resolution of the access issue to a snail's-pace via the courts. One's kids may never have to see their other parent, the one who gets in the way, again!

Therefore, the status quo can be preserved in perpetuity and child support monies will still continue to flow. Awesome isn't it!

The best part is that most non-residential parents facing such a system, while paying after tax dollars for their legal fees and their child support (and in Ontario, that means the non-reses paying the max no matter how much residential parents make or have) will just give up. The odds of getting away with it and not being held accountable are pretty good – so why not just do it if it - if it is that important?

So, if anyone is steadfast in having his or her children exclusively and at the expense of an ex-spouse one does not like, the pre-emptive approach will still work – but only for a short time still. If this is important, people had better get in line now.

This way one could retain a hired-gun lawyer and begin denying access to their non-residential ex-spouse right away. It will take them 3 years and cost them tens of thousands of dollars to expose and resolve the access denial, even if it is purely frivolous. The consequences of such a pre-emptive strike are much less than the benefits, especially if one is truly committed to having their children at any cost. Even if it affects the children emotionally later or worse, it could still be worth considering depending on how important it is. After all, some people would rather pay to be absolutely certain there are no doubts as to who is the primary parent, the better parent. If it works, why not?

Where could one find a lawyer who could make this happen within the rules of the existing system? In all cities there are lawyers who will 'play for pay'. The ultimate objective is a matter of content and is it typically of no consequence because of the discipline and the process used by thes legal representatives to remain vigorous advocates. With the window closing, most lawyers of this ethical strain will probably be especially busy, so it might be best to call soon.

The only problem is that parallel forms of accountability emerge when systems are biased or out of balance, like family law in Canada. So, the clients of such lawyers are rumoured to be currently being tracked by social justice advocates and father’s rights groups who will make the information public shortly and from now on.

There are those who are insisting that such legal practices cease now and that the accountability of transparency begin now. They insist such practices are needed to bridge the gap between now and when the rules change, since nothing else seems to dissuade hired guns from crossing the line some say is "criminal".

That is neither here nor there!

Because client information is in the public domain once a Change of Solicitor document is filed with the court, clients of such lawyers may find themselves to become known to share the company of some of Canada’s most successful (or notorious) parents who practice the denial of access of their children to another parent.

If this objective is really that important, fame is a small price to pay.

Is Iggy the preference of Harper and other Tories?

2006-11-22T22:45:00.000-05:00

In Chicago, the institutions are a reflextion of the political reality of cosmopolitan mid-west America.

In parliament today, it was the federalists against the separatists. Some say the federalists won.

Harper's political statement that Quebec is a nation within Canada will represent different things for all Canadians.

Conveniently, Stephen Harper could be accidentally or deliberately throwing Michael Ignatieff a "life preserver". With CPC's decision to handle the Bloc motion this way, Iggy's bad publicity could be contained yet.

The suspected very strategic leak by the CPC the day before before super weekend in September is now mostly confirmed: Harper would rather face Ignatieff in the next federal election.

Why? Most political scientists would agree that a lack of political separation between candidates heavily favours the incumbent, Harper. And, Harper and Iggy are the closest ideologically, which also favours the incumbent.

Even Jane Tavers was assumptive tonight with Iggy about how he and Harper could be seen to be ideological twins. She questioned Iggy about Harper's possible deliberate gesture today to help him off the hook, and Iggy vehemently denied he has anything in common with Harper. This is very convenient Iggy.

If I were Stephen Harper, I think I would most want to face Iggy too! Odds are, Iggy will find himself in trouble again, which is bad new for Liberals if he becomes our leader. I don't think Jane is pro-Iggy at all.

However, I also observed CTV's Craig Oliver's comment that Harper's decision to recognise Quebec as a Nation within Canada could put Michael Ignatieff "over the top" at our convention. FYI, I identified CTV's Craig Oliver as an ideological Tory when I was twelve, so I am not surprised to hear this.

I interpret the self-interested analysis by Craig suggesting that Iggy will gain from the CPC's stand on the Nation issue as purely "convenient" and reflective of Craig's pipe dream of a conservative Canada. Craig's "political analysis" raises red flags with me as far as what he is analysing, who he prefers, what he is spinning, and why.

The bottom line is that ideological conservatives like Stephen Harper and Craig Oliver would rather the Conservative Party of Canada face the Liberals in a soon to be election with Michael Ignatieff as leader, most of all.

When Tories/reformers line up behind one Liberal candidate they most want to face in an upcoming election, it is important to ask, why? The pattern I see has much to do with the ideologies of those making the decisions and the spin.