|
CFSM - “Citizens for Social Morality”January 11, 2005 Before I/we, get into the specific relevance of this report, I
must be openly honest, in that I did not read the entire document.
But let me qualify this remark in saying, that I have become rather
astute, at recognizing keywords in my readings and can probably
offer a well founded opinion, based on my “overall”
viewing of this report. Having said that, I was first apprised of
a certain proposed “kids-rights monitor” via an E-mail
from Dr. Sicheri. From there, she further made available to myself,
an article she had published, entitled The Family at Risk. Those
thought provoking viewpoints were well grounded and meaningful.
As a result, I sent an E-mail to Senator Andreychuk, which raised
our concerns, opinions and as well, some specific guidance, as to
the current quid pro quo of Canadian child protection. The response I received, was, well a bit unusual. Beginning with a commentary, “with some very serious allegations against the child protection system in Canada” and followed by an analogous jurisdictional disclaimer of sorts, by stating “you are no doubt aware that child protection in Canada is a provincial matter”. Now Senators, I may not be the sharpest tack in the box, but in my opinion, these sorts or kinds of answers, only reject with ambivalence, any acceptance of guilt by association and having said that, I can only wonder, why then have you bothered an attempt, at reconciling this problem? What is the motive or rational explication in these initiatives? Or are we to just simply believe, carte blanche, these socially unacceptable attitudes and in a quantum reversal, as to both societal and humanitarian norms. Bearing in mind, that page “ten” refers to where provincial laws and policies are affected is a shared responsibility of the federal, provincial and territorial governments” and “no matter what jurisdictional hurdles are entrenched in the constitution.” Therefore and within the parameters of, exploring two diametric statements, prima facie, and in lieu of tendering some defendable posture or is it merely a federal rendition, of that pesky little “purview” argument. Meaning, that if you wish to appear both transparent and front and center on the issue of “childs rights”, you need seek a common ground. Since you can not have it both ways. Accordingly and as such, the analytical premise of this report, circumvents the central issue and therefore misconstrues any factual reality, as to pertinent and approximate cause and effect. Mr. P. Martin, the Prime Minister, suggests in this condescending reverence to the issue, in his A Canada Fit for Children expose and as follows. “Upholding the rights, the innocence and the promise of our children’‘’‘’‘. I mean, really and what is his basis for sharing this. Does he so presume, we, Dolores, Tracy and myself, to be from another planet? As I unequivocally suggest, that in our particular cases, our “rights” were not upheld and no one in Ottawa, cared whatsoever about “innocence”. And there were no “promises”. Well, actually there were, kind of and more along these lines. We the government of Canada promise, “while you may be assured that careful consideration has been given to the situation you have described, the matter you have raised does not fall within the jurisdiction of federal government” and “I regret that I am unable to provide you with a more favorable response”. While, not once, twice, but on three occasions, this administration was so advised, as to these absolute and unlawful “gestapo-like” actions, on the part of this provincial surrogate of Ontario, the CAS. Only in our actions, as is the case in “all” child protection cases, Canada-wide, there existed “no” judicial consideration or lawful recognition of relevance, as to the rule of law or what we refer to, as due process. And this is exemplary of how Canada treats its good citizens? By fomenting an adversarial relationship in child protection cases? Or are we to hold, that these actions and by elements of government, can or should be validated in “good faith” clauses, or behind some “qualified immunity defense” curtain? So here we are and back to the merits of “our” and the international communities claim, versus Canadian compliance with the C.R.C.....and what does this suggest? As such ministerial verbose and its self-centered admirations, only serve to chronicle a dialogue, which disseminates an impervious, conciliatory and galvanizing attitude, in respect to the root cause of child abuse and those very same violative protective issues, which have become obscurely muddled and in a directed affront to Canadian Human Rights adherence. Now whether these sorts of comments, make for nice sound bites on CBC or in the Halls of Parliament, makes little difference, for at the end of the day, the unilateral nature of Canadian child/human rights, have become and in my opine, an abysmal failure. In a continuance and I think it begs the question. Is this declaratory statement by M. Mackinnon of J.C.Y, who states, “”“”emphasized that Canada lives up to this reputation in the context of the adoption of the C.R.C”, for real? As, if you really believe “most” of or the majority of these cites and/or opinions, then somebody might as well throw this report out, along with the baby and the bath water. Accordingly, I for one, wonder why you would have wasted all this considerable time and effort, in addressing what are potentially egregious violations, if this ludicrous statement merited validation by inclusion. For subjecting “families” to a form of “penal servitude”, in at least scores of cases, is more so than not, the reality of Canadian child protection policy. Or if you will, “permissive persecution”. To that end, this knowing and willful abuse, is not about a system that is over-and under-corrective. It is a reflection of an authoritative contamination by monetary opportunistic, child protective bigots. Although and for now, lets put this aside and look at the summary findings and conclusive nature of this 218 page report. What does it say and in the course of any purported objective, is there a reasonable expectation for some desired outcome? Since, if there is any guidance or baseline for this report, its more so obscured by a redundant complacency and its fundamental lack of duality of purpose. That is, it reads more like a survey and I submit, lacks any significant specificity of or connection/correlations, in its lawful acknowledgment of international treaties/conventions and this suggestion or notion of non-compliance. So, having made this claim and on point. One might have expected, with the plethora of input, all of these experts, advocates and government, the magnitude of expense in time and revenues, that one could have surmised as a foregone conclusion..........Wherein and wherefore, s/he could have anticipated, that someone who would have been capable of determining the systemic origin of a/the problem. Or, does this lay a precipice case, as to manifested constitutional voids? I think, yes, and here we have the particulars of an onerous problem. The Act of 1867. An obtuse separation of powers doctrine, in what’s really a self-evident and prevailing attempt by its authors, in the crafting of a foundation for Canadian government. Although, I for one, perceive this act, as more so, a division of an unequitable proportioning of “provincial autonomy” v. “federal authority”, than anything. As, even though our constitution is not perfect, we do have this thing called a Bill of Rights. Coincidentally, is or are there, such rigorous protections imbedded within Canadian Law? Thereto, I have looked at the C.H.R.C, C.R.F., Privacy, etc. etc., international treaties and conventions of which Canada is a signatory. Provincial statutory laws, this “four” tiered judicial process/obstacle, from the SCC down to family court and I just cannot and for the life of me, find any consistency in the area of an equivalent to “due process”protection. Oh, there is some covenant acclaim, in section 2(e) of the Bill of Rights and section 7 of the C.C.R.F, in what one could perceive, as a futile attempt to define this all-protective mechanism. However, these are not be accorded, or in at least by my interpretation, as an “absolute” or “guaranteed” right if you will, as evidenced in our 5th & 14th amendments. So invariably, I wonder, how is it you intend to attach signatory legitimacy, to “any” compliant mandate, without hurdling past these conflicted flaws in constitutional design? Opinion: In that I am not a lawyer and certainly no expert in constitutional law, I have purposely avoided getting into the realm of legal challenges. However, and for whatever reason, I feel compelled to address, certain particulars of relevance. In regards to Canada and the UN. Canada is of the opinion, as offered and under History, that “in this light, countries with good human rights records, like Canada, have a special responsibility: to contribute to this worldwide effort, not only by constantly affirming and protecting the rights of their own people, but by being seen to do so.” As to this revelation, you will find a comment on the next page, where I quote a UN opinion, which offers a directed contradiction, to the (3) above stated objective. Secondly and “according to Canada’s constitution, the federal government has the exclusive power to ratify international treaties. Legally, the federal government does not need the agreement or approval of any other jurisdiction in order to proceed to such ratification.” Then and in a 1975 Federal -Provincial Conference and as contained in the fourth provision, the government(s) jointly state, “that, in the event of criticism by an international body of a provincial or territorial law or institution, ‘’‘’‘’have the opportunity to explain and defend it law or institutions;...That under Mechanisms, I find the creation of a Continuing Committee, with a primary obligation of, or in the functional area, “as the main governmental information-exchange gateway.” However and notwithstanding, there appears to have been, “no real application” of this platform. So accordingly and based on, personal first hand knowledge and as well, significant experience and, with numerous child protection cases in Ontario, I find Canada proper, to be in violation of Articles 2-9, 12, 13(2), 14(1), 15, 18, 19, 21(2), 22, 25(2), 28-30 of the U.D.H.R. and 2, 3(2, 3), 4, 5, 8, 10, 11(2)12, 13(1)14(1, 2)16, 17, 18(2, 3), 19, 20, 21(a), 23(1, 2)24(1, 2b, 3), 25, 27(2, 3)28(1), 29(1c, d)36, 37(a, b, d), 39, 41(a) of the C.R.C. In a furthering opinion, I view this issue of Canadian constitutional rights, as one which merits scrutiny. As I think, in visiting this issue of the term(s) fundamental justice or natural justice, that therein and by discovery, I find culpible signifiance, in as, the framers reasoning, does appear cicrcumspect. That in going forward and in an attempt to find and as an osbscured or peremptory alternative, these crafters failed to offer any persuasive argument, in regards to the assignment of, an applicable due process protective mechanism. Now in consideration of the fact, that due process is routinely recognized by most countries and as, “customary international law”, one might ponder, why it is, that Canada chose to embrace such an ambigous protective benchmark, while precluding the idealogical rubric of due process. Upon review, I would offer, that there was an expressed desire, to limit those proscribed rights, whereby, the government and its courts, could and if you will, offer leave or “keep a tighter leash on its citizens”. That within the context of a certain degree of ambigutiy and, in any attempt to define these two words, fundamental justice, one could argue, that the inherant difficulties in establishing a plausible or realistic and meaningful representation, are or might be conceivably insurmountable. And to that end and therein, this provisory, does in fact water down or weaken any protective mandate, which should be accorded all citizenry. Although, one could construe this, as an opening of the door, to institutional/governmental abuse of power and their authoritative control. That in the absence of a writ of mandamus, habeus corpus, or some other “extraordinary” remedy, or God forbid, a drastic change in “social policy”, one could objectively foresee, significant difficulties on the horizon and as to, an enumeration of rights in Canada. Hence, eroding those very rights and liberties, which should be held at the highest threshold of any constitutional remedy. But for the moment, I must admit, that I am somewhat befuddled, as I am under the assumption, that the due process clause, was in fact born from within, the “Great Charter” and that the term first appeared, in a statutory rendition in 1354. So if this is the case and based on some knowledge of historical consequence, was Canada not considered a British dominion at one time? Then and assuming this to be the case and considering Britians unwritten or uncodified constitution, is it not safe to say, that Canada should have recognized the problematic nature of Parliamentary Sovereignty? And further, a British change in attitude, in joining the human rights community and in what appears to be, an opposite reversal in Canada’s failure in this accommodation. So and why then, has Canada not followed the British lead, in recognition of a more desirable need, in the separation of the judicial process and from that of, absolute provincial and or Parliamentary control. One would surmise and conclude. That and for the sake of argument and based solely on, personal and analytical review, I submit, that this is moreover of provincial design and for no better purpose, than in a furtherance of its/their self-serving interests. I think one could easily perceive, that what we have here, is a conumdrum of sorts and by way of an intrusion of misguided and egregiously suspect factors, into these assertions, “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person”“”“. Ergo, in order for the federal government to ”coerce” provincial compliance and within any provisionary guidance, as set forth in those articles in the C.R.C., then there must be and at a minimum, one prerequisite criteria. The amending of the constitution? Why? How else can the federal government, so proclaim itself and as such an advocate of both human and child rights and still abide by the terms of its or any consideration, respective of, international law or conventions. Other than and by way of a stipulatory conveyance of provincial acclamation, which embraces legislative federal “purview” or “jurisdiction” and as the ultimate exercise, of any pursuant authority in law? That is and within a realistic scenario, let’s suffice to say and by any stretch of the imagination, that any plausible venue for amendment would appear negligible or there exists insufficient constitutional flexibility to merit such change. Further, the selfish, corruptive, indignant nature of this prodigal mind set and by provincial ministries, would certainly be expected, in/as a defiant entity in its desire, to hold fast to its power base. As any attempt at drastic measures, ergo, legislative innovation, or challenging the status quo, remains unsettled. We, here in the states, now refer to this, as the “nuclear option” of US politics. In opposing viewpoints, one must consider the reality of opponent and proponent posture. As the reality of the of the 21st century, is moreover, about compartmentalizing a more pervasive ideological base for ‘special interests’, than it is about open mediation and hereto, within the confines of any “best interest of child” doctrine. Or as proclaimed by another opine, “In light of the trend toward viewing children as separate from their parents, as potential clients or customers in commerce, and as a potential, separate client class of government.” Hence, there exists a significant and cognizant effort on the side of this “business” of child protection or should I say, an intrusion of experts of superior knowledge, which is increasingly foreseen, as an obstacle into the tradition and natural realm of the “parental domain”. While, “hair trigger child protection” might be a more applicable assertion. As one might view the CAS and Canadian child protection, as one in the same, I would liken it, to a quaint little and collusive, social policy community of overzealous bureaucrats. Or in an opinion offered on page 16. “The UN criticizes how Canada has a tendency to teach lessons to others without looking at its own performance”. As is also the case here in the US, we too have this prevailing omnipotent affliction, which one could explain, as “tooting ones own horn”. Side Bar: Last night, we were provided an opportunistic insight into federal politics, due to a debate shown on CSPANII. I must say, the exuberance of all four candidates and in relationship to party positions, was moreover, of draconian adulation. Issues like, “poverty & exclusion”, senior assistance, child programs, taxation, and all sorts of promises were laid out, or shall I say, debated. Yet, I must offer, that even in the political mind fields of Capitol Hill, where confrontational behavior has been perfected, you would be hard pressed, to find such a gang of four, as witnessed in this telecast. I mean, if this is an example of how the federal and provincial governments intend to cooperate, then you have serious troubles ahead. As the vehement nature of those “discussions” provided, only a window for disaster. Or at least, it tends to verify my contentions, as to the issue of “no” confidence and this positional illusion, of a more compassionate and caring Canadian government, in accordance with, the best interests of its populace. So this is why we have launched, in phase III, a challenge to the worldwide community, which intends, to draw international attention and address child and family rights and this “business” of child protection in Canada. As well and in phase IV, we shall deal with similar failed policies’s, here in the US.
So at the end of the day, it is admirable that and for whatever reason, Canada has decided to address the issue, as to legitimizing the “rights” of a child. Further, I think it is fitting, that you seek to be thorough in this effort. But what is the prognosis? Is it repairable or was it never broken? For there needs to be a consensus of opinions, as to if it was broken in the first instance. So after all, if the provincials turn a blind eye to the issue and the federal government is not up for the fight, forget it. And what does this mean? Well, I for one care not about any intra- country squabbling, amongst the ministerial’s in Queens Park v. Ottawa Federalized. For this is an international issue of concern on your table and one which goes well beyond the boundaries of government and activist opinion. So we, the CFSM, have staked a claim here and on behalf of all “families”, worldwide and we will not simply just rest on our laurels. We not only expect, but require the implementation of many of these “recommendations”. Not out of selfish intent, but because it is “just” and “right”. But, let us not take our eye off the prize, the “child”, our legacy, while in accordance with and inclusive of, the “paramount” recognition of the “family unit” at the pinnacle of humanity and as a moral heritage, for all of mankind.................... The CFSM, “Citizens for Social Morality” Director, W. David Dunkelberger,
PH.&Fax#(586)445-1695 Print this page |
|||||
