Ending the feudal family law system is the aim of C-560 in Canada


Scott Brison,

We urge you to vote for family equality on May 27th. Vote for Bill C-560.

Live Free,
Connie Brauer
1061 Mines Rd. RR2
Falmouth, NS B0P 1L0
Phone, 902 791 0958
Email, cbrauer@eastlink.ca

From: ‘Glenn at Cheriton.ca’ glenn@cheriton.ca [CEPC_Members]

Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 6:43 PM

To: CEPC_Members@yahoogroups.com

Cc: EPOC_NEWS@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [CEPC_Members] Contact your MP before May 27th to end the feudal family law system and vote for Bill C-560

Ending the feudal family law system is the aim of C-560

The foundation of British law is the “Magna Carta” which for the first time, effectively restrained the judgment or discretion of the king.

Parents across Canada have organized to reform family law with latest efforts resulting in a bill in Parliament, C560, expected to get a second reading in May, 2014.

In April, 2013, Supreme Court Judge Thomas Cromwell released a report, commissioned by the Chief Justice, which called for a complete overhaul of family courts, bemoaned the failure of 30 years of “reforms” controlled by the legal profession, and slammed family law for inaccessibility, dismal outcomes and creating disrespect for the legal system. The report called for “consensual decisions” by parents.

Bill C560 aims to implement selected best practices from other jurisdictions to encourage parents to make such “consensual decisions”, to reduce conflict and costly legal battles, and also to ensure that both parents have the option of equal time with their children unless proven unfit.

These reforms are long overdue: A joint Senate-Commons report accepted by Parliament recommended shared parenting and equality of parents in 48 reforms in 1998. Every single recommendation was blocked by legal profession vested interests, who make billions of dollars from the current adversarial system.

When legal profession advocate Nicholas Bala says the system needs more “resources” – he means more money. Thus the choice is clear: either taxpayers pour further dollars into the current dysfunctional system, or we implement a selection of practices which have reduced costs to parents and children in other jurisdictions. Those practices make up Bill C560.       

Advocates of the current sole custody system don’t seem to be able to avoid making two claims: that more money to the existing “stakeholders” will fix the system and promoting unfounded prejudicial stereotypes against fathers. The Supreme Court report dismissed the first claim, so let’s examine one of the unfounded stereotypes:

Claims that large number of abusive fathers are gaining custody are belied by research which consistently shows that children are safer with fathers than with sole maternal custody. Social science also shows that joint custody or equal parenting reduces both conflict and abuse outcomes.

It is time to move beyond simplistic gender stereotypes and do what social science overwhelmingly shows is in children’s best interest: keep both parents unless clear proof of unfitness.

To argue over which is more disadvantaged, the “winners” or the “losers” of child custody cases is pointless: let us agree that a child who goes into family courts with two fit parents and ends up with only one is the real loser. Let us agree that legal and other adversarial professionals who exploit that process to line their pockets are the winners, pious claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

Bill C560 is a good initiative to reduce legal incentives to remove a fit parent without substantial evidence. In his book, “Equal Parenting Presumption”, custody expert Edward Kruk shows that at least 40% time sharing (preferably 50%) is the key to making real reforms work and improving outcomes for children and parents. Equal time as the starting point means both parents need not fear arbitrary loss of their kids and in practice most often work out their own parenting plan (which need not be 50/50).

A key point of Bill C560 is to define “best interests of the child” as keeping both parents unless one is proven unfit.

The last reforms parents successfully pushed for (1986) included the “friendly parent rule” which was supposed to presume joint custody by giving preference to the parent who would most encourage parenting by the other parent. Judges generally “read out” this provision of the Divorce Act, inserting the presumption that existence of conflict meant they could exercise judicial discretion and order sole custody. Worse, judges often presume that removing the parent seeking joint custody or equal parenting will stop conflict. It is a feudal system when the decision maker has complete discretion/decision rights without any responsibility for the outcomes. Social science research shows that sole custody generates conflict and disadvantages children, yet judges claim this is in “best interests of the child.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

Parents say that outcomes from the adversarial system have not perceptibly changed over the last several decades. Vested interests oppose changes since they make money from adversarial divorce and sole custody.

Bill C-560 brings long overdue non-adversarial reforms to a broken system. It should be supported by all members of Parliament as such reforms are supported by over 80% of the Canadian public.

Parents and supporters of these reforms should can call their federal MP and ask he or she to vote in favour of C-560. You can call in to radio or contact other media and make the point that your MP ran on the shared parenting policy in the last election and that your vote in the next election depends on how they vote May 27th for second reading.

Glenn Cheriton, President, Canadian Equal Parenting Council

p.s.  Here are some links to help you support equal parenting reforms:

http://canadianepc.org/donate

http://canadianepc.org/membership/advocate-signup/

__._,_.___


Posted by: “Glenn at Cheriton.ca” <Glenn@Cheriton.ca>


Advertisements

How “Liberty” is eviscerated by Canada’s Courts.


A golden opportunity to kill human-rights censorship :: Canadian Constitution Foundation

A golden opportunity to kill human-rights censorship

With the Whatcott case, a 20-year-old Supreme Court precedent may finally be overturned

Karen Selick
National Post, November 3, 2010

«Whatcott v. Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal» «CCF Publications» «Court of Appeal Judgement» «Press Releases» «CCF Factum» «Related Audio»

 

The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to reconsider 20-year-old jurisprudence that limits free speech. The case under appeal is The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission vs. William Whatcott.

Back in 2001 and 2002, Whatcott, a social conservative activist, distributed flyers in Regina and Saskatoon bearing headings such as “Keep Homosexuality out of Saskatoon’s Public Schools” and “Sodomites in our Public Schools.”

He was hauled before the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission for having “exposed to hatred, ridiculed, belittled or affronted the dignity” of gays and lesbians, and was ordered to pay compensation totaling $17,500 to four complainants. That decision was upheld on its first appeal to the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench in 2007. But in February, 2010, three members of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal overturned it.

While the Court of Appeal’s decision was a victory, of sorts, for free speech, the court had to twist itself into contortions to reach it. On any objective reading of Whatcott’s flyers, he did ridicule and belittle gays — and he probably even exposed them to hatred. What rankles free-speechers is the more fundamental question: Why should this be against the law? After all, don’t we have a Charter of Rights that guarantees freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression?

But the Court of Appeal declined to strike down the offending portions of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code as inconsistent with the Charter. The problem lay in the fact that in 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada had considered similar human rights legislation and had decided that those censorship provisions were permissible despite the Charter’s free-expression guarantee.

That case, known as Taylor, attempted to set some guidelines or standards as to when censorship laws designed to deter “hate speech” would be acceptable. Hatred or contempt, wrote then-chief justice Dickson, “refers only to unusually strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification.”

Then, with inexplicable confidence in the niceness of the universe, justice Dickson opined that so long as human rights tribunals paid heed to the extreme degree of hatred necessary

to justify censorship, there would be “little danger that subjective opinion as to offensiveness” would trump free speech.

But events over the last few years have demonstrated that the danger characterized by justice Dickson in 1990 as “little” is anything but. Accusations of anti-Muslim hate-mongering have been levelled against Maclean’s magazine for Mark Steyn’s commentary on immigration policy; and against Western Standard magazine and its publisher Ezra Levant merely for printing the notorious “Muhammad cartoons” as part of its news coverage.

Even B’nai Brith, a Jewish organization known for supporting the anti-hate provisions of human rights legislation, has been hit with a complaint.

While the complaints against Maclean’s and Levant ultimately were dismissed, the accused parties had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars upholding their innocence — money they’ll never get back. Worse yet is the chilling impact those prosecutions have had on less stalwart souls than Steyn and Levant. The risk of being put through such an ordeal, even if one is ultimately vindicated, undoubtedly has diverted many a commentator into less hazardous topics of discussion.

Even the history of the Whatcott decision itself demonstrates how subjective justice Dickson’s test is. Of those who have sat in judgment on Mr. Whatcott’s comments to date, two have said he violated the law while three have said he didn’t. That’s hardly a demonstration that the standards are crystal clear.

See the rest of the story here. http://www.canadianconstitutionfoundation.ca/article.php/208


Tiananmen Square in Canada!


A demonstrator is taken into custody after a protest atop the roof of NDP Leader Jack Layton’s Toronto office on Friday, August 8, 2008.
A demonstrator is taken into custody after a protest atop the roof of NDP Leader Jack Layton’s Toronto office on Friday, August 8, 2008.
A demonstrator, dressed as the superhero Plywood Man is seen with police on the roof of federal NDP Leader Jack Layton's Toronto office on Friday, Aug. 8, 2008.
A demonstrator dressed as ‘Plywood Man’ is seen with police on the roof of federal NDP Leader Jack Layton’s Toronto office on Friday, Aug. 8, 2008.

Charges laid after ‘superheroes’ climb NDP office roof

ctvtoronto.ca

Police have laid trespassing charges after protesters dressed as superheroes dropped a banner from the roof of federal NDP Leader Jack Layton’s Toronto office on Friday.

The demonstrators, one dressed as Spider-Man and the other as Plywood Man, said they were protesting for family law reform for fathers in custody disputes.

The incident at 221 Broadview Ave., near Dundas Street, was organized by Fathers 4 Justice.

Heavily armed Emergency Task Force officers responded to the incident and evacuated employees from the building as a precaution.

The man dressed as Spider-Man had planned to rappel down from the roof, but later surrendered to police.

However, Plywood Man refused to turn himself in. Officers used some kind of explosive device as a distraction and then moved in and made the arrest.

The men face charges of trespassing, mischief and vandalism. The protest tied up police for hours.

Layton, who wasn’t in the office, said he doesn’t know much about the group or why his office was targeted.

“It really just came out of the blue,” Layton told CTV Newsnet.

For more info on this story Click Here:

CTV News

An email from the group.

To follow tomorrow is a heartwarming note from Spiderman and another activists account/edited.
  1. At approximately 6AM members of F4J Fathers 4 Justice Canada commandeered the rooftop of NDP Leader Jack Laytons constituency office located at 221 Broadview Avenue, Toronto, ON. With them were supplies to last for several days. Included in these supplies were food, change of clothes, shelter and a home made toilet consisting of a bucket and a pool ring.
  2. Two activists, Plywoodman and Spiderman remained on the rooftop for several hours out of sight and set up their lawnchairs to have a good rest and chat before the sh*t hit the fan.
  3. While waiting for their signal to initiate, the heros were seen by an onlooker having his morning cigarette on his balcony. No action was taken by any individuals at this time.
  4. At approximately 9:40AM the two heroes put their banner over the rooftop reading NDads Party.
  5. The Supersonic Plymobile was stationed out front for added visual effect.
  6. At approximately 10:00AM the owner of the building arrived and told them to leave. He confronted the heros on the roof and told them to just jump. He also threw a bunch of their belongings about and returned to threaten them throughout.
  7. By approximately 10:30AM 680 news had arrived on scene and began broadcasting live from the scene every 20 mins.
  8. Shortly after 10:30AM the police arrived. Police were told this was a non-violent direct action being organized by F4J Fathers 4 Justice Canada. 
  9. At approx. 12:00PM the police were seen going to the rooftop with Tasers
  10. A firetruck was called and arrived on the scene.
  11. At approximately 12:30PM additional officers arrived and began cordoning off the street up to 4 blocks in total.
  12. ETF officers arrive on the scene.
  13. A negotiator arrives on the scene.
  14. At aproximately 12:50 PM a member of F4J was arrested on the ground. 
  15. Another F4J Fathers 4 Justice representative arrives shortly thereafter to assess the scene and continue interviews and sending updates back to HO.
  16. The report is that heavily armed ETF officers are on scene. A police negotiator is on scene. A psychiatrist is on scene. A hydro truck is one scene. A firetruck is on scene. There are approximately 80-100 onlookers, some chanting, ” Let them see their kids!”
  17. Despite news reports that the constituency office had been evacuated, one of Jack Layton’s aids comes out to the back alley and has a cigarette with one of our supporters on the scene at approximately 2:00PM
  18. Other reports indicate that their were other staffers inside the Layton office who verified they knew of our organization and what our cause and issues were.
  19. At approximately 3:00PM Spiderman is brought down from the building on the understanding they will release him when his buddy on the roof comes down. He recounts being told by the police on the rooftop that they were going to be shot. He recounts that Plywoodman is in control, not as reported, and did a great job remaining calm while negotiating with the ETF. He also reports that the onsite psychiatrist has stated Plywoodman is indeed sane and not a threat to jump. ** global News  report says he was down at 2:34   pm … but he also did not show up at police station until 5:30’ish

http://www.canada.com/globaltv/ontario/story.html?id=0caf70dd-6dfb-4d94-9b18-2bb1ca7768b4

  1. Spiderman is held inside the Layton office for two hours while negotiations continue with Plywoodman on the roof. They keep asking him how they got up there. He tells them he is Spiderman. He is told by police they are going to shoot his buddy.
  2. At approximately 3:30PM Kris Titus, National Coordinator for F4J Fathers 4 Justice Canada calls the 55 Division and speaks to the Sergeant on duty. She identifies herself and tells them she has been briefed on the situation they are dealing with. She asks if it would be helpful for her to attend the scene and assist the negotiators. The Sergeant says yes, that may be helpful, when you get there speak to Sergeant Walsh or Sergeant McGregor.
  3. Reports are that the officers on the scene were informed that the National Coordinator was on her way and what the purpose was.
  4. At approximately 5:00PM ETF officers deploy 3 flash grenades to distract Plywoodman while a significant contingent ( reports are 6-10 ) of ETF officers tackle him on the rooftop and take him into custody. ** you can see it on the CTV news coverage .. looks like  6 to me on the tackle with 3 -4  more hovering

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20080808/trespass_charges_080808/20080808/?hub=TorontoNewHome

  1. Kris arrives on the scene at approximately 5:45 and the only remaining individuals are one F4J representative, a traffic officer and tow truck and a 55 Division detective. The Plymobile gets towed to the police impound yard.
  2. At approximately 6:00PM Kris arrives at the police station to ensure
    1. That all three activists have been able to contact and speak to designated legal council
    2. That Plywoodman receives a medical examination as well as the proposed psychiatric assessment ( which he knew ahead of time they may send him for )
    3. What the proposed charges are if they will be released that evening.
  • The officer on duty of course lies and says yes, they have all made their call to council.
  • The officer on duty will not tell Kris anything or go ask permission from the activists to give this information.
  • Kris speaks to legal counsel and updates her on situation. She has only spoken to 1 of our activists, contrary to police officer’s statement. She calls and is told they will not be let out because investigation continues.
  • Kris speak to legal counsel again at 10:00PM and is told they are in for the night and have a bail hearing the next morning.
  • F4J Fathers 4 Justice legal counsel and supporters attend at WRONG courthouse in the morning. Continue on to correct location when information is obtained. Legal counsel is sent to WRONG courtroom and it is only upon further investigation it is learned that the activists are in another courtroom, Plywood man has already been held ( with durty counsel participation ) for psychiatric assessment and other two activists ahve been brought up and taken back down to await their counsel.
  • Police officers monitor groups progress and continually take ‘head count’.
  • Approximately 11:30AM court begins. Crown attorney ‘interrogates’ surety for 20 minutes. Many questions are completely unrelated to the assessment of a person’s ability to act as surety. Steps made by the crown include: 

      1. Trying to prohibit activists from wearing their F4J tshirts claiming they should be treated as ‘colors’ and compares it to Satan’s Choice bike gang. Judge thankfully says, this is a stretch.
      1. Crown makes argument that Mr. Layton has been ‘targeted’.
      2. Crown is able to convince judge to put in bail condition that the two charged activists cannot participate in ANY form of protest.
      3. The crown asks that one bail condition be that they cannot attend at ANY elected officials constituency office ( pronounced CONSTITUTION about 5 times by the Judge! ) without prior written permission.
      4. Activists are to be released on $10,000 bail!
      5. Crown asks both sureties if they feel police over reacted, both said in their opinion YES! Both reiterated it was a peaceful protest.
      6. Crown tries to establish that activist on the ground is ‘ring leader’.
    1. Ground support and Spiderman are released, both have since been told to remain quiet about events until they have been properly briefed by legal council.
    2. Plywoodman remains in custody and will hopefully be released Monday morning.
    3. Return date for first appearance for first two released is Friday, August 15th @ 10:00AM
    4. Other attorney approaches us outside courtroom and is expressing his ANGER at what was allowed to happen in the courtroom. Subsequently two more lawyers express their anger and dismay.
    5. Fathers 4 Justice UK member climbs judges house in England!

    Next steps

    An open letter is being issued to Mr. Layton to answer on the issue of equal parenting and to assess if there is any change in support for M483. To be sent Monday AM.

    Any constituents of Jack Layton please contact us to be included in this meeting should it occur.

    If no response or insufficient response received by Thursday, August 14th in the PM a peaceful street level protest will be staged at 221 Broadview Avenue after the first appearance of the F4J Fathers 4 Justice superheros and support.

    F4J Fathers 4 Justice Canada will be making official complaint about police conduct and charter violations so as to protect our activists from such extreme measures. Please know that despite the measures used by police, F4J Fathers 4 Justice Canada activists have NO INTENTION of stopping their current campaign and course of action. ( We do note that not all officers were hostile or aggressive! )

    We will defend our right to peaceful protest and non-violent direct action.

    Any questions please direct them specifically to myself

    Kris Titus – National Coordinator, F4J Fathers 4 Justice Canada,

    officefathers4justicecanada@gmail.com

    Hal Legere – Legal Director – F4J Fathers 4 Justice Canada,

    Rob Robinson – National Action Coordinator, F4J Fathers 4 Justice Canada.

    We are greatly appreciative of all the support our activists have received.

    The ratio of congrats to complains is approx 10:1.

    Most sincerely;

    Kris Titus

    FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS OF THE The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

    EVERYONE HAS THE FOLLOWING FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS:

    A) FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND RELIGION

    B) FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, BELIEF, OPINION, AND EXPRESSION, INCLUDING FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

    AND OTHER MEDIA OF COMMUNICATIONS;

    C) FREEDOM OF PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY; AND

    D) FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION

    “Your Guide to the The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”.

    Get your copy by calling       1 819 994 3458

    Connie Brauer, activist


  • __,_.

    The last bastion of free speech has been silenced, the Rick Howe Show is Gone!


    May 30/08
    Dear Editor,
    The phone in talk shows are the last bastion of free speech and now it’s gone too. We, the people no longer have a voice. We are not allowed to present in the Legislature or the House of Commons. Our MLA’s and MP’s are inaccessible, the Ombudsman has no power to expose the very people we need to complain about. Rick’s show was the last and only way a person could call in and complain, usually about the government. It was not censored.
    Oh, yes, we still have the voice of the people, however, you have to be chosen and you can be censored or edited. The section is very small compared to a whole section on mindless fashion, fluff and entertainment. FM radio should immediately continue Rick’s Howe’s talk show. CTV, Global and CBC TV should have a political panel allowing PEOPLE to voice their opinions. Canada is not a Democracy. It is a Dictatorship and it’s getting worse every day! You wonder why people don’t vote. I’ll tell you why. The politicians don’t listen and don’t fix what’s wrong. There’s no accountability.
    There is no whistle blowers act for the people, only for government by government.
    Shame!

    Here’s my stand…

    No equality = no Votes for any party.

    Put people’s rights first or you are out! Pass it on.

    Live Free, (What a concept?)
    A short farewell to Rick Howe in video above.
    Connie Brauer
    familyjustice@xplornet.com
    Phone 902.798.5267
    Falmouth, NS, Canada

    For Howe the bell tolls
    Popular phone-in radio host cut adrift as Halifax loses yet another AM station



    ’This is tougher than I thought it was going to be,’ veteran Halifax talk radio host Rick Howe said Thursday after announcing to listeners that the Hotline, the show he has hosted for 10 years, has been cancelled. (CHRISTIAN LAFORCE / Staff)



    Veteran Halifax talk radio host Rick Howe announced to listeners Thursday that the Hotline, the show he has hosted for 10 years, has been cancelled. (CHRISTIAN LAFORCE / Staff)

    THE HOTLINE has gone cold.

    Veteran Halifax talk-radio host Rick Howe took his last calls Thursday as CJCH makes plans to move into the FM market.

    “It is with a great deal of sadness that I tell you this hour about the future of this radio program and my own,” Mr. Howe told his listeners shortly after noon.

    “This will be the final hour of the Hotline, and after today, CJCH will be flipping to the FM dial, and the Hotline will not be part of the format.”

    The affable host seemed to get bogged down in tears several times during the broadcast.

    “This is tougher than I thought it was going to be.”

    The show aired weekdays from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. on AM 920 CJCH.

    ….for the rest of the story, click here.