Book Review - Shakedown

Book Review: Shakedown - How our Government is undermining Democracy in the name of Human Rights. by Ezra LEVANT. 216pp McClelland & Stewart 2009 ISBN 978-0-7710-4618-6 Chapters/Indigo Online C$19.13

by Christopher JONES
Reviewed July 20, 2009

Ezra LEVANT appears an unlikely “Agent Provocateur” as one could ever find, yet on January 11, 2008 the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) gave him an unlikely Ukrainian Xmas gift. That was the day he was summoned to defend himself against charges of “discrimination” for publishing the news. That news was cartoons from a Danish broadsheet published in September 2005 that were deemed offensive to Islamic Fundamentalists. No other country in the world took any legal action against any media like this. No where else in the world was a “crime” perceived to have been committed. Yes, sensibilities were offended in Britain, France and the United States but “Freedom of Expression” is still a tradition in Western democracy's. Of course riots did break out against Danish “infidels” in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia,

Within days, LEVANT's “defense” against his “interrogation” by a bland, boring bureaucrat named Shirlene MCGOVERN became a viral sensation on YouTube and within weeks reached 600,000 hits. The painfully obvious point apparently lost on Shirlene was that her questions clearly indicated that Canadians are not free to express their opinions. If we were, Ezra would not have been sitting there responding to her. As Mark STEYN noted in the foreward to Shakedown:

“Canadians do not enjoy the [unreserved] right to free speech. They enjoy instead the right to government-regulated, government-licensed, government-monitored, government-approved speech – which is not the same thing at all.” [Foreward, p. x]

The thrust behind Ezra's vociferous counter-attack on MCGOVERN was that his right to have an opinion - no matter how controversial - is a sacrosanct citizen's right in free democracy's like Canada. But, more obviously as a journalist of a media outlet – it was his lifeblood. Contentious and even offensive opinions MUST be defended against unwarranted incursions like hers. Any idea worth debating will be controversial – abortion, America, climate change or Islam. We shouldn't be coddled by a government “protecting” us from vigorous debate of such ideas. Again to quote STEYN “Anyone can be in favour of Barney the Dinosaur singing “Caring is sharing”. Ultimately, if you do not defend freedom of offensive speech, then you can not believe in freedom of any speech. Exercising our right to free speech is an essential responsibility of every citizen in a democracy and we can not let our responsibility be outsourced to a government agency.

Some see this book as defending Hate Speech. LEVANT disagrees and in fact argues the opposite. To some extent being a Jew gives him some moral authority on this matter. He supports Freedom of Speech and believes that the real enemy are those inept, immoral and unethical Commissions who are attempting to hijack our rights. In Shakedown, LEVANT exposes the Human Rights “Industry” as a rogue bureaucracy spearheading attacks on our freedoms of expression.

• What was the original idea behind “Human Rights” Commissions?

• How/Why and Where have they changed?

• What are the risks to our legal system and social fabric?

• What has been the consequences of these unbridled bureaucracy's and are they still needed?

These are some of the questions LEVANT weaves together in an entertaining narrative of his journey in uncovering the inner workings of the various “HRCs” - but he had a lot of help. Some of the “Alice in Wonderland” encounters he describes are surreal – like when CHRC investigator Richard WARMAN admitted he hacked into an unsuspecting women's internet access so he could hide his hateful postings on a Nazi discussion board in order to entrap others. Or the decision against a McDonalds Restaurant in BC that upheld a employee's “right not to wash her hands” while preparing food! Yuck. Or a bar in Ontario that was prohibited from stopping a cancer patient smoking his medical marijuana on the premise, despite the threat of losing its liquor licence. Honestly, you couldn't make some of this stuff up!

For those of us seeking to reform Family Law, it may be more relevant to ask “How does this effect us?

Because Shakedown explains how a good idea went bad. How the HRC have become overrun with ideologues and social activists. He unmasks the shocking lack of ethical guidelines, amateur personnel, no due process and failed constitutional safeguards that characterize HRC's across the country. He describes how these HRC have evolved into a special cottage “industry” that has been built up and how these bureaucracy's have become part of the problem because they “manufacture” discontent in order to justify their own continued existence churning out phoney HR files, cases and rulings. How they are infecting traditions in law enforcement and encroaching upon existing court jurisdictions. How they are bringing their tremendous power to bear on poor, inexperienced and often well meaning citizens for issues far removed from the original HRC mandate. LEVANT believes by revealing these outrageous abuses, ordinary Canadians will demand reform.

I have only one serious objection with Shakedown and that is its lack of any proper index (names, keywords or topics), bibliography or footnotes to support the numerous assertions made throughout the book. This is a shame because such academic habits keep political hyperbole properly anchored to the earth. Lack of these research aid's weakens the intellectual weight of the book and is all the more perplexing as LEVANT is never shy of providing many hyperlink references on his blog. Laziness is a poor excuse.

Summary

I highly recommend Shakedown to anyone involved in Divorce or Family Law as an object lesson on how our law enforcement and court system can be subverted against us – the hard working citizens of Canada. Beware. If we don't protect our rights - anything could happen. This is the template.

p.s Ezra LEVANT's Blog can be found at: http://ezralevant.com

Be careful the next time a telemarker calls

This article from St. Louis is a sign of the times.

Phone rage leads to arrest here for Ohio man

Charles Papenfus, arrested for making threats to a telemarketer selling extended auto warrenties.

By Matthew Hathaway ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

07/21/2009

An Ohio man, fed up with deceptive junk mail, made the mistake of losing his temper while on the phone with a St. Louis company pitching an extended auto-service contract. Now he finds himself behind bars, where he is charged with making a terrorist threat.

Christopher Thetford, a spokesman for the BBB in St. Louis, said he isn't surprised to hear of a consumer threatening a service-contract broker.

"While it's not something we condone, it is something we can understand," Thetford said. "Oftentimes, consumers feel pushed and pushed. ... It's a frustration we hear from consumers every day when they talk about the extended-service contract industry."

Among the Comments were these gems:

Deze1 July 20, 2009 10:37PM CST
And stupid Americans will continue to believe that the Patriot act was put into place for our protection against Islamic extremists.

icantthinkofone July 20, 2009 10:58PM CST
Sounds like they arrested the wrong side in all this. The real terrorist was the original caller.

via Drudge Report

Equal Parenting (EP) Amendment for Divorce Act

As many of you know, MP Maurice VELLACOTT introduced his PMB C422 Equal Parenting Amendment in Parliament just before the summer recess on June 16. Here are some of the reasons CEPC* gave to support EP. Here is a copy of the Hansard and a backgrounder.

Australia introduced a new Family Law Act in 2006 that included the presumption of Equal Parenting. Here is an interview with Chief Justice Diana BRYANT of the Australian Family Court on how their experience is going.

Many men's groups have been pressing for EP in the hopes that it will create a better climate between couples who split up. Currently mothers achieve sole/joint custody with primary residence in something like 90% of contested divorces.

Dr. Edward Kruk of FIRA (Father Research Involvement Institute) based in Guelph ON also released a report that reviewed recent academic Literature which notes the vitally important role of fathers in their childrens lives, and advocates for correcting imbalances that have seen their role minimized or excluded.

*Canadian Equal Parenting Council
Fathers have be marginalized from their children's lives by our Family Law (FLAW) process. We think the evidence has been growing for decades but no one has had the political will to make change happen.

Here are some international statistics that indicate the harm to children when their fathers are not included in their lives. They show a litany of social mis-behaviours that threatens our very social fabric.

• Massachusetts Fathers & Families
• Charting Parenthood (USA)
  
• ACFC Shared Parenting Facts and Fictions
• Rainbow International (US & UK)
• The Fatherless Family (2002 UK CIVITAS)
  

How much evidence do we need to take action in reforming Family Law.


[Addendum: July 29 - I encourage everyone to write letters of Support for C422 to your MP's, Senators and MLA's. (Admittedly, the MLA's will claim it is not their responsibility, but I suggest you ask them to consider similar changes to the various provincial Family Law Acts that affect common-law relationships.) To help kickstart this effort, here is a draft letter (in RTF format - just add your MP/Senator/MLA's name + your contact information) and link to Parliaments MP's/Senators contact info - they also are in the sidebar along with links to all Provincial/Territorial Government MLA's/members.

Things to remember for effective communication with your MP/MLA:

1) Include your address + tel# so they can keep track of your comment/complaint.
2) Keep letter short and to the point - 1 page and no more than 3 points.
3) Tell them a solution/response/action you want taken.

Remember that a any Canadian can send a letter to his/her MP without postage simply by addressing to any MP/Senator at: House of Commons/The Senate, Parliament Buildings, Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6. I have found such a method will always get a reply/response (although it can take a long time). If you send to a constituency office, you will have to apply a stamp.]

The Myspace Suicide

This case has now passed into the history books with it's final drawn-out, dismissal but I wish to highlight a few things that escaped my notice before.

1) Lori DREW, the mother who was charged as the agent of the cyber bullying to "mess with" the unfortunate young, troubled girl, Megan MEIER who subsequently committed suicide, was a single mom.

2) None of the original, sensational criminal charges stuck if only because "cyber-bullying" can not meet the test of a felony crime. It was the only federal statute that could be applied, but fell apart because it would have basically criminalized a "breach of contract" - which makes no sense. There is now a "cyber-bullying" law in Missouri where the offenses occurred. The State of Missouri prosecutors declined to press charges, by the Federal Government decided to on a long shot and lost.

3) An 18 yr old family friend/employee Ashley GRILLS who gained immunity for her testimony against Ms. DREW, admitted that it was her idea to start the hoax and in fact she created the online persona "Josh" used to torment Megan.

4) On Nov 26, 2008 the federal jury could not reach a verdict on the main charge against 49-year-old Lori Drew — conspiracy — and rejected three other felony counts of accessing computers without authorization to inflict emotional harm. Judgement had been reserved for May 18, 2009, it was postponed a number of time but finally was rendered last week July 2, 2009.

All charges against Ms. Lori DEW were dismissed.

Archive - 2009jul02-judge-acquits-lori-drew-in-cyberbulling-case-pdf

Feminists + Male Feminists in Canada

In researching the recent report from RADAR, Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting entitled "50 Domestic Violence Myths" I came across some of the Canadian actors in the tragedy.

Dr. Andrea O’Reilly is a professor of Women's Studies at York and has been the founder and Executive Director of The Association for Research on Mothering Centre (ARM) at York University, Toronto ON. The Association’s mandate is to promote feminist maternal scholarship by building and sustaining a community of researchers interested in the topic of mothering-motherhood. She and her common-law spouse are the parents of three children, a son, 24 and two daughters, 22 and 19. Her most recent book was Rocking the Cradle: Thoughts on Motherhood, Feminism and the Possibility of Empowered Mothering (Demeter Press, 2006).

I made comment rather humorously about O'Reilly's ARM sponsored a conference on "Feminist Aspects of Mothering" in Oct 2008 in Toronto at the same time as a Fatherhood Conference sponsored by FIRA, the Fatherhood Involvement Research Alliance.

I find it interesting to note that ARM keeps track of comments made by other academics who criticize their work. Here are some comments from their April 2008 Newsletter.

IMPORTANT ALERT FOR FEMINISTS IN THE ACADEMY.

The work of psychologist Don Dutton (and a considerable number of others who think like him) provides a clear and present example of the rising threat to feminist feminist (and less visibly but no less so anticolonial) antiviolence work both in Canada and the US. Dutton uses piles of so called evidence to support his argument that feminist antiviolence practice is unethical and that it may even be a form of malpractice. Yes, he says this in those very words! Dutton argues that ~feminist accounts of violence against women don't deserve to be called social theory since feminism is an ideology that doesn't account for much that we might ask about violence, and overgeneralizes based on what is he claims are only a minority of cases of violence against women. Dutton's appeals to those in psychology to overturn feminist "ideology" with a revival of psychology and science are apparently starting to work on some of those who have been feminist allies in the past. This is alarming.

This all spells bigger trouble. Dutton got a lot of airtime with his 2007 book Rethinking Domestic Violence, but he's been producing work of this kind for years. The timing on this should be a concern because in Canada we have a government that may actually be willing to be convinced by this stuff. In Canada, Dutton's findings are being used by REAL Women of Canada to lobby government to withdraw funding from feminist antiviolence work and from the Status of Women (one of the usual targets of REAL Women).

It may interest those in law to learn that Dutton's work also questions legal practice in this area. One can only guess that he may begin working on (and turning the heads of) some of those in law, as he appears to be doing elsewhere, certainly he is making very obvious efforts to turn the heads of those in psychology.

Dutton buries his readers under mountains of evidence that he uses to argue among other things that most intimate partner violence is bilateral and that in most cases women are aggressive themselves and choose aggressive partners (i.e. they ask for it). Dutton also draws on data and evidence from a number of official Canadian and US social surveys to argue that most violence is bilateral, that only a minority of couples (about 10%) in which violence occurs are male dominant, that extreme violence occurs in an smaller percentage of couples, and that women are responsible for a good proportion of that extreme violence.

Molly Dragiewicz at UOIT is one of the feminists who has taken the fight on in the last few years. She and Walter Keseredy and a handful of others have taken up the fight and are continuing to push back. Ed Gondolf ~published an article recently presenting the evidence for Duluth against Dutton; Gondolf has been working in this area for years.

The Duluth Model is being targeted for attack as a very visible example of feminist community-based practice in violence against women. Dutton argues that Duluth is only a relevant model for work with a small minority of women and that since psychological factors account for most violence, psychotherapy other psychological couple/family interventions are indicated.

I couldn't have made a better case.


Dr. Peter Jaffe PhD, C. Psych. is a Professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Western Ontario and the Academic Director of the Centre for Research on Violence Against Women & Children. He is the Director Emeritus for the Centre for Children and Families in the Justice System, which is a children's mental health centre specializing in issues which bring children and families into the justice system in London, Ontario.

He has co-authored nine books, 24 chapters and over 70 articles related to children, families and the justice system including Children of Battered Women and Working Together to End Domestic Violence. He has presented workshops across the United States and Canada, as well as Australia, New Zealand, and Europe to various groups including judges, lawyers, mental health professionals and educators.

Both of these individuals are strongly funded and very active internationally having written, lectured and presented a number of research articles and papers in support of feminism. Jaffe is a regular speaker about DV and Child Custody in the media and has authored innumerable opinions on these issues many of which are still acted upon.

Do Female doctors hurt productivity?

Forgive me for taking so long to get back to this article (from May 20) I seemed to have a hectic time from Victoria Day until Fathers Day. I am grateful to Robert Franklin at GlennSacks.com for also picking up on the report.

The story is that a whole cohort of newly recruited doctors work less (30 hrs per week) than their older peers (35 hrs per week). Dr. Robert Ouellette, president of the Canadian Medical Association, said medical schools need to train even more doctors than they do now. The new generation of physicians -- both male and female -- tends to work fewer hours generally than older colleagues, he said. This has altered the assumptions upon which manpower projections have been made. To remedy the situation someone sensibly did a study on it suggesting we need to increase funding to attract more doctors - either as intake through teaching or by overseas recruitment.

One may think such foresight would be applauded. WRONG!

With 60% of enrolled medical students female the question somehow became seen as an attack on women. An editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal last year that urged "ending the sexist blame game."

The author of the report, Dr. Mark Baerlocher, a radiology resident at the University of Toronto, said he agrees women should not be blamed, but lamented a general reluctance in the medical profession to examine controversial issues, such as gender differences and abortion. "There are a lot of topics that aren't adequately studied, because it's deemed a socially sensitive topic."

Footnote: CBC Radio The Current - Bob MacDonald did an interview with Dr. Baerlocher in Hour3 on May 29, 2009. Click here for the interview (in MP3). It is interesting that Dr. Bob EVANS - an economist has written on this topic before (1999).

[Ed: National Post reporter Tom Blackwell seems to spend an awful lot of time sympathizing with feminist positions. At the same time he does some pretty good reportage in a vital "beat" for the National Post. I had this vigorous email exchange with him at the end of May about another of his articles that minimized the incidence of paternity fraud in a story about liver transplants.]

The Trial by Franz KAFKA

The term "Kafkaesque" is often used to describe existential, ridiculous and surreal personal encounters with government bureaucracy and they derive mostly from the selection of titles written by Franz KAFKA (1883-1924). These include such classics as "The Metamorphosis", "The Castle" and posthumously "The Trial".

KAFKA was a Jew, uniquely placed to comment on the queasy state of seeping antisemitism which grew to official policy under the Nazi's. Much of what he wrote described the worst fears of a totalitarian state. His popular novel "The Trial" was one of his many unfinished works at his death and was not published until 13 years later - right after the Nazi's took power. Such timing lead it to be incorrectly considered a satire on the absurdity of the Third Reich's absolute disregard for natural justice, despite a veneer of law.

Here is a critical synopsis of the book.

The Trial is a fascinating, truly terrifying performance but leaves an impression of incompleteness, of narrative threads calling out for repair.

The novel begins with one of the most famous openings in modern literature. It is the rising bank manager Joseph K.'s thirtieth birthday, and two sinister-looking men claiming to have court authorization to arrest him rudely accost him in his bed that morning. Someone must surely have falsely accused him of a crime. The two warders examine his clothes with a view to carting off what they can. Our protagonist K. wonders what authority these warders represent. The shock is immense, for as we are told: "He lived in a country with a legal constitution, there was universal peace, all the laws were in force; who dared seize him in his own dwelling?"

K. is told that he is free to proceed to work that day but must await a summons. Sure enough he is called to attend his first interrogation, the process of formally and systematically questioning a suspect in order to elicit incriminating responses. This odd affair takes place in a courtroom found in a maze of poorly ventilated, nondescript, disorientating office cubicles. We quickly learn that in this system, there is no due process of law, no rights whatsoever that an accused can rely upon, and that the process can be interminable. Kafka is offering us an exaggerated account of Austro-Hungarian criminal procedure -- no right to remain silent, etc. -- but also a grim prophecy of a situation in which the courts will be accountable to no citizen and will rule as arbitrarily as they wish.

K.'s uncle turns up at the bank to advise him to consult the eminent lawyer Huld ("Grace" in German). Growing ever-more desperate, our once-respectable hero dutifully attends before the lawyer, who claims to have important connections to the court, but who we immediately suspect will be unlikely to affect the outcome of these rigged proceedings.

The Trial is in important respects a symbolic account of the manner in which ordinary citizens will find their lives shattered by a totalitarian legal system which will rule by brute force under a veneer of legal rules. Kafka conveys the sheer horror and bewilderment of ordinary, apolitical citizens, who realize too late that a new regime has targeted them for punishment not for what they have done, but for who they are.

Perhaps the most tragic aspect of Kafka's chilling depiction of the ease in which a totalitarian regime can use the judicial machinery and a large bureaucracy to strip citizens of their rights is the way in which citizens respond with a mixture of fear and gullibility. Somehow, they think, there must be a reason for the laying of charges against their fellow citizens. In any event, there is no point in getting involved. No one in The Trial comes to Joseph K.'s aid in any meaningful manner, including the lawyers he encounters. K. himself, when he encounters others who have been charged with unknown offences, fails to make common cause with to join with in purposes and aims. And so a desolate end awaits the protagonist and by implication anyone else singled out by the sinister forces of the emerging totalitarian state.

To anyone who has been involved with Family Court, this sounds vaguely familiar.

Designing Women - Swedish Feminism

A play on words I know. The U.S sitcom that featured 3 menopausal women and a gay assistant was never something I really could stomach but channel surfed through. Yet, it struck me as another example of the feminist revolution that such a program could even exist let alone thrive for 3-4 seasons (I'm actually not sure how long it lasted, and if you care look it up).

Yet here we see the results of that ideology (here is Google English translation from Swedish):

"Swedish parents keep 2-year-old's gender secret"

Pop's parents, both 24, made a decision when their baby was born to keep Pop’s sex a secret. If anyone enquires, Pop’s parents simply say they don’t disclose this information. They say their decision was rooted in the feminist philosophy that gender is a social construction.

“We want Pop to grow up more freely and avoid being forced into a specific gender mould from the outset,” Pop’s mother said. “It's cruel to bring a child into the world with a blue or pink stamp on their forehead.” The child's parents said so long as they keep Pop’s gender a secret, he or she will be able to avoid preconceived notions of how people should be treated if male or female.

“Ignoring children's natures simply doesn’t work,” says Susan Pinker, a psychologist and newspaper columnist from Toronto, Canada, who wrote the book "The Sexual Paradox", which focuses on sex differences in the workplace.

But Swedish gender equality consultant Kristina Henkel says Pop’s parents' experiment might have positive results. “If the parents are doing this because they want to create a discussion with other adults about why gender is important, then I think they can make a point of it,” Henkel says in a telephone interview with The Local. Henkel also says a child's sex can deeply affect how they are treated growing up, and distract them from simply being a human being. She says that without these gender stereotypes, children can build character as individuals, not hindered by preconceived notions of what they should be as males or females. “I think that can make these kids stronger,” Henkel says.

Anna Nordenström, a paediatric endocrinologist at Karolinska Institutet, says it’s hard to know what effects the parents' decision will have on Pop. “It will affect the child, but it’s hard to say if it will hurt the child,” says Nordenström, who studies hormonal influences on gender development. “I don’t know what they are trying to achieve. It’s going to make the child different, make them very special.”

Oh yes, very "special"!

The article then goes on to mention the sad case of "Brenda", who we now know was David REIMER of Winnipeg, MB who unfortunately had his penis loped off during a botched circumcision in 1965. On the advice of an American Psychologist John Money, he received genital reconstruction, estrogen treatments and was raised as a girl based on the predominate theory at the time that gender was indeed a "social construct" and that genetic heredity was virtually irrelevant. At 14 years he was told about the "accident" and rebelled. He recovered his genetic "heritage" by having the treatments reversed but was tormented by the experience and after a series of unhappy romantic involvements and failed marriage, he took his own life at age 38 in 2003. Yes, how "special" he felt to be de-gendered and used a human guinea-pig for a political ideololgy.

The article closed with this spine tingling quote:

"Pop's parents have a second child on the way and have no plans to change what they see as a winning formula. "

Given the recent case in Winnipeg MB of a child being removed by Child Protection Services (CPS) from her mother and step-father due to their "White Supremacist/Nazi" sympathy's after their 8yr old daughter came to school with swastika drawn on her palms, I wonder if there is any plans by the equivalent Swedish Child Services "Storm-Troopers" to visit "Pop's" parents?

To further castigate the Swede's about how far astray their social policy had gone, there was another story about a decision by the Swedish health authorities. A women with two daughters had twice had abortions after findng out about the gender of the foetus underwent tests for foetal abnormalities, but also wanted to know the gender of the most recent child. The Hospital Board ruled that gender-based abortion is not illegal according to current law and can not therefore be stopped. And who says that women everywhere are not using abortions as means of birth-control? What do you think would happen in Canada?

Fathers Day Collection

Perhaps I'm wrong and maybe it's the economy, but this year I seem to sense a "Rising Tide" of awareness at how "Fatherhood" is generally mistreated.

To wit:

Ottawa Citizen June 23, 2009 - SOUNDOFF Blog
"Fatherhood can be a thankless job" by Paul NATHANSON

Nathanson recounts his relationship with his father:

From my perspective as a boy and young man, he seemed overly judgmental. ... And his standard for honourable manhood, which he applied to himself no less than to me, did seem unattainable. Worse, it seemed to me, his notion of manhood focused heavily on duty and sacrifice. Worse still, perhaps, he expected me to learn skills that didn't interest me.

He also realized years later that his personal accomplishments were in part due to his fathers relentless expectations.

Dad lived long enough to see me take my place in the world. I knew that he respected me as a scholar. One day, in the middle of some argument, he suddenly turned to me and said, "Paul, you're a learned man." Okay, I was much too old by then for those words to give me a sense of self-confidence. But we both realized immediately that this was a moment of profound fulfillment; a father had symbolically conferred manhood on his son.

And he encapsulates why fathering is still important but different than mothering.

Fathers, unlike mothers, must require their children to earn love -- respect, which is a form of love -- in order to leave home mature enough to give and receive it as adults. And fathers, unlike mothers, cannot measure their effectiveness adequately in terms of immediate emotional gratification. Moreover, they often resent having to meet expectations or endure constant testing. In short, fathering is inherently more complicated, more ambiguous, and more perilous (though not, of course, more important) than mothering. It requires a massive cultural effort to promote fathering and not merely to bribe or threaten fathers into providing material resources.

Nathanson calls for public debate on the important issue of respecting and valuing fatherhood in today's society.

I'm dismayed to find that our society seems hell-bent on undermining the culture of fatherhood. My research indicates that every person and every group, to have a healthy identity, must be able to make at least one contribution to society that is distinctive, necessary, and publicly valued. Boys must know that society will indeed need them, and [at present], they don't.

[Boys are being told in popular society they are only assistant mothers, and] now learn directly or indirectly, that there will be no room for them as men in family life and that they will therefore have no moral stake as men in the future of society.

If that isn't an ominous sign, what is?

Paul Nathanson is a research associate at McGill University 's Faculty of Religious Studies and co-author alongside Katherine Young of the books Spreading Misandry and Legalizing Misandry.

Ottawa Citizen June 19, 2009 - Columnist David WARREN
In praise of patriarchs

Here are some relevant excerpts.

This is my first “father’s day” without a father; my own father died last November. It is no big issue, really: he was one of many billion fathers, as the world goes on; and besides, no one ever took father’s day very seriously. It isn’t a real holiday: nobody gets off work because of it. The celebration of it is equally throwaway. We “give dad a tie,” or some workshop bauble, as we might (with ideological hesitation these days) give mom something for the kitchen.

I am fortunate still to enjoy the love of my children, or think I do. But I am vividly aware of so many fathers who do not — whether through their own fault, or from the fact that their children were turned against them by a calculating mother, working the family law system. [Yet, we] have a society in North America that is, thanks to the triumph of feminism, progressively shedding the masculine qualities that any society needs to survive. Women themselves are progressively “freed” from masculine protection at many levels; men, raised to be wimps, progressively abandon all sense of duty. I would further argue that dealing with the fallout from the feminist revolution is the most important domestic “issue” in North American society today — for its effects spread thickly across every other domestic issue. And this necessarily requires an attack on the very premise of feminism: its demonization of “patriarchy.”

If fathers cannot be paternal, we have no men.

Toronto SUN, June 16, 2009 by Joanne RICHARD
A girl's first hero - How dads inspire and support a daughter's development

These two Italian-named female psychotherapists seem to be repeating tired cliche's about fathers relationships with their daughter's - but I'll take whatever I can get.

"Behind every great woman, you will find her dad" -- that's if he was an engaged, present, involved dad, says Dr. Mary Jo Rapini.

Studies show that dads give girls 90% of their self-esteem before the age of 12, she says. "What this means is that girls that grow up without a dad in the home, or one who abandoned them, are always going to be a little bit less confident and sure of themselves than peers who grow up with a dad in the home."

The best thing a father can do for his daughter is to love her mother so that she will witness what to expect from the men in her life, and what she should not have to put up with, adds Dr. Venus Nicolino

Robert FRANKLIN at www.GlennSacks.com also picks up on this article, and ties up the loose ends thus:

For decades now feminism has trumpeted the notion that "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle."

Women, according to this orthodoxy, are strong and men are unnecessary to their happiness and success. To that end they've championed the single-mother family and fought tooth and nail against every effort to ameliorate the radical inequalities of family court. Any initiative that seeks to enhance children's connection to their fathers is reflexively opposed by NOW and other feminist organizations.

It turns out that, to be that strong, confident woman, it is precisely a man that she needs in her life growing up. The very thing girls need to grow up to become the feminist ideal is the very thing that feminist groups most adamantly oppose - a father in her life.

Amen.

TV Ontario June 21, 2009
The Changing Role of Father: Involved Dads and Their Positive Impact on Education

In the 21st century, the role of ‘father’ has changed. According to the Canadian Father Involvement Initiative (CFII) - a non-profit organization based in Carleton Place, ON there were 4.2 million fathers in Canada in the 2001 census. CFII has compiled clear evidence that school-aged children of involved fathers demonstrate the following attributes:

-They are better academic achievers
-They are more likely to get As
-They have better quantitative and verbal skills
-They have higher grade point averages, receive superior grades, or perform a year above their expected age level on academic tests
-They demonstrate more cognitive competence on standardized intellectual assessments
-They are more likely to enjoy school, have better attitudes toward school, participate in extracurricular activities, and graduate.

Advice for dads who truly want to be more involved with their children: “Just do it,”

MP Velacott introduces PMB-C422 "Equal Shared Parenting" Bill

Yesterday (June 15) Saskatchewan Conservative MP, Maurice Vellacott introduced his Equal Shared Parenting Bill PMB-C422 into Parliament. Here were his introductory remarks:

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be introducing a Private Member’s Bill today which would direct courts in regard to divorce, to make equal shared parenting the presumptive arrangement in the best interests of the child, except in proven cases of abuse or neglect.

Over 10 years ago, a Joint House-Senate committee presented to Parliament a report entitled “For the Sake of the Children.” That report urged Parliament to amend the Divorce Act to make equal shared parenting the normative determination by courts dealing with situations of divorce involving children.

This non-partisan recommendation from that Joint House-Senate was based on compelling research made available to the committee members. Over the past ten years, the best research has continued to demonstrate the far superior outcomes for children, in general, when both parents – mom AND dad – are actively involved in their children's lives, even if the parents divorce or separate.Polling from the past two years demonstrates overwhelming support from Canadians for equal shared parenting.

There is, in fact, slightly more support among women than men for equal parenting. This strong support from almost 80% of Canadians exists across the country, with the strongest regional support coming from Quebec and Atlantic Canada.

Canadians claiming to be Liberal and Bloc supporters, expressed the strongest endorsement for equal shared parenting, at 80.6% among Liberals and 82.9% among Bloc Quebecois supporters. A variety of countries, such as Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Australia, and various U.S. states, have implemented equal parenting, joint custody or shared parenting presumptive legislation, which has resulted in lowered court costs, less conflict and improved social outcomes for the children of divorce.

This bill is one of the most a-political, non-partisan pieces of legislation introduced in this current Parliament. I look forward to strong support for this important piece of legislation from all Members of Parliament who are committed to the best interests of our Canadian children.

I suggest we send Mr. Vellacott a congratulatory email. As well perhaps Mr. Rob Nicholson, Justice Minister, for endorsing the bill and asking that the government endorse it. Here is his email.