Lawyer confirmed that going to
church too often is ground for removal.

PAPA People Assisting Parents Association

© 2007-now
Bookmark and Share
donate button
PAPA logo
notice board blogger icon
New links

Contradictions Against Mainstream Values in a Free and Democratic Society

One main factor that determines the rise of a nation is the values that a people believes and adheres to. State-sponsored child removal activities contradict the following mainstream values commonly accepted as noble in English-speaking Western nations:

The Four Freedoms Articulated by the Former U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt on January 6, 1941

These freedoms are also enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (CCRF, assented to March 29th, 1982).


Freedom


Contradiction

Case/Evidence

freedom of speech and expression
    
  • remove the children of those who dare to disagree with their position, challenge their wrongdoings in court or to go public to speak against their oppressive acts

  • use tax dollars to take legal action against those who publicly speak against their operations

[contravenes Section 2 (b) of CCRF]

freedom of religion

remove the children of those who do not do what "child protection" social workers like for religious reasons; the cases on the right left hand side founded that such intrusion is constitutional

[contravenes Section 2 (a) of CCRF]

freedom from want


(In world terms, this means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants.)

use visitation, supervision terms and other means to get parents fired from their job or to prevent them from finding gainful employment, hence destroying the livelihood of families

[contravenes Section 6(2)(b) of CCRF]

Most parents under scrutiny soon lose their jobs due to a frequent absence from work to attend meetings, visitations and court hearings. Some employers are told by "child protection" social workers that they have a "child protection" concern on their employees and they are eventually let go. We had been approached by a single father recently that MCFD prohibited him from working overnight shift in his truck driving job and compelled him to pick up his children to and from school. Failing to do so will result in the removal of his children.

freedom from fear
  • using the power to remove children to beat parents into submission, to scare children to tell a story to incriminate their parents
  • using secret agents to stalk parents, monitor parent's communication (such as phone conversations, e-mails)

[contravenes Section 7 and 12 of CCRF]

Needless to say, the power, or even a threat, to remove one's children is an unspeakable fear to most families. Subjugating a civilian population with constant fear of losing their children is cruel, barbaric and inhumane.

Lisa Arlin of Surrey, British Columbia alleged that her husband committed suicide because he was prohibited to see his removed son.


At the point of writing, we are not aware that any parents have successfully challenged the practice of MCFD on constitutional grounds. Despite the fact that CFCSA is a less authoritative provincial statute, the judiciary obviously considers the perceived risk to the safety of children be more important than the constitutional rights of their parents.

Issue of Fair Play

One noble notion in Western culture is the sense of fair play. Although history suggests that this only applies to their own people, it is still a respectable notion. Given the huge disparity in strategic edges and resources, custody litigation against parents in family courts is a David and Goliath fight which usually results in the victory of the "child protection" agency.

"This country will not be a permanently good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a reasonably good place for all of us to live in."
(Theodore Roosevelt, Chicago, IL, June 17, 1912)

[This page was added to the "Empirical Data & Stats" page on October 29, 2009 and separated on 20 October 2010, last revised on 28 March 2015.]