Qui sommes nous?

 

Il paraît qu'on passe la moitié de sa vie à vouloir des choses qui sont faites pour les autres.

 

Truth is Out on Family Court Judges
CBC on May 7

 

 

Remember this?

Truth is Out on Family Court Judges - CBC on May 7

Great Expose on what really is in the minds on Family Court Judges, courtesy of CBC Sunday Edition (abstract from CBC.ca)

Monday, May 08, 2006

"Children have all rights, and Parents have none. I have to see through the child's eyes and decide what's best for him."

Judge Harvey Brownstone
Duration: 00:27:14

Family court judges see it all. They deal with people at their worst. But it's not just the people that make the job challenging - family court judges work inside a legal system that is hard-pressed to deliver anything even approaching "justice."Judge Brownstone thrives on the challenge, and on going against the grain. And learning more about what he's doing in his courtroom just might shed some light on what we need to do elsewhere in the country. He spoke with Michael in our studio in Toronto. One of the statements that raised my eyebrows was that this judge (perhaps representative of all) espouses and acts in such a way that

"Children have all rights, and Parents have none. I have to see through the child's eyes and decide what's best for him."

Now society, I think, does support the principle that children are our future and that they are not bargaining chips for property settlements. But I know (have some experience and dozens of anecdotes from male friends) that most often men are the emotional and financial losers in family court outcomes.

Our judicial system professes to dispense justice, not social work. The effect of this, of course, is that since they apply social work principles, then women (short of women who dabble in crack and prostitution) will always be entitled to primary custody, and the associated man will (almost) always be on for hook for paying the tab. Particularly when a preponderance of Family Court judges are highly educated women. Who, as often as not are feminists.
Regardless of what the laws say.

Because when judges see things through the eyes of a three year old, Mom, who legend has it likes changing diapers and hugging a lot, will always come out on top.
 

Posted by Lemon at 9:21 PM  

Labels: CBC, Toronto

 

1 comments:

Mac said... From what I've seen of family courts, men might as well stay home and just send their cheque

books.11:43 PM  

 

Principles of Judicial Office

 

Everyone got their personal Barf Bag ready? Here we have it-the Principles of Judicial Office (simply apply same to your own case and geographic area) Anyone notice how much of this was missing from your own legal experiences? Is there any connection at all between these principles below and to reality? Can anyone identify with anything in these principles at all? As for this writer I had trouble within the first paragraph: "proper administration of justice in our society"   "honourable and worthy of its trust and confidence" and "without fear of reprisal or influence from any person, group, institution, or level of government"   I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. And then it just got worse.

After this I consider myself doubly motivated to continue to press forward with the ultimate objective of getting all family court and 'related issue' judges arrested and charged with crimes against the family-with punishment and restitution-and reparations as key features. I go to sleep at night dreaming of judges in red jump suits sweeping fathers driveways and mowing their lawns, Houses of course purchased with funds from confiscated pensions and assets. Yeah yeah I know... I am dreaming. But its a lovely dream and much nicer than the nightmares the subjects allow me to experience now.

JS

 

L'incontinence Urinaire - Embarrassante mais traitable

 

Alleged threat in email `kind of sad,' McGuinty says

 

In respect of saying "I'll Kill You" would a police-and indeed a public- response be any different for a man? Er.. well yes. For sure. Note the furor, the 'feedback' commentary and pronounced public activity related to this story in the Toronto Star . What do you think would have happened if in this particular or any similar case this had been a man writing to McGuinty? What would have happened if he had said" I'll kill you"?   Would he be able to offer that the Premier didn't have a sense of humour? Would it have mattered if the man could claim a "cultural misunderstanding"?  I think not. And you all know it. A man in this position would have been arrested-and charged within hours. And probably convicted too. This is just the way it is. It is surely a pity the public does not see it. Or the media. The argument I could see from the public and the media is that the man would 'deserve' all the attention and the result he would get.

JS

 

Barbara Kay: Michaëlle Jean shouldn't take sides in the domestic abuse issue

 

Barbara Kay: On domestic violence, no one wants to hear the truth

 

Generally in Fathers and Men's rights circles it has long been known that the office of the Governor General has harboured a feminist stooge. This has been so for some time and includes the pompous reign of that other Liberal appointed closet radical 'representative of the Queen' Adrienne Clarkson. At least she made an effort to appear to remain impartial although not with all that much success.

 

There is no such attempt by this current 'representative'. She is up front and pretty blatant in acting for the puppet masters of the domestic violence and shelter industry.

 

The position of the Governor General is supposed to be one which holds equal responsibility to all Canadians of both Genders. This has never been the case for this Shelter Stooge. Its all about feminist issues for her and there is not even a hint of regret that she might be misrepresenting the truth in that position.

 

Its interesting to note that in her speech she speaks to the obvious in that as a society we "don't see" and "don't hear" what she suggests are an overwhelming number of abused woman suffering at the hands of brutal men. That is not because they are hiding or the public refuses to see them its because they are not actually there in those numbers in the first place. They are simply just "there" because she and her agents of the domestic violence myth conveniently say they are. And even then the numbers that actually are there are at least equal to those of abused men as Barbara Kay so accurately points out.

 

The industry the Governor General is a representative for knows full well that the more that is invented and the more that is spewed from the public pulpit the more sympathy money flows into the feminist coffers. Millions upon millions of it. Taxpayer and private money. To be used to perpetuate the myth and advance the radical feminist cause which as we all know is directly responsible for the destruction of thousands of Canadian men Fathers and their families.

 

The position of this Governor General in this issue is clearly one which deserves immediate government censure. If there was a way to remove her from her position it should be taken. I would hope that the reaction of the Canadian public to this latest outrage will be very loud and very clear.

 

With that in mind dear reader there many ways you can express your displeasure and concern. Start with your federal member of parliament and let him or her know that the actions of the Queens Representative are entirely inappropriate and in contravention of her role. Make your opinions on this disgraceful issue known. We are supposed to be in a democracy- based constitutional monarchy not a matriarchal socialist state.

 

With that in mind dear reader there is a link hereunder at which place you can register with Full Comment and make your opinions on this disgraceful issue known. I hope you will use it.

 

 

Affaire Latimer : Robert Latimer libéré sous condition

 

 

Something is not right with the GG doing this....... is she making it clear she is the enemy of Fathers-especially the falsely accused ones- in their struggle now? I think so. She clearly 'aint no friend that's for sure.  I believe we should tell her that her actions are totally irresponsible and very much inappropriate for the representative of the Head of State. She should hear from the people and the Parliament of Canada. Write or call your MP's I think we should also make the point on the National Post Blog comments section. Link hereunder.

        « Double Journée de la femme » : Mythe et conséquences

 Après « D’égale à égal » (Condition Féminine Québec) et de multiples enquêtes officielles (Insee, Cnrs…), une dernière de l’Insee, publiée avec l’aval de « Regards sur la Parité » Ed 2008, permet de faire le point.

L’image d’Epinal féministe de la pauvre femme, épuisée par sa dure journée de boulot, rentrant chez elle pour doubler sa journée par le travail domestique, tandis que son mari, vautré sur le canapé, ouvre une bière en regardant un match à la télé, en prend un sacré coup !!!

Sur google, tapez Insee ; Chiffres-clés ; Conditions de vie ; Vie politique et Sociale

Titre : Evolution des temps sociaux dans une journée moyenne :

En 1999, une femme effectuait, en moyenne, 3 h 27 de travail professionnel et 4h 36 de travail domestique, soit un total de 8 h 03 par jour.

Un homme effectuait 5 h 30 de travail professionnel et 2 h 13 de travail domestique soit 7 h 43 par jour .

La différence est de 20 mn !

En 1986, c’était , pour la femme : 3 h 16 + 5 h 07 = 8h 23

                        et, pour l’homme : 5 h 47 + 2 h 07 = 7 h 54

soit une différence de 29 mn par jour !

Parler de double journée pour la femme est hallucinant !

NB Il s’agit de moyennes, de différentes enquêtes, dans différents ménages, horaires répartis sur 7 jours.

Ainsi, la ségrégation sexuée des tâches ménagères est bien une réalité, mais pas au détriment de la femme .

En réalité, c’est l’homme qui se stresse au boulot, tandis que la femme organise- à sa convenance - ses tâches ménagères.

Les conséquences sont multiples :

1)      La « spécialisation » de la femme, lui permet de décider souverainement de 72 % des achats du couple.

2)      En cas de divorce, la justice lui confie automatiquement la garde des enfants …et le reste, comme vous le savez bien.

3)      Voilà qui explique parfaitement la différence de 20 à 30 % des salaires entre les sexes, sans avoir à recourir au « complot macho »

4)      Dernier enseignement, et non le moindre :

L’ensemble des hommes travaillent donc, en moyenne, 2 h / j de plus que les femmes, soit 57 % de plus. S’ils étaient payés, au même salaire horaire que les femmes, ils gagneraient 57 % de plus qu’elles.

Hors la différence moyenne constatée mensuellement ou à l’année est de 20 à 30 %

Conclusion :

Les femmes bénéficieraient donc, en moyenne, de salaires horaires plus élevés que les hommes !

 Et depuis de nombreuses années !

Si les hommes gagnent plus, c’est qu’ils travaillent beaucoup plus que les femmes.

Et ils le paient très cher, en conditions de vie et de santé, lors des divorces, en durée de vie, …et en diabolisation !

 

Qui est la victime de qui, dans notre société féministe avancée ?

 

 

Le juge Alain maintenu dans ses fonctions

 

 

Affaire Dumas

 

Palestinians die in Israeli raids

 

1967 - Richard Nixon writing in The CFR periodical Foreign Affairs Oct 1967 “….and to evolve regional approaches to development needs and to the evolution of a new world order.”