BC Fathers

The Canadian courts enforce the separation of fathers and children, to everyone's great loss... except: feminists, politicians and lawyers.

This website is: 

  • a resource for fathers who have had their children taken without just cause.
  • a source of hope for fathers and families being extorted and impoverished by the Family Maintenance Extortion Program (FMEP).
  • a notice that fathers will not stand idly by while our children are used as political pawns.
  • a warning to all those who would use our children as the means of extortion.
  • inspiring a better future for our children, especially our sons. They deserve Justice - not what we got.
  • the beginning of the end of male slavery in British Columbia, and hopefully in all of Canada.
  • dedicated to our families, the people who bear the brunt of the injustices inflicted by the courts.

this website and its authors are also:

The Fiamengo File, Why I Am An Anti-Feminist

C-560 Goes Down to Defeat

From: https://www.nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/21738-breaking-news-c-560-goes-down-to-defeat

May 29, 2014 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

Once again, the Canadian House of Commons has defeated a shared parenting bill, this time by a vote of 80 Ayes and 174 Nays.  Maurice Vellacott’s bill, C-560, would have established a presumption of equal parenting in cases in which both parents were fit to care for their children.

It’s been 16 years since a parliamentary committee submitted a report that found equal parenting to be the best post-divorce arrangement for kids and urged Parliament to enact legislation presuming shared parenting.  Since then, at least three surveys of Canadians’ opinions on parenting following divorce or separation have registered huge majorities (between 68% and 75%) favoring equal parenting.  And since then, social science has only become clearer on the benefits of shared parenting and the detriments of the current system.  And since then, surveys of the children of divorce show enormous majorities favoring shared care and continuing meaningful relationships with both their parents.  And finally, since then, Maurice Vellacott has filed several shared parenting bills, much like C-560, all of which have gone down to defeat.

What we have here and elsewhere is a case of political elites contravening the will of the people.  Worse, they’re acting against the best interests of children, fathers, mothers and society generally to do the bidding of narrow, but well-heeled special interests. 

First among those are family lawyers who thrive on parental conflict and know all too well that shared parenting dramatically reduces exactly that.  After all, without the lawyers’ favored winner-take-all child sweepstakes, neither parent has to fear losing his/her children.  That significantly reduces the perceived need to “go to the mattresses” in custody fights.  Lower conflict, fewer motions to file, shorter duration of cases, etc. mean lower fees to lawyers and hey, they’ve got to make those yacht payments somehow.

Along with the lawyers come a host of professional hangers-on, who, without the conflict between parents would have fewer custody evaluations to perform, fewer tests to administer, fewer homes to visit and rate.

Finally, there are the radical feminists for whom any improvement in the lot of fathers is a form of torture.  Canadian feminist organizations like the National Association of Women Lawyers have long opposed even the slightest improvement in fathers’ rights and on the usual, factually-insupportable grounds.  That’s true despite the fact that greater parenting time for fathers would mean greater time for mothers to work, earn, save and advance in their careers, all things feminists claim to support.  But what’s a little hypocrisy as long as it helps ensure children don’t get to see their fathers?

The time has come for the equal parenting movement to stop asking and start demanding.  For too long we’ve gone hat in hand to legislative bodies.  For too long we’ve assumed that being right, being on the side of fairness, justice and children’s welfare would be sufficient to carry the day.  In all but the rarest of cases, that approach hasn’t worked.

Therefore, it is now time to go on the political offensive.  That means raising money to defeat wrong-voting incumbents and support those who support shared parenting.  In most such cases, we don’t even have to win to have an impact.  Most incumbents fear real, focused opposition, and a few dollars and a lot of volunteer time can at the very least scare the pants off of any office-holder.

The simple fact is that politicians understand our issues perfectly well.  What they also understand is that they have nothing to fear from us.  They know full well that they’re free to vote for or against our bills secure in the knowledge that whatever they do, it won’t come back to haunt them come next election day.

That has to change, and it is up to us to change it.

 

Divorce Act

The House resumed from May 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-560, An Act to amend the Divorce Act (equal parenting) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):

Order. Pursuant to an order made May 27, 2014, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-560 under private members' business.

[English]

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

 

La Loi sur le divorce +-

La Chambre reprend l'étude, interrompue le 27 mai, de la motion portant que le projet de loi C-560, Loi modifiant la Loi sur le divorce (partage égal du rôle parental) et d’autres lois en conséquence, soit lu pour la deuxième fois et renvoyé à un comité.

 

Le président suppléant (M. Bruce Stanton):

À l'ordre. Conformément à l'ordre adopté le 27 mai 2014, la Chambre procédera maintenant au vote par appel nominal différé sur la motion à l'étape de la deuxième lecture du projet de loi C-560 sous la rubrique des affaires émanant des députés.

[Traduction]

(La motion, mise aux voix, est rejetée par le vote suivant:)

 

 

(Division No. 153)

YEAS

Members

Ablonczy

Adams

Albrecht

Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)

Allison

Ambler

Anders

Anderson

Armstrong

Ashfield

Aspin

Benoit

Boughen

Brown (Leeds—Grenville)

Brown (Barrie)

Bruinooge

Butt

Calkins

Cannan

Carmichael

Carrie

Chong

Clarke

Crockatt

Del Mastro

Devolin

Dreeshen

Falk

Fletcher

Galipeau

Grewal

Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)

Hawn

Hayes

Hiebert

Hillyer

James

Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)

Kerr

Komarnicki

Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)

Lemieux

Lizon

Lobb

Lukiwski

Lunney

May

Mayes

Merrifield

Miller

Norlock

O'Connor

O'Neill Gordon

O'Toole

Preston

Rajotte

Rathgeber

Reid

Schellenberger

Seeback

Shipley

Smith

Storseth

Strahl

Sweet

Toet

Trost

Van Kesteren

Vellacott

Wallace

Warkentin

Watson

Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)

Weston (Saint John)

Wilks

Williamson

Woodworth

Young (Oakville)

Young (Vancouver South)

Zimmer

Total: -- 80

 

NAYS

Members

Adler

Aglukkaq

Albas

Alexander

Allen (Welland)

Andrews

Atamanenko

Aubin

Baird

Bélanger

Bennett

Benskin

Bergen

Bevington

Bezan

Blanchette

Blanchette-Lamothe

Blaney

Block

Boivin

Borg

Boutin-Sweet

Brahmi

Braid

Brison

Brosseau

Calandra

Caron

Casey

Cash

Chicoine

Chisholm

Chisu

Choquette

Christopherson

Cleary

Comartin

Côté

Crowder

Cullen

Cuzner

Daniel

Davidson

Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)

Day

Dechert

Dewar

Dion

Dionne Labelle

Donnelly

Doré Lefebvre

Dubé

Duncan (Vancouver Island North)

Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)

Dusseault

Dykstra

Easter

Eyking

Fantino

Fast

Findlay (Delta—Richmond East)

Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk)

Fortin

Freeland

Freeman

Fry

Garneau

Garrison

Genest

Genest-Jourdain

Giguère

Gill

Glover

Godin

Goguen

Goodale

Goodyear

Gosal

Gourde

Groguhé

Harris (St. John's East)

Holder

Hsu

Hughes

Hyer

Jacob

Jones

Julian

Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)

Kenney (Calgary Southeast)

Lamoureux

Lapointe

Latendresse

Lauzon

Lebel

LeBlanc (Beauséjour)

LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)

Leef

Leitch

Leslie

Leung

Liu

MacAulay

MacKay (Central Nova)

MacKenzie

Maguire

Mai

Marston

Martin

Masse

Mathyssen

McCallum

McGuinty

McLeod

Menegakis

Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)

Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)

Moore (Fundy Royal)

Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)

Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot)

Mulcair

Nantel

Nash

Nicholls

Nicholson

Nunez-Melo

Obhrai

Oliver

Payne

Péclet

Pilon

Poilievre

Quach

Rafferty

Raitt

Rankin

Ravignat

Raynault

Regan

Rempel

Richards

Rickford

Ritz

Rousseau

Saganash

Sandhu

Scarpaleggia

Scott

Sellah

Sgro

Shea

Shory

Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)

Sims (Newton—North Delta)

Sitsabaiesan

Sopuck

Sorenson

St-Denis

Stewart

Stoffer

Sullivan

Thibeault

Tilson

Toone

Tremblay

Trottier

Truppe

Turmel

Uppal

Valcourt

Valeriote

Van Loan

Warawa

Wong

Total: -- 174

 

PAIRED

Nil

 

RIP Earl Silverman

Open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:

 

Dear Mr. Harper;

 

Earl Silverman is dead, and you must share responsibility for this.

 

Shared Parenting has been in your party policies for years, but your justice ministers have always bowed to the wishes of greedy grasping lawyers, man-hating feminists and power-drunk judges – always following their dictates. Bowing to the lobbying of Canadian lawyers in Dublin, the insertion of feminist operatives (Status of Women Canada) into every government department and every courthouse in the country, the litany of lies and Defamation from the government (Status of Women Canada), all paid for by and defended by your government – this is your responsibility.

 

Your government has failed to address this problem, and now another good man is dead. When does it stop? How many must die, driven to despair and suicide, before you act?

 

Earl was a peacenik, something of a hippy, with a big heart. He truly cared. He was a man who believed that his government had the best of intentions and our politicians and bureaucrats are good people who only needed to be informed of problems and would then act to resolve those problems. What Earl never truly understood is how reluctant Canadian governments are to fix a problem that government creates. Earl never truly understood that the prevailing system that destroyed him, is a system that was created by and is defended by government because it is a system that benefits government and certain supporters – especially bureaucrats, politicians, feminists and lawyers. Earl never understood that this evil system is “by design”, at the behest of the politically powerful, and always at the expense of decent people.

 

Earl is dead, and he deserved better. Earl is dead because power and money is more important to the Canadian government than honesty, justice, fairness or anything else that reasonable civilized people value. Greed and power-lust killed Earl, and will continue killing many others.

 

You have a responsibility to do something about this. We elected you because your party has the right words in policies that will address the fundamental cause of this problem. But words alone are not enough. You must deal with the lawyers and the feminists in the government. Help is available if you act. Electoral defeat is certain if you fail to act. Really, we should be considering revolution, because that is the rational route when government becomes the enemy of the people it is supposed to serve. That is about as clear as I can make it.

 

Ken Wiebe

BC Fathers

 

  

Earl Silverman's suicide letter:  http://www.familyofmen.com/a-final-letter-from-earl/