Legal problems in Canada...
December 9, 2004 2:00 PM   Subscribe

Legalized Genocide and Torture in Ontario? It seems that comparing the actions of some social workers while in the carrying out of their duties collide with international laws...Is this really going on in what many consider one of the freer countries in the world? If you've seen what I've seen and had the same experiences that I've experienced, you may well feel the same way...Legalized torture and GENOCIDE? You decide...
posted by Epitath (54 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: Did you miss the part on the posting page that said you'd be banned for a self-link?



 
What would those experiences be?
posted by euphorb at 2:08 PM on December 9, 2004


Tinfoil hat time... I don't think this person really knows the meaning of "genocide."
posted by The Thnikkaman at 2:09 PM on December 9, 2004


Hearsay, selective reading of the law, anonymous page... Hyperbole much?

I'd like to see the opinion of someone who's not just a random internet joe with web space... My well-versed-into-law friend (HINAL, but married one) says that this is basically bullcrap and that there's more to it than the small clippings of the law put up there.

[This is bad]
posted by splice at 2:15 PM on December 9, 2004


Paging Serdar Argic.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:15 PM on December 9, 2004


A little sensational there?

Admittedly, social workers and especially "child protective services" are strongarmed, overbearing, and given way too much power in a lot of cases. While this helps them rescue some children before it's too late, it's also easily abused and can steal away children from parents who just don't act the way the system wants. This is true in the US, this is true in Canada, and I would not be at all surprised if this were true in many other developed nations.

It is a serious problem, and it needs serious attention and action now. Social service programs are certainly better than abusive parents, but those programs are far from ideal.

Still, sensationalism is unnecessary, Epitath. No need to use it to detract from such an important message.
posted by Saydur at 2:16 PM on December 9, 2004


Boy.

Just when I think the front page has hit bottom, someone digs a little deeper.

Oh, and its "epitaph."

or "epithet," which in this context...
posted by Floydd at 2:21 PM on December 9, 2004


I concur. Those are big serious words. If there was any real baby killing going on, I'd be worried, and the use of such glaringly horrendous page design might be excusable.

But as it stands, it is not.

If you really think that this sort of thing is going on, get some more links, better sources, and a little less hyperbole.

Also, I think you meant Epitaph as opposed to Epitath.

Just FYI.

on preview:
damn you floydd!!!!!
posted by Freen at 2:25 PM on December 9, 2004


I'm not a lawyer, but I spent a few years editing laws and regulations at the Department of Justice in Canada. I like to think that I know how to read legislation and parse out what it ostensibly means. Still, what follows could be wrong, so don't rely upon it.

Legislation should be straightforward, but it generally isn't, especially to the casual reader. Terms frequently have specific legal definitions that are either spelled out in the definitions clause, or in the Interpretation Act (which applies to all federal laws; I presume that there are provincial equivalents), or through case law.

In this case, the author glosses over "reasonable and probable grounds" to argue that we're living in a police state. There's a lot of case law about what constitutes reasonable and probable grounds. (In some cases, banging down the door and extracting the kids by force is excessive. In others, it's an urgent necessity.)

The author also zeros in on the limitation of personal liability for case workers, and in so doing proves exactly why that provision is there: so that enraged parents can't intimidate or retaliate against individuals who are simply following their orders.

Superficial, selective reading of the Act + hyperbolic references to the Gestapo + appealing to an authoritative document (the Convention) without substantiating the claim + invoking mitochondrial DNA = kooky, kooky stuff.

Plenty has been said about child protection services, and they can do some controversial things, but some of the people saying them are not their own best advocates.
posted by mcwetboy at 2:25 PM on December 9, 2004


Yes, let us compare genocide [1] to social workers taking away children. This is definitely a bad analogy [2] as there are more differences between genocide than uh, child services.

I am having a hard time reading and following this link, as the style the author uses is very reactionary. Would you care to elaborate on this a little further?

Why would the courts want to spend public money and time taking kids away from their parents? Some nefarious plan to reprogram them? I'm sure there will always be a certain amount of children taken who don't come from a standard bad home, but I just have this image in my mind of Mounties raiding random homes in suburbia stealing kids from their beds -- and I can't believe it.

I suggest you take a look at "A Boy's Life" which I saw via HBO. It's by Rory Kennedy and follows a dirty poor family lead by a Grandma who among other things, claim the state is always taking her children. At first, it looks like it's a marginally stable, albeit very poor, household. To an outsider there is no physical abuse, and in fact the grandma plays herself as a victim. Eventually through the documentary we slowly see that abuse isn't just the dad with the belt, that the grandma was really hurting these kids. The truly sick, twisted people who abuse children often hide it very well.
posted by geoff. at 2:27 PM on December 9, 2004


Legalized torture and GENOCIDE? You decide...

Survey Says: uh, no.

Kooky stuff indeed. TIMECUBE ATE MY BABIES!
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 2:30 PM on December 9, 2004


Seems that the comment from one person is that I'm not aware of "what" genocide is...I've allowed the vagueness in the definition of "What" genocide is to pose it's own questions...this is the problem not only with how the laws can be applied and how it can be interpreted...
posted by Epitath at 2:31 PM on December 9, 2004


To all who feel that this is nothing but hype...I assure you, no it is not...I believe that there is certainly a need to have sensible conversation and discussion of this matter. Why? I believe that there is a need for CAS to exist and that all scenarios are not negative ones. But for those who really have been given the runaround and have been made "TARGETS" by CAS workers, that there needs to be some legal recourse via the courts that has the capacity to set the checks and balances back into the scales of what should be justice.
posted by Epitath at 2:35 PM on December 9, 2004


Sorry to disappoint you geoff. There are simply more forms of what the definition of genocide is according to it's wording than what you may feel comfortable with.
posted by Epitath at 2:37 PM on December 9, 2004


Accusations of genocide are always a good start to a sensible conversation and discussion.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 2:38 PM on December 9, 2004


Mind backing that up, Epitath? I'm serious. More links. Because that one page is not making that case.

You are sounding very suspiciously like the author of the page you linked to. You certainly have the same agenda (and about the same level of coherence). It sounds like you've come here with an agenda rather than a link, and are using the page to make your case. Badly, I might add. (Your first post after three years of being a member here?)

And using "genocide" indiscriminately is a profound insult to the human beings who have faced the real thing.
posted by mcwetboy at 2:41 PM on December 9, 2004


Well, then, if you feel that way, please provide us with something other than a loony writeup by some crackpot. Give us some newspaper articles, or maybe a few personal anecdotes.

Something else. Cus what you linked to was crap. It really was.

If it is not hype, I need more than your assurances to belive it. Strong claims require strong evidence to back them up.

On preview: Um 'Genocide' is a fairly specific term. It is the systematic killing of people because of their race or ethnicity. I.E. Serbia and Croatia. The Holocaust.

Even if CAS workers were rampantly kidnapping babies, it still wouldn't be genocide.
posted by Freen at 2:42 PM on December 9, 2004


geoff...It's usually a matter of an involvement of parents and grandparents in the past having had CAS involvement in the lives of thes persons. This is how the selective targetting is taking place...It is based upon the misconception that since there has been reports in the past (even by a generation or two) that there is obviously a need to pre-judge the situation...This is costing the courts and the government more money than it should in the first place. I have no problem with the ideas of the mandate that this organization has, my problem is with just how the law has been used in an abusive manner. How would you like to have someone kick in your door just so that a worker can check out some "anonymous" report that they received.

Wouldn't you prefer to have your right to face your accuser in a court of law? I know I sure would if I were in this situation.
posted by Epitath at 2:42 PM on December 9, 2004


Does not the nuclear family present itself as the basis in which ethnicity and race branch out from? The destruction of the family unit is simply the microcosm of the genocide issue. And yes, the vagueness in the definition allows for the question of interpretation and application of such
posted by Epitath at 2:47 PM on December 9, 2004


Thanks Saydur...Sensationalism? No...but it sure has brought quite a few strong reactions...maybe those who choose to rather name-call need to back up and realize the the sensationalist packaging is placed in the article to get a strong reaction. But does it make people think of the small portion of the story that is the point? I think that the name-callers need to back off and ask themselves this question. "How would I feel if the laws that give people the legal right to kick my door in and take my children based only upon that person's discretion and yet leaves me with no legal ability to strike back a set of laws that I can agree with?"
posted by Epitath at 2:52 PM on December 9, 2004


I refuse to read yellow on black.
posted by Evstar at 2:54 PM on December 9, 2004


Dude. Give up. Sober up. email #1. Ask for this to get deleted. Do some research. Come back with a well researched post about the problems in the C.A.S. Get some news articles, Find some stories, maybe some academic research on the matter, and then post again.

Please. You may have a point, I don't think you do, but you may yet have a point. However, the sloppyness of the presentation, the lack of factual information and your general misuse and abuse of the english language has all but destroyed any potential point you may have had.

I repeat: You may know what you are talking about, and it may be important. But from where i'm sitting, you sound like a nutter.
posted by Freen at 2:54 PM on December 9, 2004


mcwetboy, you have no idea what and who you've just addressed in such a manner...shame on you! I'm of full Jewish extraction. I have the right to bring this up as an issue because in Nazi Germany such laws as this Family and Children Services Act were passed and were utilized a part and package of Hitler's Final Solution. Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. Don't you agree??
posted by Epitath at 2:55 PM on December 9, 2004


What is the point? Laws that give too much power to a few people always end up being abused. I would refer you to history and the seemingly harmless laws that were used in conjunction to perform some of the world's nastiest attrocities.
posted by Epitath at 2:56 PM on December 9, 2004


According to you Freen? Fine, it's your opinion. And you're as welcome to yours as I am to mine.
posted by Epitath at 2:57 PM on December 9, 2004


Freen, I wonder if referring to me as a nutter is actually necessary...or do you have another motive?? Maybe just to discredit something that makes you uncomfortable? I don't know...
posted by Epitath at 2:59 PM on December 9, 2004


Does not the nuclear family present itself as the basis in which ethnicity and race branch out from? The destruction of the family unit is simply the microcosm of the genocide issue.

You did write that page, didn't you! Because I think it a little too far-fetched that you'd be parroting such a patently loony unique argument unless it was your own.

How would I feel if the laws that give people the legal right to kick my door in and take my children based only upon that person's discretion

"Reasonable or probable cause": it's what limits the police, too, in case you hadn't noticed. How come you're not worried about them coming over, kicking the door down and genociding your dog away from you?

On preview: Epitath, I'm a trained historian who specialized in 20th-century European history, including the rise of Nazi Germany, WWII and the Holocaust. You have no idea who you've just addressed in such a manner. And quoting Santayana doesn't impress me much.

Best get off the soapbox now.
posted by mcwetboy at 2:59 PM on December 9, 2004


There might be a worse interpretation of facts. I doubt it though.
posted by substrate at 2:59 PM on December 9, 2004


Seems that name-calling and brow-beating is the name of the game here. Pretty sad, I thought that Me-fi's were quite a bit more mature and thoughful in how they discuss things. I'm afraid I may have been wrong. I guess I'll simply resign my membership here...there appears that too many persons feel it necessary to poison a feed. Sorry and my sincerest apologies to thoise who are above such behavior. You know who you are.
posted by Epitath at 3:01 PM on December 9, 2004


Ding Ding Ding We Have a Winner.

Mcwetboy is spot on.

what part of no self-linking do you not understand epitath?
posted by Freen at 3:03 PM on December 9, 2004


mcwetboy...I actually can see the authors point. I don't necessarily agree with some of the points made...I do however, certainly agree that there is not abuse of the system, but that there is some serious damage done to the children apprehended. Some damage is never overcome. And that's a sad issue. How can an organization whose mandate is to protect children end up becoming the same people who damage them? There is obviously something seriously wrong, wouldn't you agree?
posted by Epitath at 3:05 PM on December 9, 2004


There is obviously something seriously wrong, wouldn't you agree?

I think we can all agree on that.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 3:07 PM on December 9, 2004


Crap.

Pure crap. And a self-link to boot.
posted by bshort at 3:10 PM on December 9, 2004


Wow. Great catch, Freen.
posted by mcwetboy at 3:10 PM on December 9, 2004


I know somebody who used similar logic to prove that girls are evil.
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:11 PM on December 9, 2004


I figured there can't be that many people who misspell epitath AND use it as a nickname.
posted by Freen at 3:12 PM on December 9, 2004


mcwetboy, Im actually laughing out loud right now. Thats really rare for me atleast.
"genociding your dog away from you"
i still laugh when I read that.



Epitath, you better watch out, metafilter has a no-self linking policy. You wouldnt want Matt to go genocide your metafilter
posted by Iax at 3:12 PM on December 9, 2004


I think someone needs a dictionary and a visit from the clue-fairy.
posted by bshort at 3:13 PM on December 9, 2004


Its almost depressing to me that this is a self-link. I would much have prefered to see it get axed because its just awful ... bad ... participates truly in suckage.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:20 PM on December 9, 2004


Linked document is incoherent.
posted by mr_roboto at 3:21 PM on December 9, 2004


At the risk of being a dittohead, I agree with mr_roboto. Hyperbole, narrow selective interpretation, and overly defensive posture.
posted by FormlessOne at 3:32 PM on December 9, 2004


This may be the worst FPP I have ever seen here. Self-link (and then pretending it isn't). Ignorant editorializing in the FPP. Moderating the thread. Incredibly poorly designed website. Best of the web my ass. This is the worst use of MetaFilter possible.
posted by Eekacat at 3:36 PM on December 9, 2004


Eekacat: I concur.
posted by Freen at 3:37 PM on December 9, 2004


I have been a witiness

Whatever you have been witinessing, it is time to take your meds.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:42 PM on December 9, 2004


I've been called opinionated, I've been called at lot worse things in my life...but I thought I took the cake...maybe y'all should re-read what you wrote collectively..."It's the best of the Worse of MetaFilter" thanx for participating!
posted by Epitath at 3:50 PM on December 9, 2004



Iax, I thought Fuzzy Monster's "TIMECUBE ATE MY BABIES!" comment was slightly funnier.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 3:52 PM on December 9, 2004


Epitath: but I thought I took the cake....

Yes, you did, in fact, take the cake. Congratulations.

Now give it back.
posted by Freen at 3:58 PM on December 9, 2004


This link and thread is so bad, it's good.
posted by orange swan at 4:22 PM on December 9, 2004


What do you want written on yer tombstone mate?
posted by dash_slot- at 4:27 PM on December 9, 2004


Weirdly, Epitath (sic) posted the same link in todays thead about Canadian gay marriage, too.

It got ignored there, totally. I see the reason for reposting it was to get this (rather negative) attention.
posted by dash_slot- at 4:39 PM on December 9, 2004


Dash_slot...Don't you know that making disguised threats are in bad taste? To all others: Have you noticed that not a single person chose to address the torture issue?

Why did everyone stay away from that particular portion of the document to critique? Now that's what seriously makes this the Best of the Worst...No one had the intestinal fortitude to question this portion of the document at all. Is this because you agree that such actions taken against a family to have its children removed is a tortuous thing? If so, then the document is validated in at least one thing we can agree upon. There needs to be something done as far as reform in the way these type of situations are dealt with.

As for Matt genociding my metafilter? After this last comment is posted he may choose to do so. If he does, it's no really great loss to me.

Just answer this...why did no one choose to address the torture issue? Is it because it's way too sensitive an issue due to recent events?
posted by Epitath at 4:42 PM on December 9, 2004


WTF?
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 4:44 PM on December 9, 2004


There needs to be something done as far as reform in the way these type of situations are dealt with.

I think wrapping your web page in a blink tag would help.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 4:50 PM on December 9, 2004


Armitage ...nice potshot...and funny too...I can appreciate that!
posted by Epitath at 4:55 PM on December 9, 2004


Have you noticed that not a single person chose to address the torture issue?

Ok, I'll bite.

Removing kids from a household that is thought to be unfit is painful for everyone involved, but does not constitute torture.

There, happy?
posted by bshort at 4:56 PM on December 9, 2004


« Older Whodunnit?   |   Online Etymology Dictionary Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments