Political Commentray and Opinion
When governments feel they can steal your property, they now have committed terrorism on the public by Intimation, threats, and thieft of property with Draconian Laws, that serve no one but governments themselves. They the government need to be looked at, as who do they serve as it is not fathers, men who pay their taxes to self serving useful idiots in governments. Fathers rights have been attacked for so long by criminals in governments, who act out New World Order kookery that they themselves have forgotten what common law is really about. Politically, no one wants to look like they support criminals over victims, with the use of a police state being place in Canada. But the argument against these laws is simple - they don't work. Sooner or later the public will realise that the "protection racket for gaining more monies to give to government" and promised by fake law-and-order auctions to come forward with the thieft of cars is simply a fraud. Law-and-order auctions appeal to emotions and make law abiding criminals out of good people. Governments are elected to develop policies, not to commit terrorism and distroy people's lives. It's time to say to hell with socilaist governments who beleive they can commit crimes with the stealing of private property.
Re. Barb Kay's column of today, reprinted below:
If you are a father, if you might become a father, if you have a father, or even if you just love a father, this message is for you.
Ontario's Family Responsibility Office (FRO) is a star-chamber government agency, enforcing ever more draconian laws - taking debtors prisons right out of Dickens' time. It is an abomination, and every province has its equivalent. The most sickening fact is that these laws are enforced disproportionately harshly against the unemployed and the uneducated - precisely those who cannot speak for themselves. (See the attached.)
Those liberals out there who so vehemently clamour for "evidence-based" social policy need to wake up. Where is the vast bulk of the problem of child poverty? Well, over a third of all children living in poverty in Canada live with a lone mother who earns zero income. At least half live with a lone mother who earns not enough income to support herself, let alone a child. At least half of lone mothers make zero financial contribution to their children's well-being. Think about that for a minute. Why isn't the government interested in rounding up all these "deadbeat moms" with the same vigor that they pursue "deadbeat dads"? It can't be because they are all young, single mothers with infants, who are incapable of working. In fact, the average age of lone mothers is 38 - only 3 years younger that the average age of lone fathers. Moreover, lone mothers have higher - yes higher, not lower - educational levels than lone fathers, on average. Yet lone fathers find a way to earn twice as much income as lone mothers, which is why child poverty is rare among lone fathers. If our courts and our politicians truly cared about the best interests of children, they would make laws that (a) give custody to working dads much more often than at present; and (b) tell single moms to get a job or lose their kids.
Is that too harsh? Then why are loving fathers routinely subjected to this inhumane treatment? - dozens of times every day in Canada. Time to have a chat with your MLA and MP. Act locally!
Thanks for listening,
Courts get a new way to discriminate against fathers
They throw guys in jail for non-support all the time, and when they do, the guys serve the whole 30, 60 or 90-day sentence (the term keeps lengthening), even though cocaine dealers routinely get out of jail after serving half their time.”
Ontario’s Family Responsibility Office, which is responsible for ensuring that custodial parents don’t get stiffed for child support payments by the non-custodial parent, has a lot of power.
Starting Dec. 1, someone (read “father”) in arrears on their support payments can have their car impounded. That’s about the stupidest punishment for non-payment one can imagine, since most people need their cars in order to work. As Lloyd Gorling, a father’s rights activist put it, “How are you going to make support payments if you can’t get to work? If you can’t make support payments, does the government really think you’re going to be taking a taxi every day to work?”
If you’re going for irrational responses to non-payment, why not just throw the guy in jail –– but oh wait, they already do that. They throw guys in jail for non-support all the time, and when they do, the guys serve the whole 30, 60 or 90-day sentence (the term keeps lengthening), even though cocaine dealers routinely get out of jail after serving half their time.
In 2004 an FRO staff member didn’t bother waiting for a court date to review the financial status of an out-of-work truck driver. He just suspended his license because – hey, because he could, you see. But the guy couldn’t pay, because he had no job, you FRO idiot. He had no money to pay with, you FRO moron. He was looking for work, and the FRO decided that the best way to deal with a non-paying parent was to make it impossible to find a job so he could pay the support. Nice going, FRO. His suicide note lamented that he didn’t see any way out of his situation and had lost hope. And did anyone pay for that? Of course not. The FRO is accountable to no one.
Let’s look at the bigger picture, though. What is the guy paying child support for? Yeah yeah, to support his children. But that means they are, you know, sort of his children, right? Not necessarily. The custodial parent, almost always the ex-wife, although supposed to grant agreed-upon access rights to the children’s father, can arbitrarily decide she doesn’t want to allow access, and for any old reason — oh sorry, little Jimmy has a play date, oh sorry little Emma has too much homework, oh sorry, I just don’t want to — can deny the father access. And does she pay for that? No. Oh, she might get a scolding from the judge, but there is no downside for her. No custodial mom has ever spent a night in jail or had her licence suspended for refusing her children’s father legal access to them. If they have, enlighten me. I have never heard of such an outcome.
You want to impose draconian punishments for non-support? Fine. But be rational about them. The arbitrary car-licence suspension is simply stupid. It punishes the children. But reluctance to punish children is the rationale for not jailing mothers who refuse access to fathers. Judges continually say they can’t put the mother in jail, because how would it look for the kids to see their mothers punished? One might ask the same question about their dads, no? Or does nobody care how it is for children to know their dads are in jail because they couldn’t give their mothers money? Rhetorical question. Of course nobody cares how a father’s suffering impacts on children, because only mothers’ suffering has the attention of family courts, police and the FRO.
If I were paying money for child support – and by the way, no custodial parent is obliged to say how she spends the money she gets for the children; she could be using it for spa days and nobody at the FRO would care – I wouldn’t be much encouraged to carry on with it if I never got to see my kids. It would occur to me that the state considers money more important to children than fathering. If the state feels that way, maybe society does too. Kind of an incentive-suppressant for fathers.
This story is about a lot more than car licences or what the appropriate punishment should be for failure to pay child support. Double standards abound in the custody industry. The FRO is a very scary agency characterized by way too much power, and far too little intelligence.
To Comment on this Click Here