The Shotgun Blog
« The myth of the by-election | Main | Another peek behind the curtain »
Saturday, March 08, 2008
International Women's Day #2
In this series of blogs, we are celebrating some "success stories" for women in honour of International Women's Day. [Somehow, my second in the series disappeared the first time I tried to post it. Here it is again.]
Do the Crime; Don't do the Time:
The second success for women we can celebrate today is that they find it nearly impossible to be sentenced to jail for a familial transgression. A story in the Ottawa Citizen on Monday, titled "Mother who absconded with children gets conditional sentence," illustartes our second theme.
When Thomas Zinns and Deborah Jean Craddock were divorced in the Dominican Republic in 2002, Mr. Zinns was given custody of their 2 children. That should already tell you something about Ms. Craddock, since men only win primary care of children in contested divorces in about 10% of cases -- i.e. when the mother is basically derelict.
In 2006, Ms. Craddock falsified a court order and used it to abscond with the children to Ottawa, where she was quickly arrested. Justice Ann Adler handed her a 12 month conditional sentence, including 4 months of house arrest where she will "only" be able to leave the home for work and necessities. If that's the value judges place on Court Orders, to say nothing of international abductions, it's no wonder mothers flout them, and even falsify them.
Said Justice Adler, "I am sympathetic to you. It is a terrible thing not to have your children when you want them." Yes, indeed it is -- I'm sure Mr. Zinns was thinking exactly that when he discovered the abduction. More to the point, one wonders how many times in her career Justice Alder has given a mother permission to move with a child to another city or province or country, despite what a "terrible thing" it is for the father to be disenfranchised thereby.
Justice Alder pointed to the fact that Ms. Craddock had no criminal record as a "mitigating factor" in her sentencing decision. That is an error of law. Having a criminal record is an aggravating factor; but not having a record is not a mitigating factor, it is the norm. This shows how far judges will go to find ways of being lenient toward women convicts.
Needless to say, when the shoe is on the other foot, and a father adbucts his children across international borders, the courts are less than sympathetic. Jail time is de rigour.
We can thank feminist legal activism, preying on male chivalry, for the widely recognized "female discount" in criminal sentencing.
Posted by Grant Brown on March 8, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22305/26925768
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference International Women's Day #2:
Comments
I have a couple more blogs to post on Int'l Women's Day, but I can't seem to get them from the "saved" to the "posted" list, for some reason. (I'm really new at this...) Any suggestions?
Posted by: Grant Brown | 8-Mar-08 11:14:38 PM
Grant just read below: "Women who are criminalized should not be imprisoned; all efforts will be made to prevent women from being incarcerated and to facilitate the earliest community integration of those who are sentenced to a term of imprisonment."
Canadian Association of
Elizabeth Fry Societies
(CAEFS)
http://www.elizabethfry.ca/eprinciples.html
Principles of the Elizabeth Fry Societies
Member societies support the following principles:
While the strength of our federation is the freedom to meet the needs of our communities in unique and effective ways, as an Association, CAEFS develops policies and positions and acts on common interests affecting women.
Women’s rights are human rights and women are entitled to substantive equality; that is, the right of access to equal opportunities and programs in the justice system; as well as the right to justice without fear of prejudice or discrimination on the basis of such factors as sex, race, disability, sexual orientation, age, religion and freedom of conscience, social or economic condition.
Women who are criminalized should not be imprisoned; all efforts will be made to prevent women from being incarcerated and to facilitate the earliest community integration of those who are sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
Posted by: Karol Karolak | 9-Mar-08 8:24:56 AM
===Toronto Star===
http://thestar.blogs.com/broadsides/2008/03/on-wednesday-ev.html?cid=106405600#comments
===Broadsides by Antonia Zerbisias===
*Painful delivery*
On Wednesday evening, the Harper government -- aided and abetted by Liberal leader Stephane Dion's inability to lead - voted to take this country one step closer to robbing women of their reproductive rights.
.....
....
...
..
.
Antonia, you wrote quote, "On Wednesday evening, the Harper government -- aided and abetted by Liberal leader Stephane Dion's inability to lead - voted to take this country one step closer to robbing women of their reproductive rights."
Do you mean to say that Canadian women in will no longer be allowed to become pregnant?? Do you mean to say that Harper's government decided to force all women that would even dare to defy Harper's government dictum of no more children and get pregnant will be forced to have an abortion???
Antonia this is terrible, this is even worse than what Communist Government of China used to do when they introduced one child policy.
In know that there is this gender war in Canada and I know that women use their ability to carry pregnancy and deliver children as ultimate weapon in their quest of total domination of Canadian men.
I know that it is patently unfair to Canadian men and infertile women of Canada that they cannot get pregnant and give birth to children they would like to have. I know that Canadian men are very upset about custody rulings in Family Courts of Canada that automatically grant custody of children to women on premise that children are their personal property (extra limbs of some sort and extension of women’s bodies) but banning all women from having children just to enforce gender equality and level playing field seems to me as an extremely harsh measure.
I know that Conservatives are trying to cut government spending and such extreme measure would allow them to realise great many savings and eliminate costs of daycare, education and so on but at what cost??
Besides, how are they planning on sustaining Canadian population?? Are they going to increase immigration to Canada fivefold to over a million people a year?? What about immigrants with children are they going to be let into the country?? That would be unfair to the rest of us.
Antonia, I think that I have a better idea why not ban all abortions and set up a law that men upon providing proof of paternity will automatically get custody of children that they sired.
In this way women would be relived from having to bear full responsibility for their poor choices of sexual partners, and be free to seek better ones (nine months of pregnancy and childbirth) is not that harsh punishment for a night of fun. Men would become much more responsible for their sexual behaviour, old hags that had their asses scraped so many times that they no longer are able to get pregnant will have many cute babies with uncertain parentage to choose from and adopt without spending a fortune on it and having child stolen from poor single mother that is trying to find for herself reason for her own existence.
All nonsense of deadbeat dads would disappear overnight and we would scrap Family Responsibility Office and Family Courts. Divorce rates would plummet as women who truly love their children will sacrifice their freedom to find new and better partner for company of their own kids.
Antonia, this is much better deal than gender equality without kids, you better talk to Harper about that.
Posted by: Karol Karolak | 9-Mar-08 9:38:42 AM
I must respond to the opening 'statement' by Grant Brown. Most of the comments you make concerning the law is absolutely accurate and correct......in Canada.
What you fail to recognize is much of the legal stats you quote (ie. regarding derelict mothers), do not pertain to the Dominican Republic.
Having known this mother personally for many years and having stood by her as Mr Thomas Zinz continues to buy and bribe the judicial system in the DR, I am outraged that a blog such as yours would be so quick to condemn the very type of woman you should be supporting.
This woman was abused in the DR. She had to get out and was told the only way to go was to leave and come back with Canadian legal assistance to get her children out of an abusive situation.
That was 6 years ago and she is still fighting to get her kids out. Her ex-husband has broken every law, bribed every official (some of whom were caught and subsequently fired.....a judge included) and yet she still cannot get her children free from this lunatic.
When she was 'caught' abducting her kids into Canada, she had paid a lawyer to get paper that would allow her to travel to Canada with the children. Her lawyer told her that she accomplished this task. She had no idea that the paper were, in fact, completely fake and she would be arrested as soon as she arrived in Canada. That lawyer has since been charged and disbarred in the DR. Debbie played no role in this falsification of documents.....she was more surprised than anyone when she was arrested at the airport.
She begged the police to simply take the children to the hospital to be examined before they put them back on a plane to return to a third world country.....the police refused to send the kids to the hospital.
Due to the corrupt court system on the DR, we continually make the error (you especially) of forgetting that very point. We cannot compare their system to ours, it is not the same. Thomas Zinz is an evil man (I met him) and it is about time someone said the truth about this story,
Grant Brown, shame on you for trusting what you read in papers and not getting the full story first. This is a woman that needs someone to help her ........these are kids that need someone to help them. They are Canadian citizens that were sent back on that plane to a third world country, where no one was allowed to speak up for THEIR rights. Shame on you, Grant Brown.
Posted by: NY Gracie | 9-Mar-08 11:42:11 PM
Thank you for sharing your "local knowledge" of this issue, NY Gracie.
Since there are always two sides to every story, especially in messy custody battles, a court decision is as reliable as any judgement, especially when there is an inherent bias toward granting mothers custody.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 10-Mar-08 12:49:55 AM
None of you know what really happened. How pathetic that an organization that is supposed to help and support woman is actually bashing them. My exhusband who is 43 is with a 17 year dominican "girl" who instructs my children to call "mommy". He is infected with syphillis which he contracted from sleeping with prostitutes while we were married. They are living in the most deplorable conditions imiganible and he is wanted by the German police for embezzling money from the German airforce, which is why he escaped to the Dominican Republic. My concern is for my children, not any of you narrow minded, uninformed mouth pieces!
Posted by: Debbie Craddock | 10-Mar-08 1:17:18 PM
According to the Ottawa Citizen, Ms. Craddock pleaded guilty to abduction and falsifying a court document. She pleaded guilty to these criminal offenses in a Canadian court, not an allegedly corrupt court in the Dominican Republic. She pleaded guilty in spite of her constitutional right in Canada to a lawyer to advise her of her rights, and of the implications of a guilty plea. A guilty plea requires that the convict swear under oath that the underlying facts are true -- a Canadian judge will not accept a guilty plea in the absence of that admission. If Ms. Craddock now says the underlying facts are not true after all, then she convicts herself of perjury. What's in poor guy to believe?
Posted by: Grant Brown | 10-Mar-08 11:37:51 PM
Oh, please............The options were a trial dragged out until 2008 which would include restricting me from travelling to the Dominican Republic and persuing custody of my children, or to plead guilty and have it over and done with. Do you REALLY believe everything you read in the papers????? What is a mother to do? Leave her children without anyone to look out for their best interests. Whom do you think was left standing here to bear the blame for the documents being falsified when the lawyer in the D.R. is out of Canadian jurisdiction???
Posted by: Debbie Craddock | 11-Mar-08 9:52:12 AM
Debbie: Your version of events doesn't pass the sniff test, I'm afraid. First, why would a lawyer falsify court documents on his own initiative, and risk being disbarred? What incentive would he have to set you up? Second, when a lawyer is disbarred, that fact and the reasons for it are a matter of public record. Producing that evidence would surely create a reasonable doubt. Third, my initial comment had very little to do with any he-said, she-said details. It was a comment on the judge's leniency *given the admissions you had made in Court.* It was a comment on the hypocrisy of saying what a "terrible thing" it is for you to be without your children, while at the same time routinely granting other mothers permission to move with their children to another city or province, against the wishes of fathers. Isn't it also a "terrible thing" for these fathers to unable to see their children when they wish to?
Posted by: Grant Brown | 11-Mar-08 11:34:48 AM
The sniff test? Has your nose every been to the Domincan Republic? All of you expertise knowledge is based on the system we have in place here. As to the lawyer's motive......the same as every other poor Domincan national............MONEY. Public record, you have to be kidding. Have you ever been to a court house in the D.R. They don't have computers and orders are still typed with one finger on a typewriter by a young girl who is lucky if she has a grade 6 education. Asfar as the risk of the lawyer being disbarred, you again make the assumption that there is a way to track and find her in a country where people live in the "campeau". Holed up in little wooden shacks with no electricity or running water, let alone an actual street sign or house number. They don't even have a DMV licensing system or a computer to track owners of vehicles or the ability to issue tickets. As far as the laws, driving without a license or a seatbelt, no problem. Drinking and driving, also not an offence.
Do us all a favour Grant and take a trip down there. Then at least when you return you can write an article about something you ACTUALLY know something about.
I lived their for 6 years so forgive me if I am going to rely on my first hand knowledge of that country, rather than the ramblings of someone who sits behind a desk and stares at governement buildings from his window................
Posted by: Debbie Craddock | 12-Mar-08 6:13:07 AM
Ms Craddock, I wouldn't get too worked up about Mr Brown's comments if I were you. He is just a guy on an obsessive mission and, despite being a practicing lawyer, does not really seem to be able to defend his case when legitimate points are made that run contrary to his arguments - he just keeps repeating his original points over and over. It is indeed unfortunate that there are some fathers out there who are deprived of contact with their children, but I don't think Mr Brown is helping their case by focusing on those obsessed with seeing themselves as victims of "feminists" and "the system."
Best of luck to you.
Posted by: A ZZ | 26-Mar-08 5:33:20 PM
I would no believe a thing this Mrs. Craddock has to say regaring her sentence. This lady as been selling FAKE tiffany and co for years and is just about to get caught! She has made up FAKE invoices from Tiffany and co to make people believe that it's REAL. So many times did i ask her if it was real and her answer was always yes. 100's of ppl are victims of her FRAUD. About time this lady gets caught!
Posted by: Kate | 7-May-08 12:43:45 PM
Debbie Craddock wrote: "None of you know what really happened. How pathetic that an organization that is supposed to help and support woman is actually bashing them. My exhusband who is 43 is with a 17 year dominican "girl" who instructs my children to call "mommy". He is infected with syphillis which he contracted from sleeping with prostitutes while we were married. They are living in the most deplorable conditions imiganible and he is wanted by the German police for embezzling money from the German airforce, which is why he escaped to the Dominican Republic."
Yes, so please tell us why you picked him. Three billion men to choose from and he came out the winner? How did that happen?
Debbie Craddock wrote: "My concern is for my children, not any of you narrow minded, uninformed mouth pieces!"
Given the well-established bias the courts have demonstrated (in favour of the mother), one wonders what reason the courts could have found not to give custody to you. But you're not going to tell us, are you?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 7-May-08 1:09:03 PM
Debbie Craddock wrote: “Oh, please............The options were a trial dragged out until 2008 which would include restricting me from travelling to the Dominican Republic and persuing custody of my children, or to plead guilty and have it over and done with. Do you REALLY believe everything you read in the papers?????”
So you took the quick and easy way out. You wouldn’t have plead out unless you or your lawyer thought there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction. That tells me that you were probably guilty. And your angry rants tell me that the papers are probably a more reliable source of information than you are.
Debbie Craddock wrote: “What is a mother to do? Leave her children without anyone to look out for their best interests.”
A mother is to abstain from criminal behaviour, abstain from abusive behaviour, abstain from poor taste in men, and care for any children she has. If she avoids the first three, it’s amazing how much easier the fourth one becomes.
Debbie Craddock wrote: “Whom do you think was left standing here to bear the blame for the documents being falsified when the lawyer in the D.R. is out of Canadian jurisdiction???”
Can you prove they were falsified, or are we just supposed to take your word for it?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 7-May-08 1:14:12 PM
Post a comment