Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Entrepreneurial civil rights | Main | PCPO Leadership election will be too soon »

Friday, March 20, 2009

Harper's hypocrisy on families

In last weekend's speech to the Manning Centre conference in Ottawa, Prime Minister Stephen Harper stated that his brand of conservatism is founded on freedom, faith, and family. I'll leave it to others to discuss the merits of his advocacy of the first two. Here I'd like to comment on the Conservative government's record of promoting families. In short, it has no record to speak of.

The biggest threat to families in Canada does not come from gay marriage, or abortion, or any of the other traditional social-conservative hobby-horses. It comes from divorce, or more generally, separation, which affects almost half of the children in Canada at some point in their lives. Specifically, the threat comes from how our courts routinely mishandle custody disputes upon separation.

Courts of law have become the most destructive influence on families for one simple reason: judges have a fulsome disrespect for the value of fatherhood. That's why, in the vast majority of cases that come before them, they automatically relegate fathers to the status of visitors in their children's lives. They typically grant children access to their fathers every other weekend, and staunchly refuse to enforce even that trifling amount of contact when mothers abroate it. If mothers wish to relocate with the children to an inconvenient distance, judges eagerly oblige.

What does Prime Minister Harper propose to do about this atrocious state of affairs? Absolutely nothing! For eleven years, the Parliamentary report "For the Sake of the Child," which advocates a legal presumption of equal shared parenting after separation, has sat in the gorgeous Parliamentary Library collecting dust. Anyone who had hoped a Conservative government might pick it up and use it to promote a family-friendly agenda has been sadly disappointed.

But now we have a genuine alternative. In his book The Rights Revolution, Michael Ignatieff had this to say about restoring sanity to our family-dispute system:

...this crisis is too complex to be blithely blamed on “deadbeat dads” alone. In hearings before a parliamentary committee in Canada in 1998, groups of fathers bitterly complained that they were bearing the brunt of public blame for what has happened to the family. In fact, they claimed that they were discriminated against. Courts were favouring mothers over fathers in custody disputes, and the divorce process was being abused by lawyers despoiling working men of their assets. These groups demanded that the “custody and access” regime created by the Divorce Act of 1985 be replaced with a “shared parenting” regime in which both parents were given equal rights to bring up their children. These are sensible and overdue suggestions, and the fact that they’re being made shows that men and women are struggling to correct the rights revolution, so that equality works for everyone. [pp. 105-6; footnote omitted, emphasis added]

And further:

Families that divorce need help so that parenting responsibilities can be genuinely shared, not reluctantly conceded in rigid custody-and-access schemes that end up dividing children from their parents. We need to create new cheap and efficient institutions that mediate family conflict instead of impoverishing families with exorbitant legal costs. [p. 110]

On the campaign trail last fall, one shared parenting advocate asked Mr. Ignatieff if he still believed those words. He said he did. If Liberal Leader Ignatieff were to commit to implementing that change in his first term of office, he would do more to fix what ails Canada than anyone since Brian Mulroney negotiated free trade.

Now that Stephen Harper has abandoned the field, Ignatieff deserves a chance.

Posted by Grant Brown on March 20, 2009 | Permalink

Comments

The biggest threat to families in Canada does not come from gay marriage, or abortion, or any of the other traditional social-conservative hobby-horses. It comes from divorce, since in Alberta there is no legal separation.. note this fact 30 percent of evangelical Christians practice divorce even cause many pastors counsel it often, they are sex maniacs who like to keep their options open, eleven though God hates divorce.

http://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/01/02/divorce-and-remarriage-in-the-christian-church/

Posted by: thenonconformer | 2009-03-21 12:46:44 AM


You lying piece of sh*t Grant.

I donated money to the F4J candidate last election and can tell you that the Liberals and their coalition partners the Bloc explicitly campaigned against equal parenting.

Ignatieff says he supports lots of things but most of us are intelligent enough not to take a Liberal (!) at his word and you know better. If the F4J guys heard you saying that Iggy and the Liberals are supportive of equal parenting...you'd have my sympathy, because it would be a slap in their faces.

Have you read the Liberal Pink Book II, Grant? Of course not, nobody in Canada reads policy. Well it contains a provision to make divorce *more* favourable towards women. And they campaigned on it last election!

Stephen Harper had and has a minority, you are an infant for blaming him for not making changes to family law because he would immediately be defeated. You're smart enough to know that, which brings into question your honesty.

Why doesn't the Western Standard join the Progressive Bloggers? You are mostly gay marriage militants, you hate Harper more than anyone I've seen, we know you are marijuana activists, so why not embrace your true nature and head on down to the truck stop, so to speak? Terrence and Grant and others are openly supporting Ignatieff and the Liberal party, why not make it official and join the LPC?

Put your money where your mouth is. F4J deserves the support of libertarians and anyone else who recognizes the horrid injustices done in family law. Instead of whining about how the CPC has gone left, send money to F4J and their candidates like I did.

Once more for posterity, here is Grant Brown declaring his support for the Liberal Party of Canada:

"Ignatieff deserves a chance."

Wow. Not even hiding it anymore. We've got Janet and Jaws and Matthew for the NDP, we've got Terrence and Grant for the Liberals, anyone else wanna show their true colours?

Posted by: F4J Needs Your $ | 2009-03-21 2:07:51 AM


cheap and efficient government institutions? Wholly milk!

Posted by: xiat | 2009-03-21 2:56:45 AM


As always "more" government intervention into what should be private civil affairs is shrouded in "feel good" Bullsh*t. And I'd guess that as always any new legislation comes with more "people control". At what point, buried deep in this new legislation, does the government get remove children from parent who don't conform?
I don't care how many roses you put around it...private affairs are exactly that - PRIVATE.
And the (CONservative)government is once again way off its leash.

Posted by: JC | 2009-03-21 8:20:48 AM


Hey if you don't like Harper's approach to families, wait until the Liebrals get back in thanks to Ontario! The only families they support are tied to the Mafia.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-03-21 8:37:39 AM


F4J: I won't speak for others, but I'm curious why you think I would ever or have ever supported the NDP. I never have. It's interesting, in this context, that you would accuse Grant of being a lying piece of shit...

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2009-03-21 8:45:36 AM


I'm sick of "families". Why do families get all the kick backs and tax breaks because they had kids? Why does the individual get the shaft?

What makes families more deserving of breaks when the individual is getting screwed over by taxes?

Posted by: Chris | 2009-03-21 9:35:08 AM


Chris, I am married and have 3 kids, yet I agree with you. Nobody should get preferential treatment.

JC, I agree with you. The best the government can do so long as they are involved, is to make everyone equally pissed off. And even that would require our polititians to have a super human level of wisdom, which wouldn't benefit them if they acted on it.

Posted by: TM | 2009-03-21 10:19:20 AM


The ship sank when they brought in "The Dept. for the status of woman".
Where is the "Dept. for the status of men" ??

Posted by: peterj | 2009-03-21 10:58:52 AM


F4J, I'll join Peter is correcting your statement: I am not an NDP supporter and have never claimed to be on this site.

If I'm guilty of any partisanship, it would be for the Libertarian Party and my friend Dennis Young.

However, I try to focus on policies and people I think are useful to the advancement of liberty. Every party from time to time offers up something valuable. Among the mainstream parties, I believe the Conservatives probably represent our best hope in advancing liberty, however faint.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-03-21 11:29:36 AM


"You lying piece of sh*t Grant...

Terrence and Grant and others are openly supporting Ignatieff and the Liberal party, why not make it official and join the LPC?...

Wow. Not even hiding it anymore. We've got Janet and Jaws and Matthew for the NDP, we've got Terrence and Grant for the Liberals, anyone else wanna show their true colours?"

Looks like this F4J activist is a partisan whore masquerading as a advocate for father's rights. How sad. F4J and the CPC aren't the same organization. Assuming they are is an insult to fathers who want change no matter who brings it.

Matthew, the Tories suck (not that you don't know this). They're false hope. Better to keep with your idea of just supporting people who advance liberty whatever their party.

Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2009-03-21 11:46:44 AM


For some people, to criticise the present government automatically amounts to supporting the Liberals, NDP or whatever. This is very wrong-headed, since no political party is ever 100% right all the time. Before this causes another tangent I am not a supporter of the Libertarian Party either.

I agree that the "family court" issue as it exists is a serious threat to families, in particular to the children whose welfare is ignored. However, I do not see it as the major threat, but it is one of many. SSM is another threat regardless of the claim otherwise, but the blame actually lies with the creation and recognition of common-law marriage. While free abortion on demand at any stage is a serious issue, I would not place it among the direct threats to traditional marriage. The existing tax system however continues to discriminate against families (married ones) especially with a stay-at-home spouse.

As for the comment that families raising children should not receive any special treatment nor status, it ignores that those children are the future of this country. Those children will be working and paying taxes to support the retirement of others. Without them there is no population growth, and in fact the existing population cannot even sustain itself. Unless you support massive immigration to make up for the short fall, I suggest you reconsider your remarks.

Posted by: Alain | 2009-03-21 12:46:24 PM


To be clear: I am urging fathers, and family-friendly people everywhere, to be swing voters on what is the single most important medium-to-long-term issue facing Canadians today. And it certainly looks like Ignatieff is the best hope right now on that issue. Still, I'm not a starry-eyed Liberal enthusiast: I do not recommend jumping on that bandwagon without a commitment from Ignatieff to implement equal shared parenting in his first mandate.

Political parties change policy as often as they change leaders. Ignatieff is not Dion - when it comes to parenting issues or many others. I'm not the first commentator to notice that on almost every issue, the Liberals and the Conservatives are positioning themselves so close to each other that "you couldn't separate their policies by sliding a piece of paper edgewise between them." (Was it Chantelle Hebert, or someone else, who used this phrase?) Given that positioning, it is entirely rational for swing voters to pressure the leaders to out-flank the other on something that genuinely makes a difference to them.

Posted by: Grant Brown | 2009-03-21 12:49:34 PM


"As for the comment that families raising children should not receive any special treatment nor status, it ignores that those children are the future of this country. Those children will be working and paying taxes to support the retirement of others..."
Posted by: Alain | 2009-03-21 12:46:24 PM

This is a common fallacy, that unless good things are subsidized by government, they won't be supplied in sufficient quantity to meet demand.

No parent raises children out of the abstract contemplation that "children are the future of this country," and that they are needed to "support the retirement of others." At least I hope not. Parents have children, ideally, because they seek an outlet for their love, and the challenge of producing fine citizens.

Alain, when your children look after me in my retirement home, they won't be doing it for free, out of the goodness of their big warm hearts. They will be paid for it. That's all the incentive people need to look after others in their retirements. They don't need the added "incentive" of feeling morally obliged to change my linens because I paid taxes for their education decades earlier.

In fact, childless people are hit doubly hard by your socialistic scheme: First they have to pay taxes to support other people's children, reducing their ability to save for their own retirement; then they have to pay the wages of the next generation from their meagre retirement savings. There is no reciprocity here.

Posted by: Grant Brown | 2009-03-21 1:08:53 PM


I am a board member of F4J and the poster(s) who is using our brand are using it without this board members knowledge or permission of our national board. There may be more on that later from our National Coordinator.

As an individual advocate for shared and equal parenting Grant is on the same page as me but I, and many others, will not give up on the CPC. We have allies within the party who will try and seek changes through a PMB. I will work with any party, in a non-partisan manner, to look at the best interest of my daughters. They have meaning to me that transcends everything let alone the pettiness of party politics. No sensible person will succeed without being realistic.

Posted by: Mike Murphy | 2009-03-21 3:46:46 PM


Who needs the Libs, Dips and Bloc when we have a band of social misfits at the Western Stupid bashing Stephen Harper.

Here we have the best Prime Minister since the Second World War and you jackasses are too stupid to recognize that he is in a minority government and must undo nearly 40 years of liberal dominated socialist brainwashing.

Your only redeeming feature is that your stupidity exceeds the bounds of logic and extends into humour.

How many months of operating capital you guys got left? I keep asking and you keep avoiding. My guess is that you are over 90 days on bill payments and your revenue prospects have been revised downward twice in the last 3 months.

Not looking good, is it?

Posted by: epsilon | 2009-03-21 4:25:47 PM


Grant, do not try to twist my words around, which is a common trend with the Left. No where did I suggest that parents have and raise children with an ulterior motive. You avoid dealing with the population issue, so one can assume you are not concerned about a population being able to replace itself at the very least. This comes down to basic economics and has nothing to do with socialism.

Posted by: Alain | 2009-03-21 4:45:04 PM


While I cannot say for sure if the person using the acronym f4j is indeed an f4j member or not, I can say that they are not following the rules of conduct that official Fathers 4 Justice members are expected to adhere to.

They also haven't been paying very good attention because we have a whole section on our website dedicated to Michael Ignatieff and his views on Equal Parenting.

This is a non-partisan issue and yes, Harper did have a chance to take a crack at it, and thus far has failed, though others in his party have not.

While we appreciate the vehemence with which this person ascribes to f4j, but it would be most helpful if one does their homework before spouting ANY partyline, including that of F4J.

I congratulate Grant on this article and pray he keeps up the good work.

Posted by: Kris Titus - National Coordinator, Fathers 4 Justice Canada | 2009-03-21 5:10:13 PM


The general populace just has no clue until they are entangled in the Family Court web of deceit themselves---ooops then it is too late...My message is "Be afraid, be very afraid". All gov't parties are aware of the atrocious acts bestowed upon broken down families once the Divorce Industry has them in their sights, yet they decidedly choose to leave it on the backburner. For The Sake of the Children was a well researched exercise that was slow in coming and 11 long years after it's release and then quick shove back in the box; the state of the divorcing family is that much deeper into the twists and turns of the bowels of Hades. It is disgustingly cruel and business as usual for all the players in the family law business.
Grant hasn't felt, but obviously has smelled and seen the inside of the Divorce beastie , no doubt about it---but counting on the Neo-Liberals to correct the injustices their own party gave birth to.....I just don't buy it

Posted by: bw | 2009-03-21 5:24:05 PM


I think my exact words about Iggy were "same policies, less disappointment." Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Liberals.

And what's this claim that PMJ and Matthew Johnston support the NDP? The "argument" looks something like this:

1. PMJ and MJ think marijuana should be decriminalized.

2. The NDP sort of, kind of, agree with this.

Therefore: PMJ and MJ support the NDP.

Some clever reasoning, there. At least one step above this:

1. Hitler was a human being.
2. F4J is a human being(?)
Therefore: F4J is Hitler. I'm not too sure about that second premise, though...

And epsilon... sheesh, beg the question much? We don't think Stephen Harper is that great. We have presented reasons why we think he's not that great. You're not addressing those reasons if your sole response is: "No way, Stephen Harper IS great!"

As for the comparative greatness of Harper, I dunno. I tend to remember a chap of loose morals named Jean Chretien who was at least able to keep a balanced budget.

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-03-21 7:25:06 PM


You guys at the WS must really be scraping the bottom of the barrel when you have to start running banner ads for gay websites.

Posted by: The Stig | 2009-03-22 8:07:27 AM


The issue of equal parenting as default in cases of separation and divorce has been in the media forefront for the past two years. Mr. Harper has dropped the wishes of Canadians, the findings of Academics, Judges and Lawyers and health professionals. Mr. Ignatieff party has opposed equal parenting for over two decades, and actually pushed the Female Caucus Pink Paper during the last election. Most recently, Mr. Ignatieff announced that his party will gatekeep their present platform until the next election. To Mr. Ignatieff, we have waited about fifty years for proper divorce reform. I am among hundreds of thousands of voters who would support a equal parenting political party.

Posted by: Mark Bogan | 2009-03-22 9:10:13 AM


Here we have the best Prime Minister since the Second World War and you jackasses are too stupid to recognize that he is in a minority government and must undo nearly 40 years of liberal dominated socialist brainwashing.
Posted by: epsilon | 2009-03-21 4:25:47 PM

Then why is it that everything he's doing looks just like the last 40 years of stupid socialist brainwashing? Wake up Epsi, you're hero is just another puppet.

Posted by: JC | 2009-03-22 10:04:18 AM


You llibertarians do not understand that undoing 40 years of liberal brainwashing requires incremental steps. Going cold turkey will result in free enterprises being rejected by the electorate.

This is reality, something Llibertarians do not understand. You are so caught up living in your Ayn Rand fantasy world and your philosophy has condemned you to being such social misfits that you are unable to comprehend this.

Posted by: epsilon | 2009-03-22 2:07:54 PM


The Stig: I think this is the second time I'm explaining this to you... The ads on the left are Google generated ads. We do not control the content.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2009-03-22 2:11:07 PM


The ads on the left are Google generated ads. We do not control the content.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2009-03-22 2:11:07 PM

So you don't control what Google ads can be put on your website. Hmmm. One of your "bloggers" threatened to ban me, well Jaworski I'm banning the WS for putting gay ads on a site that does not clearly identify they are there. The WS obviously doesn't care or mind that an 10 year old kid can click through to a gay website?
Here's the sound the WS site makes. Plonk

Posted by: The Stig | 2009-03-22 2:38:48 PM


You llibertarians do not understand that undoing 40 years of liberal brainwashing requires incremental steps. Going cold turkey will result in free enterprises being rejected by the electorate.
Posted by: epsilon | 2009-03-22 2:07:54 PM

Free enterprise rejected by the electorate?
You're making this up as you go along aren't you?
How can anyone reject a basic law of nature?
And you call "us" delusional. Good Lord! You really are Out there aren't you...Sorry Epsi, the sun may rise in the east, but it is doesn't come out of the PM's ass.
He is just a puppet figurehead and that's all there is to it. He simply can not effect any change, nor is he trying to.
If he can't do what he needs to do as a conservative then he should just stop wasting everyone's time and money.
Then maybe we could get a "real" conservative with real conservative values to head up what's left of the fast deteriorating CPC.

Posted by: JC | 2009-03-22 6:23:37 PM


The WS obviously doesn't care or mind that an 10 year old kid can click through to a gay website?
Here's the sound the WS site makes. Plonk


Posted by: The Stig | 2009-03-22 2:38:48 PM

Sure Stig, a kid looking for gay content will google up "Western Standard" to get there.
You really don't do a lot of actual thinking do you...

Posted by: JC | 2009-03-22 6:25:00 PM


JC, it was a typo, free enterpriseRs. Needless to say you are completely impractical and incapable of thinking strategically or long term. Get it through your head that it will take a lot of time to convert the thinking of an electorate that has been poisoned by 40 years of socialist thinking.

HOW COME YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND SUCH A SIMPLE THING?

When Harper attacked llibertarians for being immature and irresponsible, he had people like you in mind.

Now go back to pray for St. Christopher or whoever is your saint for lost causes.

Posted by: epsilon | 2009-03-22 7:07:19 PM


Terrence Watson, you are really stupid blaming the deficit on Harper. Look around, idiot, there is a deep recession underway.

God, you people are stupied

Posted by: epsilon | 2009-03-22 7:09:57 PM


Epsilon:

It isn't like all of the nearly $40 billion deficit in 2009-10 can be blamed on the slowing economy. That $40 billion is a record, by the way.

Congratulations: the bestest Prime Minister evah(!) is creating the biggest deficit since the government started keeping records about these things.

Harper is a disaster. He didn't have to sacrifice his principles in favor of an orgy of new spending -- which almost certainly won't get him the majority he covets. All it will do is debase those principles and keep Canadians from having a true alternative to the socialists.

In the long run, you don't fight left-wing madness by moving to the left. What's hard to understand about that?

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-03-22 7:30:12 PM


"Congratulations: the bestest Prime Minister evah(!) is creating the biggest deficit since the government started keeping records about these things."

This narrative has repeatedly been defeated right here at the Standard, in threads you have participated in, Terrence, check the archives. IIRC, your inability to do long division was a bit of an obstacle, as well as a source of great amusement for some of us.

I'm not doing it a fifth time unless I get paid, and paid well. Five grand. I want five grand to explain to you stooges why Harper actually has the best fiscal record in Canadian history, or "evar", as our flamboyant and obnoxious friend likes to say. Hell of a claim, and I can back it up easily.

What say Ter? Five grand, that's like only two kilos, you won't even miss it from your stash! Maybe use some of the revenue you get from the gay advertisements you run here? Hey, it's not me saying your website is gay, it's Google ;-)

Posted by: Narrative Breaker | 2009-03-23 12:44:36 AM


So let me get this straight. The way to defeat 40 years of left-wing brainwashing is to advance and implement left-wing ideas. All Stephen Harper has done is solidify Keynesianism and big government spending. The Libs will also use these big decifits to attack the Cons in future elections.

Posted by: Charles | 2009-03-23 12:50:13 PM



No Charlie, it is to INCREMENTALLY move away from left wing ideas and back to the centre.

Good God, the poor man is in a minority and has to get a budget through a leftoid phalanx in the house.

But you are so naive Charlie, that you think Harper, by proposing a right wing budget would actually get it passed.

Charlie, you are beyond naive. You are a fool and you expose your entire llibertarian group as a bunch of impractical fantasizing utopians.


Posted by: epsilon | 2009-03-23 2:37:54 PM


Epsilon,

Stephen Harper no longer has any credibility. You speak of naivety but you evidently have not given an ounce of thought to the situation. Stephen Harper will never again be able to criticize Keynesian ideas because he implemented them. The Libs and NDP will have a field day with it. Once again, the idea that gov't can spend to get us out of recession has been hammered into the public's consciousness. When we get out of this, the story-line will once again be that gov't spending was the solution.

And this budget was not incremental. Did you actually read it? It was a left-wing budget.

Posted by: Charles | 2009-03-23 3:15:10 PM


Oh ... and btw. This budget will make the recession worse and waste our money. I for one grow weary of government after government that believes they can throw our money out the window, whether it be for socialism or incrementalism.

Posted by: Charles | 2009-03-23 3:18:48 PM


The courts of law are biased against fathers, big surprise! You want to blame Harper who has an unstable minority government. Look in the mirror! This problem is largely the fault of Canadian men! For 40 years, we have let the feminists roll over us without the slightest resistance. Heck, we have even voted in left-wing governments(Liberals, NDP provincial level) that were in the backpockets of the feminists! Trudeau was a socialist who pushed the radical feminist agenda on affirmative action, abortion, appointment of leftist judges, human rights commissions, and gun control! Yet, we kept reelecting him(more men voted Liberal than PC or Social Credit). We let the feminists use the killing spree of a twisted lunatic in Montreal(a man who deserved the death penalty) to push for gun control. They began to link men and guns with violence against women. Yet, we largely sat there and let them do this! We whine about politically correct leftist judges but keep electing the same Liberal governments that appoint these nuts! We allow the killing of the unborn at any time for any reason in this country(something that very few countries permit). When we say anything about it, the feminists jump on us with their "my body and abortions are no big deal" bit. They seem to disregard the idea that the unborn child is a living being and not a piece of playdoh. What do Canadian men do? We give in to these loudmouths and let our unborn children die. What happened to us? Canadian men use to be a tough as nails bunch! We taught the Germans and the Communists not to mess with us! Now, we have our women fighting in ground combat for us(something which most western countries like Australia, New Zealand, Britain, and the U.S. don't). I knew a guy who used to say "A man who lets his woman do his fighting for him is not much of a man at all." Is this what the men of Canada are reduced to? Come on, even in socialist countries like FInland and Norway, the men have managed to hang on to their guts. Just ask any Russian about the courage of the Finnish men(read up on Winter War).

Posted by: Jacob | 2009-03-23 3:37:06 PM


Charlie, tell me how you would have got a conservative budget passed in view of the minority situation and the state of the economy?

And don't tell me you would have put the country into an election again a few months after the last one.

Tell me how you would do it?

Posted by: epsilon | 2009-03-23 4:50:33 PM


Jacob, how right you are. I agree that the blame for our present situation lies with Canadians in general, and especially with the men. What I call the war against the family has been going on for the past 40+ years, so the blame cannot in honesty be put on Harper. He continues to disappoint me on several issues and yet impresses me on others. Still there is no evidence that any political party is ready to solve the problem, and until Canadians, in particular Canadian men, demand it nothing will change.

Posted by: Alain | 2009-03-23 5:18:27 PM


I try very hard not to post comments on these Blogs and thus keep away from controversy. However, at the same time I seem to learn much from them by quietly observing and absorbing some of the comments and points of view. I can tell you that these exchanges have been very interesting for me in terms of my ongoing political education. In terms of what I do it was especially intriguing though to read Jacob and Alain and their views on Canadian Men, Courage and their Rights. Their opinions and points of view were exceptional and well presented and to me as Fathers Rights Activist especially accurate. I would like to ask them both to email me in Ottawa: Jeremy Swanson at [email protected]

Posted by: "Swannie" | 2009-03-23 10:16:04 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.