bjre

I have no resource like the mainstream media have. That is an aspect to see at least Canada is not better than China in free speech. Again lies come from non-sense source. Controlled by CIA for aggressively acquire interest all over the world. With the similar purpose with WMD reports. Full of lies. May be based on the material from CIA. ----- Theoretically, Canada has better freedom of speech, practically, I did not find it. Why? because lawyers are too powerful here. So the decision made of the legal system is determined by the ability of the lawyer instead of fact. So every word you said can be an evidence against you. That greatly restricted the freedom of speech. Now someone want legislate on cyber-bully. While in China, the decision of the legal system is determined by fact, no oral evidence is considered unless you can provide record or written form. This makes Chinese feel free to talk any topic. If you go to China and able to understand what people talk, you will find the topics of every group of Chinese are very wide, they talk about what happened in US/Taiwan/Japan/France/Iraq/England/Canada and everywhere and they have ideas of that, lots of ideas are very different from government version, but when you come to Canada, most people just have no opinion / no interest about the most of such topics. They have much less interest in politics. They just care about sports or idols, which lots of Chinese people enjoy too. The media gives people selected information years and years here, no matter how smart you are, if you can not get enough correct information from every aspect, how can you draw correct conclusion. The most like result is you get something like blind men and elephant. So it is inevitably people will support Iraq war when they heard Iraq has WMD. And it is not surprise that people here fear of SARS when it was reported because they have so little correct knowledge of those.

Than take a look at the exchange rate between CDN and CNY http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/currency/conve...NY&from=CAD

Where is the survey, is it in US or in Canada? Is there any survey on the thinking of Afganistan people? And do you have a survey on how many Canadians know if there is different opinion on the war in Afghanistan people? And how many Canadians believe there was WMD exist in Iraq before the war launched? How many Iraqis think that exist? You can easily find the media has successfully controlled the thinking of most Canadians and Americans. So even if Canadians were given a chance to speak, they talk in a way the media wish them to say. Their personal thinking was disabled. That is the result of lack of freedom of speech so that media did not give enough information from every aspect. That is the result that some of politician loves for their own votes. Thousands? where did you get the information. There were some people jailed as you mentioned, however, they were not jailed for free expression, they were jailed for violence and become a threat to other peoples life and properties. I am sure if anyone did that kind of things in Canada, the cops will be much hard to deal with them than in China.

It has no point to talk about if I know the freedom of speech or not. What is your explanation on the facts I wrote in post #2? What is your proof for you statement "there are NO times China has better freedom of speech than Canada." in post #3?

CBC I guess it is true, just take a look of the exchange rate history between CDN and USD, you will find it.

I have never been a Chinese communist party member. I did write an application for the party when I was a university student. I never give it to anyone and threw it. I worked for many years in China branch of US company, German company when I was in China. Now I have been in Canada for 7 years. I went back to visit China last year and last January. I get information from both side, unlike most Chinese, they get information from China media only, unlike most Canadians, they get information from Canada/US media only. I am totally clear about the truth of current situation in both China and Canada.

Sometimes, China has better freedom of speech than Canada. For example: in China, one can say: "I will kill you" It can be joke. It can happen when a person express his hate to someone. It can happen for other reasons ... In Canada, when a person say this, he will be face accuse and sent to jail. Many things we can not find from media here that the topics are controlled by power people. It is hard to find different voices in mainstream media. For example, you can hardly find what different groups of Afghanistan people think when US invade it. Another example, you can not find the Chinese people's point of view on Tipet ( http://en.tibet328.cn/04/ ) although more than 10,000 went to Ottawa last April to express their different opinion.

I've heard Canadian like peace. If only Canada can save some hundred Canadian soldier's life from the war and from involving in any war in any place of the world and save several hundred tax dollars each year for everyone. Smile to others is better than go to other's home with a gun, especially when you feel need to talk to him again.

Why there is American Dream, but I have not heard of canadian dream? Is it because too many things are not allow to do in Canada? So most new ideas will be killed in Canada because it won't have any chance to implement. Even parents need to be qualified according to CAS. I guess human being might be disappeared long time ago in the competition with other animals before CAS can invent such rules if their ancestor were so qualified parents.

The education system need to be checked. * Why children going home will say: "why other kids need not to do this" when parents ask them to learn a little more. * Why lots of new immigrant students from China, they can be the genius in their classroom at the beginning. * Why each Olympic Mathematics Competitions, Canadian team has so many Chinese immigrant kids inside. * Why Canadian patent number is much less than Japan, China, and Korea. And with the CAS exist, teachers and parents will not dare to ask the kids to learn a little more. Lots of people don't willing to have kids. Some of the parents has to send their kids abroad to receive better education and avoid harassment from CAS. So the government need more people to contribute CPP (Is this going to bankrupt in the future?). But there are not so many people. That's why Canada have to rely on immigrant. When immigrant comes, they face the same problem, and the worse is, they can not use their professional skill to work in Canada to contribute their energy to the economy because they have no Canadian experience unless they go to college/university again and re-start from very beginning. So they have to compete with low income labor work that already suffered from high unemployment rate, so that they will consume more government supported programs that need everyone to pay for it by tax. No one in government can do anything on this because they care only about the interest of their own party, the fate of Canadian future is always lower priority compare with their own interest of cause. So leadership ability is always more important than integrity no matter which direction will the politician lead the country go. The time when the wealth be running away completely by the politicians, Canada will become another Iceland.

Child (or Agency) Protection? Posted by Rich Rigney, Coos Bay, November 15, 2008 9:37AM http://blog.oregonlive.com/myoregon/2008/1...protection.html "You guys do more damage to kids than the parents!" Most Child Protective Services Supervisors and caseworkers would consider this malicious slander. As a Child Protective Services caseworker of eight years, however, I know it to be true. I'm not alone. The above observation uttered by a loving parent with borderline intelligence is echoed by many. Consider the following irony lamented by Duke Law Professor, Doriane Lambelet Coleman (2006): "...in the name of saving children from the harm that their parents and guardians are thought to pose, states ultimately cause more harm to many children than they ever help." Few in the field argue that Child Protective Services ("CPS") nationally has myriad problems that are well documented in the form of media, research, congressional sub-committees and expert reports. Documentation supporting this fact is ubiquitous and readily available on-line. However, the most grievous problem is that those who can most benefit from this knowledge, those who might use it pragmatically to improve the lives of children and families - the caseworkers and supervisors of CPS - appear either ignorant of or indifferent to the damage that removal of children perpetuates. That is: the most profound problem with "Child Welfare" is that it is not about the welfare of the child. Rather, it is about the welfare of the agency itself. The internal paranoia that a "Cover-Your-Agency" (CYA) mentality creates has become so pervasive that most caseworkers and supervisors are determined not to make any decision that might jeopardize their career... and the children are afterthoughts. The agency hierarchy itself reinforces this CYA mentality due to its understandable desire to remain off the front page of newspapers. This "defensive social work" is helpful in preventing bureaucrat heads from rolling. The tragic wake of this status quo, however, is strewn with the lives of children and parents. Estimates I've come across in my research reckon that between one-third and two-thirds of those children currently in foster care nationally should be living with their parents. Furthermore, it has become undeniable that despite many saintly foster parents the government makes a poor parent. The research shows unequivocally that CPS should be loathe to remove kids from their homes because, in most cases, there is nowhere better to put them. As a result, the state is stuck between a rock and a hard place: remove children from marginal parents, causing well documented, irrevocable emotional damage (not to mention the physical and sexual abuse that occurs more frequently in foster care), or leave these children with parents who, arguably, should never have had kids in the first place-- the "lesser of two evils" if you will. Enter the "Safety Model." The state of Oregon has become one of the last ten percent of our nation's states to adopt a "Safety Model" guide to protecting our children, created by Wayne Holder, the man Oregon CPS has called the "foremost expert in child protection in the nation." (I encourage anyone interested to visit his website at www.actionchildprotection.org to understand Mr. Holder's credentials and the Safety Model as a whole.) "What do I have to do to get my kids back?!" Those of us in CPS have all heard it. It is inevitably the first question our clients have and it is echoed frequently until the kids are returned. The Safety Model forces Child Welfare to quantify their answer to this question. In my experience, most families don't care how long CPS monitors (or micromanages) their family as long as their kids can live with them in the process. Mr. Holder would probably site this as THE driving force behind the creation of the Safety Model. In quantifying their answer to parents' most pressing question, CPS must delineate for all parties and the court, the necessary "behaviors, conditions or circumstances" in the home required to "manage"- not eliminate- the safety threats that necessitated the removal of the children. The agency's answers must be "specific" (i.e. quantifiable). They must be "well articulated." They must be "least intrusive." They must be "well defined." They must provide a "benchmark" (i.e. they must be measurable). They represent the "official record and expectation" for parent-child reunification. The parents themselves need not change at all prior to the children being returned to the home. The Safety Model, in addition to its dictates that CPS be as "least intrusive" as possible in intervening to control threats to child safety, requires that these threats be "observable and specific," "out of control," "imminent" and expected to cause "severe" harm to a "vulnerable" child. No doubt for many of you this is a hard pill to swallow. These are unreasonably low standards for our most precious resource. You, like me, think children deserve more. The fact remains, it is irresponsible at best and abusive at worst to remove and/or withhold a child from his or her home upon the speculation that a "threat" of danger exists, when we know from the research that removal and placement of children in foster care is always detrimental. I'm not talking here about severe neglect or physical/sexual abuse. In five years with Oregon CPS (I worked for three in California previously) I have had only one case with such abuse (and the research puts this type of abuse at about 15 percent combined). The Safety Model is merely a tool, an attempt to minimize the trauma to children inflicted by their own government. There is no tool or legislation that will ever completely expunge child maltreatment or child deaths so long as the only requirement for parenthood is a capacity for coitus. I believe that if the state institutes a model, a tool envisioned by the "foremost expert in child protection in the nation," the state should actually use it. That is, if CPS is making the rules, they should follow them. Currently CPS (at least in Coos County, Oregon) is not, or not consistently. The sad yet necessary truth is that it is not the job of Child Protective Services to pick the best available situation for kids and place them there permanently. That would literally be kidnapping. Rather, it is the job of CPS to work with marginal parents and make them "safe" or capable of providing a "minimum standard of adequate care." It is CPS's job to make parents "safe," not "good." Again, it is also our job to be "least intrusive" in our intervention. In America we must accept freedom's costs with its benefits. As Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said, "There is nothing new in the realization that the Fourth Amendment [illegal search and seizure] protections come with a price." This is true of many other "protections," such as the right to procreate and parent. Unfortunately, Child Welfare is not held accountable for the unattributable damage to children caused by removal from their families and foster care. However, it is well-documented damage. Shouldn't we, like doctors, use our professional judgment to "first, do no harm," rather than using it to forecast the future? It is the children who pay the ultimate price for this unqualified prophesying. The Safety Model provides a useful tool that, if used correctly, can save many children from the fate of CPS being their only perpetrator. Rigney works in Child Protective Services in Coos Bay

Another movie (Disney cartoon) Lilo & Stitch Shows another reason for social workers take away kids ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilo_&_Stitch ): Quotation from the movie ( ):

A movie on foster care: Comment from http://community.mylifetime.com/community/...l-movie-america Talk About the Lifetime Original Movie, "America" A Message From Rosie I hope that people walk away from this movie with the understanding that there are half a million kids in need of help that are in dire situations. And the system right now is not set up to care for them. Our foster care system was set up to care for war orphans after World War II. It wasn't set up to take care of the orphans of living people. It's overwhelmed and needs to be revamped from the ground up. This movie is an accurate portrayal of what the foster care system is like in this country. This stuff is happening in our country ever day, and there's no solution in sight right now. It has to be put on the national agenda. It's something we have to deal with before there's another whole generation that is raised in and lost to the foster care system that's broken. America is the story of a young boy helped through the emotional roller-coaster of the foster care system by a caring psychiatrist. The movie stars Rosie O'Donnell, Ruby Dee and newcomer Philip Johnson. It airs Saturday, February 28 at 9 pm et/pt. Encores March 1 at 8 pm et/pt and March 3 at 9 pm et/pt. LifetimeDayna posted at 8:29am Thu Feb 12 250 comments. Last comment: March 7, 2009, 6:29 am

http://register.thestar.com/Article/510149 Another 200 cases to be probed Attorney General promises action as Goudge fears other mistakes likely Oct 02, 2008 04:30 AM Theresa Boyle Tracey Tyler staff reporters The commissioner who probed mistakes in 20 child-death investigations is concerned that wrongful convictions may have occurred in other cases and is urging the province to take a second look at myriad child deaths dating back 20 years. Justice Stephen Goudge yesterday noted that medical opinion has changed in the areas of shaken baby syndrome and pediatric head injuries. Deaths once considered criminally suspicious may now be viewed otherwise, he noted. Within hours of the report's release, Attorney General Chris Bentley promised that more than 200 past child-death investigations would be re-examined. "The significant evolution in pediatric forensic pathology related to shaken baby syndrome and pediatric head injuries warrants a review of certain past cases because of the concern that, in light of the change in knowledge, there may have been convictions that should now be seen as miscarriages of justice," Goudge wrote in his final report. During public hearings at the inquiry, Ontario's chief pathologist Michael Pollanen said a review of 142 infant deaths attributed to "shaken baby syndrome" between 1986 and 2006 is warranted. While the syndrome is still hotly debated in medical circles, new research shows that some children once thought to have died from being shaken in fact suffered head injuries from accidents and short falls, Pollanen said. The chief pathologist said the province should consider undertaking a probe similar to Britain's Goldsmith review, which looked at past cases after a mother was wrongly convicted for killing two babies. Ontario's $8.3 million Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology was sparked by errors pathologist Dr. Charles Smith made in 20 child-death investigations. In many of the cases, parents or caregivers were charged with criminal offences that "bear a significant social stigma," Goudge noted. Twelve of the cases resulted in findings of guilt and incarceration of individuals. In some cases siblings of deceased children were removed from their homes and placed in foster care or put up for permanent adoption. It was only at the inquiry that potential problems in other cases were brought to public light. Smith issued a statement following the release of the report, stating that he had participated "in good faith" with the inquiry. He said he "remains optimistic" that Goudge's report will have a positive impact on the practice of pediatric forensic pathology. In his four-volume report, Goudge made a total of 169 recommendations to restore the public's shaken confidence in pediatric forensic pathology. One of the recommendations was a continuation of a review of Smith's older homicide cases that were not part of the inquiry. The 200 cases Bentley said would be re-examined are presumably ones raised at the inquiry, all of which involved criminally suspicious deaths and homicides of children. Pathologists other than Smith worked on some of these cases. At a Queen's Park news conference, Public Safety Commissioner Rick Bartolucci apologized to Smith's victims. "I sincerely apologize on behalf of governments of Ontario, both past and present, to each and every individual who has suffered as a result of Dr. Charles Smith's work," he said. Government officials said a "framework" would be developed for compensation. Many of Goudge's recommendations touched on better training and accreditation of pathologists and additional funding for the forensic pathology system. Astonishingly, Smith was viewed as one of the nation's leading experts in pediatric forensic pathology and was often called upon by the courts as an expert in the field. Yet he didn't have formal forensic pathology training and he "lacked basic knowledge" about the field, Goudge said. The commissioner said the profession of forensic pathology needs to be beefed up with better education, more recruitment and more funding. Victims of the flawed-pathology debacle are calling for a criminal investigation into the conduct of Smith and his two former superiors in the Ontario coroner's office – Dr. James Young and Dr. Jim Cairns – with a view to laying criminal charges. All three should be prosecuted for obstruction of justice, said William Mullins-Johnson, who was wrongly convicted for the rape and murder of his niece, crimes for which he spent 12 years in jail. "They invented a crime here," he told reporters. "They just basically took it out of the air and said, `Let's get him.'" Brenda Waudby, who was wrongly charged with the murder of her 21-month-old daughter, agreed. "I believe Dr. Smith has his own issues," Waudby added. "Am I angry at him? No. I'm angry at the whole system. Not just Dr. Smith." - With files from Robert Benzie

A book again: Out of Control: Who's Watching Our Child Protection Agencies? (Paperback) by Brenda Scott (Author) http://www.amazon.com/Out-Control-Watching...s/dp/1563840693 Quotation from the book:

KIDS FALLING THRU THE CRACKS: THE FOSTER CARE NIGHTMARE http://familyrights.us/specials/walsh_4-16...alsh%20Show.htm There are more than half a million children and youth in the U.S. foster care system today. Studies reveal that children are 11 times more likely to be abused in state care than they are in their own homes, and 7 times more likely to die as a result of abuse in the foster care system. Ciara Jobes is one of those cases. Last year, she was found dead in the home of her foster mother; she was emaciated and had been badly beaten. This child — and many more — have fallen through the cracks, and cases like this seem to be popping up on a daily basis. Today, we discuss Shared Family Care, a new program that puts a different spin on foster care. Shared Family Care offers an alternative to traditional foster care and gives troubled parents a second chance: foster care for them and their children. Shared Family Care puts them in the home of a “mentor” family, who teach the basics of parenting, meal planning, budgeting, and finding work. First, we meet Gwen and Delaina; Delaina lives in Gwen’s home as a part of the Shared Family Care program, and Gwen is her mentor. Delaina is a mother of 8, and when her last child was born high on drugs and the state took her daughter away, Delaina knew she needed to change her life. She knew she couldn’t do it alone, so while in drug treatment she learned about Shared Family Care, and she shares her story of triumph in the studio. Then, Anna says she is proof that Shared Family Care can work. Anna is now a graduate of the program, and says it is responsible for turning her life around. Next we meet Iva and Daniel, family members of Ciara Jobes. Iva and Daniel say they are angry; with themselves, with the foster mother, social services, and Ciara’s school, and they talk about the young girl in the studio. Then, Tashima Dukes’ story begins at the age of 9, when she was taken from her mother and placed into the foster care system. By the time she was 18 years old, she had been in 13 foster homes. Now 24, Tashima, author of Truth Be Told…A Foster Child’s Recollection, was able to overcome her tragic upbringing, but says that if a program like Shared Family Care existed when her mom needed it most, she may not have been shuttled through 13 different foster homes. Finally, we meet John Reid, the Chief Operating Officer of Families First, Inc., which operates the Shared Family Care program in California. Sadly, this program only exists in three states, and is the first to go when budget cuts are made. John shares more about the program and reveals how people can get involved and push for Shared Family Care in their area.

U.S. judges admit to jailing children for money 'http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090213/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_crime_usa_judges' By Jon Hurdle Jon Hurdle – Thu Feb 12, 8:09 pm ET PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) – Two judges pleaded guilty on Thursday to accepting more than $2.6 million from a private youth detention centre in Pennsylvania in return for giving hundreds of youths and teenagers long sentences. Judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan of the Court of Common Pleas in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, entered plea agreements in federal court in Scranton admitting that they took payoffs from PA Childcare and a sister company, Western PA Childcare, between 2003 and 2006. "Your statement that I have disgraced my judgeship is true," Ciavarella wrote in a letter to the court. "My actions have destroyed everything I worked to accomplish and I have only myself to blame." Conahan, who along with Ciavarella faces up to seven years in prison, did not make any comment on the case. When someone is sent to a detention centre, the company running the facility receives money from the county government to defray the cost of incarceration. So as more children were sentenced to the detention centre, PA Childcare and Western PA Childcare received more money from the government, prosecutors said. Teenagers who came before Ciavarella in juvenile court often were sentenced to detention centres for minor offences that would typically have been classified as misdemeanours, according to the Juvenile Law Centre, a Philadelphia nonprofit group. One 17-year-old boy was sentenced to three months' detention for being in the company of another minor caught shoplifting. Others were given similar sentences for "simple assault" resulting from a schoolyard scuffle that would normally draw a warning, a spokeswoman for the Juvenile Law Centre said. The Constitution guarantees the right to legal representation in U.S. courts. But many of the juveniles appeared before Ciavarella without an attorney because they were told by the probation service that their minor offences didn't require one. Marsha Levick, chief counsel for the Juvenile Law Centre, estimated that of approximately 5,000 juveniles who came before Ciavarella from 2003 and 2006, between 1,000 and 2,000 received excessively harsh detention sentences. She said the centre will sue the judges, PA Childcare and Western PA Childcare for financial compensation for their victims. "That judges would allow their greed to trump the rights of defendants is just obscene," Levick said. The judges attempted to hide their income from the scheme by creating false records and routing payments through intermediaries, prosecutors said. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court removed Ciavarella and Conahan from their duties after federal prosecutors filed charges on January 26. The court has also appointed a judge to review all the cases involved.

I am not sure how CAS become a government granted organization. However I found something about the another law, here is a video: http://www.vimeo.com/1889117 Toronto lawyer, Walter Fox, discloses during a presentation to the public and the Toronto Police Services how domestic violence inquests are being used to make laws which destroy families and favour government funded women's shelter movement. Hear how our tax dollars are being misused by women shelter advocates to promote their own agenda to have the public believe that all men in Ontario are bad.

That has nothing to blame Tory. Tory did not ask Dion left. I did not see any democratic process to ask Dion leave, I just know from TV a former leader said Dion must go, and so he goes. Following that is some secret talk between Ignatieff and Harper that no one know details. If you want to blame Tory, blame Libral first who betray NDP first. So I guess no one should use the word "dictator" to blame any other country, I did not see any difference in Canada.

I prefer they cut unnecessary service such as CAS (Children's Aid Society). which cost 1.2 billion only for Ontario every year. I think the legal system can be cut a lot, every one pay $400 a year for jail and court, why don't just put more on education and make crime happen less. And pay a percentage of salary with the tax money saved from jail and court cost to let more poor people have chance to work and no time to crime. Cut a lot of criminal code, abolish unnecessary lawsuits that just for feeding the huge interconnected self serving bureaucracy, cut the crown so that immigrant doctor can work with their profession that they supposed to, so that their work can create wealth and they income can be used for consume so that other worker's product can be sell easier.

I like your description about the self serving bureaucracy, it has nothing to do with socialism. Socialism ask everyone work with their own hands and get paid measured by the work amount. Communism is different from socialism, it ask everyone work with their own hands and take whatever they want. I think maybe socialism is a good idea if it can work as the description. For communism, I don't know, how to make wealth enough for people to take, maybe it is just a theory. CAS enjoy search vulnerable parents and take away their children and blackmail parents to admit they were guilty, put kids into unpredictable environment, hire public relation company to lie to public that they care about children, and blackmail taxpayer for "protection" money, that is neither socialism no communism at all. That is an evil industry. I have no opposite opinion if you like compare CAS with fascism or Nazis.

This is just another human right lesson I have learned in Canada. http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/C...ishColumbiaHome

Thank you. You did it right. You are respectable.

Looks as if you are just another story-make-up expert and misleading expert. I am not sure what kind of connection between you and CAS. Your behavior is just like a CAS case worker. The original is here (again) http://vimeo.com/766883?pg=embed&sec=766883

As you can read from post #14, when CAS have money, it use it in hired public relations firm to lie the the public that they help kids， buy Luxury vehicles, Personal trips around the world, all funded by taxpayer's money. No money go to CAS has anything to do with education of kids, all we can see is CAS sign to allow doctor use more drugs to kids. I don't know liberal or conservative or NDP, the kids are human being, they should have human rights, they deserve love from the parents and at least normal education. For CAS "in care" kids, government give money to CAS and CAS give less money to kids, even in the time CAS misspent large sum of money, CAS still cry for short of money for kids. Actually, I prefer CAS misspent money in luxury vehicles or any other of luxury usage, in this way less money will be used to victimize more kids.