I have heard comments about feminist training in Law School and feminist training supplied to newly appointed familycaught$ judges. I was sceptical that any such “training” could subvert human minds, as to completely undermine their ability to carry out their job competently and roughly fairly.
However, read the comments of a Canadian judge, who minimised the cold blooded murder of two young girls by their own mother:
Warning: The newspaper links in this article can only be viewed once, then you are invited to take out a paid subscription to the National Post newspaper.
The trial was over, But Judge Stong added comments after the verdict announcement suggesting that if had the power to overturn the jury’s verdict, he would. He said, “It is more than disconcerting to think that if Campione had not been so abused, so used and discarded as a person, her two daughters could still be alive”¦” Judge Stong was determined that even if it is Campione that gets locked up, Canadians would know that the real villain, morally speaking, is Leo Campione, the father of the dead girls (even though his alleged abusiveness was entirely based on his wife’s allegations and never proved), and it is actually the “discarded” Elaine Campione who is the victim.
Judge Stong felt such personal animus against the grieving father that he wanted to deny Mr. Campione and his parents their opportunity to read a victim-impact statement, standard practice even with mandatory- sentencing cases. He only relented under strong pressure from the prosecutor, who reminded the judge that the murdered girls had been “an extremely important part of [Mr. Campione’s] life.”
The judge’s attitude is shameful. But what can you expect from someone who has been trained – literally, judges take structured learning programs steeped in feminist myths and misandric conspiracy theories – that women are never abusive or violent unless they have been driven to it by an abusive male. Judge Stong just could not get it into his head – he alluded to the “unimaginable facts of this case” – that a woman could kill her children without a motivation involving a controlling male that somehow drove her to the act.
Why did it not occur to the judge to blame the CAS? The CAS was well aware of Elaine Campione’s quixotic and alarming history. They knew that Campione had exhibited many signs of psychosis, that she had been hospitalized in psychiatric wards, believed people were out to kill her and kidnap her children, and exhibiting such bizarre and/or negligent behaviours toward her girls that mother-substitutes, including her own mother, had to be constantly parachuted into her household if it was to function at all.
Yet the CAS decided the mother was the “safe parent.” Mr. Campione fought like a tiger and indebted himself trying to wrest control of the children from a woman he knew to be unstable and a potential risk to them, but nobody listened to him. Why? Because everyone licenced to deal with family issues on behalf of the state – social service agencies, police, lawyers and judges – are trained in the same mythology about women as Judge Stong was. They are all singing from the same hymn book: trust the woman, suspect the man, even when the evidence screams not to.
Let a man raise his hand once to a woman (or not, but simply be accused of doing so), and he will be whisked out of his children’s lives for a year at least. You can be sure that if the father of these children had exhibited one-hundredth of the myriad clues to Elaine Campione’s potential risk to her children’s safety, the CAS would have eaten him for breakfast.
The “system” didn’t fail Elaine Campione. The system failed those two little girls by enabling a woman’s psychosis at the expense of her children. There is nothing “unimaginable” in this case at all. It has all happened before.
The notes from the NZ familycaught$ judge gender equity training seminar are available through your local library:
Judicial Working Group on Gender Equity – JUDICIAL SEMINAR ON GENDER EQUITY NZLS
Available at DAVIS LAW LIBRARY (KM208.22 L1 JUD )
Rotorua 15-17 May, 1997
I do suggest you you take these psychiatric problems in our caught system seriously.
As Barbara Kay notes, we must all face facts, both men and women may be dangerous to children and we must handle child abuse based on the facts of the situation.
If the Children’s Aid Society had looked fair and square at the hazards threatening the two daughters, they WOULD be alive today. In essence, by failing, they manslaughtered these two girls. Why was the deranged mother tried? the CAS should have been on trial.
Note that the judge accepted the mother’s lawyer’s claims that the husband was abusive, without needing any evidence at all to form his opinion…. The world would be safer, if he was in prison or a preventative detention psychiatric hospital.
I wouldn’t have believed that any judge could be so easily conned.
If you want your children live, then make sure that child protection and “judges” judge men and women on an equal basis!
Time to replace them all, as soon as possible.
The cases above show that it is safer to not put parents under extreme fear of losing access to their children.
A presumption of shared parenting would have saved quite a few children’s lives. Is lawyer’s income that important, that we willingly sacrifice justice and children’s lives, for easy incomes for legal workers?
Allan Bristol expected to be imprisoned on possibly false rape allegations. If that interpretation is correct, then Christine Bristol was the author of her own misfortune. Her false allegation, to take custody away from her girls father, drove him into sufficient fear that he murdered the girls and suicided?
Should she have been charged with perjury and manslaughter?