Nathalie Gettliffe & Hague Hostages

Words really hit home!

2007-04-10T12:48:00.000-07:00

Oceans apart, day after day

And I slowly go insane

I hear your voice, on the line

But it doesn't stop the pain

If I see you next to never

How can we say forever

Wherever you go, whatever you do

I will be right here, waiting for you

Whatever it takes, or how my heart breaks

I will be right here waiting for you

Dear Josephine and Max,

I am writing these words to let you know that your Mom in France carries you deeply in her heart....

She is doing her best.....

Continue to pray that you will be home soon in France

because Home is where the heart is!

May God Bless you abundantly children,

Lo and behold

2007-03-21T15:48:00.000-07:00

Sad state of affairs when a father writes in a report that "the children had adjusted to seeing their mother in jail"...
In the same document, when it is referred to the mother informing her children in December that she does not know when she will see them again.... the father writes "she could have said.......your dad and I will be working on when we can see each other and the judge will help us do that".

Scott Grant....you are the person who is dishonest with the kids.
In this same affidavit you provide pages worth discrediting your ex-wife with the sole purpose of preventing the children from seeing their mother.

People like you, are easy to read.
You are not at all interested in the children's welfare.
You have used your family connections to distort justice.
Your "sect", and I refer to ICC, indeed meets on BC justice property.
You lied to the Canadian public when you said you were surprised to see your wife in Canada.
I have a document in which the mediator (Pamela Jeffrey BC Attorney General) discusses Nathalie Gettliffe's trip to the province in spring 2006.
In the same series of documents (mediation) you signed your agreement that the children were better off with their mother and that France would remain their home...and in yet another document, again official BC mediation, you explained that your resorting to the BC courts (I refer to Justice Garson's revised order) was to enable you to obtain compensation money from the French government.

In the meantime, I ask a caring mother or father who may know Josephine and/or Max...... to let them know that there are Canadians abroad who are well aware of their suffering and are doing everything possible to help them obtain the right to be heard by a neutral judge in the presence of a lawyer...... their own!

Seeking information!

2007-03-15T17:28:00.000-07:00

I received a copy today of an order dated March 8, 2007 emanating from Judge Garson forbidding Nathalie Gettliffe, French citizen, from speaking French to her children. Likewise she forbids the Gettliffe children from speaking French to their mother.
I am asking all concerned Canadians to provide me with any other documented proof on similar conduct of Justice Garson.
Further, based on reports received on Justice Holmes, please send this site any information you may have on similar behaviour from this judge.
United, ordinary citizens can get to the bottom of what is going on in the BC courts with regards to custody decisions.
I have also been advised that certain BC residents, not sure if they are Canadian citizens, have had their children removed from them subsequent to divorce decisions for no apparent reason.
Your information will be treated in total confidence. Please provide enough details so that official documents can be verified with court records.
Thank you.

BRITISH COLUMBIA JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS ANNOUNCED
OTTAWA, March 22, 2001 -- The Honourable Anne McLellan, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, today announced the following appointments:
....
Nicole Garson, Q.C., of Vancouver is appointed a Judge of the British Columbia Supreme Court. She replaces the Mr. Justice Ken M. Lysyk who elected to become a supernumerary judge.
Madam Justice Garson received a Bachelor of Laws from the University of Saskatchewan in 1975. She was admitted to the Bar of Manitoba in 1977, and the Bar of British Columbia in 1981. Just prior to her appointment, Madam Justice Garson was a partner with the Vancouver firm of Campney & Murphy, praticing primarily in commercial and insurance litigation. She has been active with the Canadian Bar Association serving on various committees. Madam Justice Garson has been an instructor for numerous civil litigation courses through the Continuing Legal Education Society of British Columbia. She was appointed Queen's Counsel in 1999.
Heather Holmes of Vancouver is appointed a Judge of the British Columbia Supreme Court. She replaces the Mr. Justice R.T. Low who was appointed to the British Columbia Court of Appeal.
Madam Justice Holmes received a Bachelor of Laws from the University of Toronto in 1979 maintaining a position on the Dean's Honours List for all three years of study. She was admitted to the Bar of British Columbia in 1981. Madam Justice Holmes began practice with Shrum, Liddle and Hebenton (now McCarthy, Tétrault) in Vancouver later spending four years with the Criminal Law Section of the Department of Justice in Ottawa. At the time of her appointment, she was Crown Counsel with the Commercial Crime Section of the Office of the Attorney General of British Columbia conducting commercial crime prosecutions and from time to time, appeals in general criminal law areas. Throughout her career, Madam Justice Holmes has been active with various committees of the Canadian Bar Association including having served as an elected member of the Provincial Council for Vancouver County and as the Chair of the Legislation and Law Reform Committee.

Some inconsistencies in Benoit Ferradini!

2007-03-15T16:06:00.000-07:00

Surfing the net I came across this article....
And being a little fed up with the biased journalism, I thought I would add my comments to the story.

Nathalie Gettliffe a commis beaucoup d’erreurs/ If you read below..you will see he talks about the prejudice of a group of Canadians.... it has nothing to do with Gettliffe making mistakes...it is Ferradini's attempt at disguising reported speech, which probably had its source in the prosecutor's office.
LYON MAGhttp://www.lyonmag.com/spip.php?article9916
Janvier 2007
Journaliste français installé au Canada, Benoît Ferradini a suivi le procès de Nathalie Gettliffe pour Radio-Canada. Il explique pourquoi cette enseignante lyonnaise a été condamnée à seize mois de prison pour avoir enlevé ses enfants.
Pourquoi la justice canadienne a condamné aussi durement Nathalie Gettliffe ?
Benoît Ferradini : Parce qu’au Canada, qui est un pays très légaliste, Nathalie Gettliffe est considérée comme une criminelle. Et là-bas, une femme qui enlève ses enfants est ni plus ni moins qu’une hors-la-loi. Mais si Nathalie Gettliffe a été durement condamnée, c’est également parce qu’elle a commis beaucoup d’erreurs depuis qu’elle a été arrêtée. Des erreurs qui l’ont totalement décrédibilisée. Why would a judge convict someone on anything other than the charges laid?
Quelles erreurs elle a commises ?
Les Canadiens ont trouvé stupide et arrogant qu’après avoir enlevé ses enfants, elle revienne tranquillement au Canada en pensant échapper à toute poursuite judiciaire. That's just it! Think about it. Why would an intelligent women have come back and taken such a risk, especially after all the legal decisions had gone against her. If I had been the judge.... I would have wondered why too. Further, if I were a little astute I would have asked the question to the accused at the arraignment hearing. And then upon production of the signed British Columbia Attorney General Mediation agreement by a competent lawyer acting on behalf of the accused..... wherein the father had signed permission for the children to stay in France with the mother ..... I would have said....what then seems to be the problem? Further if the accused's lawyer would have brought to MY attention the fact that the prosecutor Luchenko, facing me, was the partner of Scott Grant's mother..... I would have dismissed the hearing..... and asked the attorney general to investigate the conduct of Luchenko. Maybe not the Attorney General of BC as they don't recognise the mediation agreements they initiate! Just ask Pamela Jeffrey!

Ensuite, ils n’ont pas compris lorsqu’elle a annoncé qu’elle voulait se présenter à l’élection présidentielle en France pour échapper à toute condamnation !
If this journalist knew anything about French politics he would be aware that ordinary citizens with no political background can run for President or for the legislatives.
And it happens!

Enfin, les Canadiens n’ont pas du tout apprécié le livre qu’elle a écrit avec son compagnon, Francis Gruzelle, et dans lequel ils racontent son histoire. Car ce livre présente le Canada comme un véritable enfer, où la justice est noyautée par une secte, où les prisons ressemblent à Guantanamo... D’ailleurs, cette campagne médiatique contre le Canada lui a fait beaucoup de tort.
I find this statement incredible for a journalist who makes his living by writing stories!
Freedom of the press exists in Canada, doesn't it?
If there were slander in the story, why wouldn't Gettliffe and her partner be brought to court?

Nathalie Gettliffe a menti ?
J’ai interviewé Nathalie Gettliffe plusieurs fois. Et au cours de ces entretiens, j’ai relevé certaines incohérences dans son témoignage. Exemple : une fois, elle m’a affirmé que son ex-mari Scott Grant couchait avec sa fille ! Alors qu’elle ne l’avait jamais dit aux policiers ! Et quand je lui ai demandé des précisions, elle n’a pas été claire. D’ailleurs, elle n’a jamais accusé clairement son mari d’inceste. Mais s’est contentée plutôt de faire des sous-entendus...
Please read the court reports..... you can find them online.... the judge herself mentions the father sleeping with the daughter...as well she mentions the fascination that the child apparently had for her father's genitalia. Frankly, I was surprised that the judge included this in her decision but she did.

D’autres incohérences ?
En fait, c’est surtout son compagnon français Gruzelle qui a joué un rôle assez trouble. Notamment quand il a déclaré aux journalistes que Scott Grant battait ses enfants depuis qu’il en avait obtenu la garde au Canada. Il affirme même avoir un témoin ! Du coup, j’ai demandé des explications à Nathalie Gettliffe sur ces accusations. Et elle m’a avoué qu’elle n’était pas au courant de cette affaire !
Yes unfortunate if Gruzelle said this.... but in fact Grant used physical force to restrain Josephine on several occasions..... further, he is quite insensitive to the childrens' suffering as evidenced by testimony.
Mais son mari était tout de même membre d’une secte !
C’est vrai que Scott Grant est membre de l’Eglise internationale du Christ. Et Nathalie Gettliffe dit la vérité à propos du contrôle de l’emploi du temps des adeptes, de leur vie familiale, de la présence imposée d’un guide spirituel, de l’éloignement des enfants pour que les parents se consacrent à l’étude de la Bible... Mais il faut également souligner que depuis 2003 cette secte a beaucoup évolué : ses dirigeants ont changé, et il paraît qu’il y a moins de recrutements agressifs. D’ailleurs, il y a de moins en moins de plaintes contre elle. Ce qui a permis d’ailleurs à Scott Grant de dire qu’elle n’était pas dangereuse pour ses enfants.
This is hilarious.... a sect does not become less of a sect....further, it is well known that even so-called respectable churches such as vineyard (airport Toronto) have come under heavy criticism for encouragement and tolerance of demonic manifestations.
Having spent most of my life now, attempting as best as I can to follow Christ's example by helping others, I think I can say that a Christian ....is someone who loves his fellow human being and does not use deceit in order to obtain selfish gain. Vengeance has no place in the life of a Christian.

René would roll over in his grave!

2007-03-10T11:52:00.000-08:00

War correspondent
He worked as an announcer and news writer at the radio station CHNC in New Carlisle, as a substitute announcer for CHRC during 1941 and 1942, and then at CBV in Quebec City. During 1944–1945, he served as a liaison officer and war correspondent for the U.S. Army in Europe. He reported from London while it was under regular bombardment by the Luftwaffe, and advanced with the Allied troops as they swept back the Nazis through France and Germany. Through the war, he made regular journalistic reports on the airwaves and in print. He was with the first unit of Americans to reach the Dachau concentration camp, and was profoundly touched by what he witnessed.
In 1947, he married Louise L'Heureux, with whom he would have two sons and a daughter. Lévesque worked as a reporter for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's French Language sector in the international service. He once more served as a war correspondent for the CBC in the Korean War in 1952. After that war, he was offered a career in journalism in the United States, but decided to stay in Quebec.

On March 8th 2007, British Columbia justice Nicole GARSON court-ordered Maximilien and Josephine Gettliffe-Grant from speaking French to their mother.

What would René think of Nicole GARSON outlawing the Gettliffe-Grant children from speaking French, Canada's other official language?

What would lawyer Pierre Trudeau have said concerning this whole affair.

And John Diefenbaker over the treatment of the mother and the forced detention of the children in "the true north strong and free"!

I think all would have said.... this is a story of vengeance.... and has nothing to do with upholding the law of CANADA!

Let's hear it for the girls!

2007-01-17T14:52:00.000-08:00

Nathalie Gettliffe: "Je vais me battre pour récupérer mes enfants"
SATILLIEU (AFP)
© AFP
Nathalie Gettliffe (d), lors d'une conférence de presse à Satillieu le 17 janvier 2007
La Française Nathalie Gettliffe, condamnée en décembre à 16 mois de prison par la justice canadienne pour l'enlèvement de deux de ses enfants, a affirmé mercredi à Satillieu (Ardèche) qu'elle allait "se battre pour (les) récupérer".
Mme Gettliffe, emprisonné initialement en Colombie-Britannique (ouest du Canada), a bénéficié samedi d'une libération conditionnelle alors qu'elle se trouvait à la maison d'arrêt de Fleury-Mérogis (Essonne). Elle a aussitôt regagné son domicile ardéchois de Saint-Alban-d'Ay.
Ses deux enfants aînés sont restés avec leur père au Canada.
"Mes enfants (Maximilien, 13 ans, et Joséphine, 11 ans et demi, ndlr) sont séquestrés, je n'ai pas le droit de leur écrire ni de leur téléphoner. Je vais me battre pour les récupérer et je fais toutes les démarches pour", a déclaré la jeune femme, 35 ans, lors d'une conférence de presse.
"Je me fais du souci pour mes enfants dont je n'ai plus de nouvelle depuis le 16 décembre", a-t-elle ajouté.
Arrivée au point-presse en compagnie de ses plus jeunes fils -Martin, 4 mois, né en détention au Canada, et Jean-Philippe, 17 mois-, de leur père Francis Gruzelle et de ses avocats, Nathalie Gettliffe, a expliqué combien son "combat" pour récupérer ses enfants était "juste".
"Une enquête sociale a été lancée en novembre dernier par le juge canadien des affaires familiales, qui statuera sur la future résidence des enfants d'ici mars ou avril", a-t-elle précisé.
Son avocat a affirmé avoir fait une demande auprès de la justice canadienne pour que Maximilien et Joséphine soient assistés d'un avocat dans le cadre de cette procédure.
"Leur vie est ici, en Ardèche", a expliqué Me Dominique Chambon. "Ils souffrent tous les deux d'un profond déséquilibre mental. Nous voulons qu'ils reviennent afin que la famille soit recomposée", a renchéri Me Samuel Cornu.
"Je suis très fatiguée et affaiblie. Je ne me suis pas encore remise d'un accouchement très très violent, beaucoup de sensations me manquent", a-t-elle déclaré, affirmant qu'elle avait souffert de "privations de sommeil".
"On ne m'a pas fait de cadeaux, ni en France, ni au Canada", a souligné la jeune maman, titulaire d'un doctorat en sciences du langage et qui a l'obligation de travailler" dans le cadre de sa libération conditionnelle.

Surfacing!

2007-01-17T14:27:00.000-08:00

What a beautiful woman!

Yes beauty is within, this courageous woman who despite her shattered nerves continues to do her utmost to protect her children.

Nathalie Gettliffe spoke for the first time today to the press..... in her hometown of Satillieu Ardèche.

I will include some excerpts in the blog.

P.S. Perhaps the Vancouver Sun's artist should take some lessons from the AFP photographer....

Nathalie Gettliffe and her Children - Pawns in the International Chess Game Being Played With Children

2007-01-12T10:01:00.000-08:00

Happy New Year...or is it?

Maybe for you and your family - but what about Josephine and Maximilien Gettliffe-Grant, two young children forced to live with their father in Vancouver, after their mother was spirited back to France just before Christmas to serve out the rest of her sentence?

How do you think these children are feeling since the Supreme Court of British Columbia deported their mother and confined them to live in a country that has become a strange and terrifying place?

Jo and Max lived in France for five years with their mother until July 2006, when they were lured onto an aeroplane by one Father/Dr. Lucien Larre, currently under investigation by the College of Psychologists of British Columbia.

They were promised that their mother would be set free from prison if they flew to Canada. She was not. Their trust was shattered yet again. And now, they are subject to Lucien Larre, who has been hired by their father, Scott Grant, as an "interpreter".

Are you getting goosebumps yet??

Lucien Larre was interviewed by the CBC's Fifth Estate several years ago on national Canadian television, along with adult survivors of Larre's attempts to strangle them, slap them and confine them to a wheelchair.

Larre's response when the CBC journalist asks him if he truly strangled any children -

"Find me a dead one..."

The arrogance of a psychopath? Or just a very powerful person with powerful connections in government and the Catholic church?

Our concerns are:

1. Lucien Larre has unlimited access to Josephine and Maximilien Gettliffe Grant. How do we know he isn't going to slap them or strangle them if they don't listen to him?

Where is the evidence that he is rehabilitated?

The Archdiocese of Vancouver seems to believe that Larre is an upstanding member of their community who is quite frank about his past. Oh really? Then why does Larre deny the crimes he committed against the victims who appeared on the Fifth Estate documentary?

(Yes, copies are available folks...)

2. Their mother, Nathalie Gettliffe, is prevented from protecting her children because she has been shipped back to France along with her infant son, as if she were chattle.

3. Francis Gruzelle, Nathalie's common-law husband in France, says that little Josephine is talking of suicide.

4. Scott Grant, the father, thinks it is perfectly alright to have Lucien Larre hanging around these vulnerable children - no wonder Nathalie felt she had no choice but to leave him and seek refuge with her children - his judgement seems to be impaired!

5. The children are now forced to attend Scott Grant's church in Vancouver, the International Church of Christ which is alleged to contain cult elements by experts in the United States and France.

6. The children have grown up in France, they were settled in France and they were protected from influence by any church group by their mother. Now, they are forced to live in a country they do not know, with a father who is a stranger to them and who cannot communicate with them because he doesn't speak French.

7. Nathalie Gettliffe plead guilty under duress. She was told that she could return to France if she plead guilty. Her infant son was physically assaulted in prison.

8. Nathalie Gettliffe had a legitimate defense. Section 285 of the Canadian Criminal Code states that if you removed a child from its habitual residence in order to protect the child, you have a legitimate defense.

9. The State has been playing Chess with Nathalie Gettliffe and her children, Josephine and Maximilien.

Ask yourselves - qui bono? Who benefits?

Lucien Larre - a Catholic priest with a shady past who was convicted of assaulting children

Scott Grant - a father who seems to be have duped by this Catholic priest and who is controlled by his ego

B.C. Crown Counsel - re-enforcing their motto: "might is right".

Gail Dickson - B.C. Crown Counsel who has been nominated as a Supreme Court Judge - just a coincidence, nothing to worry about.

The Family lawyers - their bank accounts just got fatter.

B.C. Politicians - another show of force against the meek to keep the masses in check.

Information leak!

2006-12-16T03:23:00.000-08:00

Recently heard in France was the astonishing remark that certain Canadian officials made it clear that Gettliffe was to be found guilty!
And this regardless of whether she was justified or not in leaving Canada in 2001.
This apparently to give the warning to all foreigners living in Canada to think twice before returning to their home country with their children!

My question " Why weren't the circumstances surrounding her departure investigated?"
I was told that the case was getting too much media attention, that the government was caught with their pants down after the brutal arrest (due to the existence of the BC AG mediation agreement having been signed by the Canadian party), and that they felt they had no choice but to resort to damage control. The fact that Mike Luchenko (Scott Grant's mother's boyfriend) had used his public office to settle a personal score and had overstepped his boundaries with the creation of a second arrest warrant didn't help matters. Hence the government's decision to allow Heather Holt to sign the "official" arrest warrant, signed several days after the fact and only communicated to France 6 weeks later.

When France gave them the go ahead for dubious reasons.... (Nathalie Gettliffe's partner in France has political ambitions...he is running against the current Justice Minister Pascal Clément and will probably take the seat) BC justice moved forward.
Gaul decided to cover for the anomaly and they took on the position that the best defence was an offence...so they attacked Gettliffe vehemently.
They then deployed exceptional measures to wear Gettliffe down until she gave in to pleading guilty. The rest is history!

One final remark... Gettliffe only went back to Canada in April because she was under the impression that the Canadians had negotiated in good faith. And this based on the signed British Columbia Attorney General mediation agreement, issued January 2006, giving her custody of the children in France. This information is corroborated by official testimony.

Good luck British Columbia for the Olympics!
I am convinced you have lost a lot of potential visitors!
Maybe the Olympic Committee should look into the transparency of the BC legal system before deciding to do business there!

COLLEGE OF PSYCHOLOGISTS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA SUSPENDS DR. LUCIEN LARRE

2006-12-14T20:45:00.000-08:00

Interesting...

Today our colleague received correspondence from the College of Psychologists of British Columbia in which it is stated:

"Dr. Larre's rights to practise have been suspended under Section 35 of the Health Professions Act, on an interim basis without any findings of fact being made, pending a hearing of the Discipline Committee of the College."

Right, now will someone please tell us if Larre is continuing to "work" with Josephine and Maximilien Gettliffe-Grant, as per Scott Grant's wishes?

Or will someone with some sense like the Ministry of Children and Families please step up to the plate and investigate the situation?

We will continue to follow this situation in the best interests of Nathalie Gettliffe's children.

Stay tuned...

Discrimination against Nathalie Gettliffe in British Columbia Canada

2006-12-10T18:09:00.000-08:00

Here is an "artist's" rendition of Robert Pickton, an alleged serial murderer who is on trial for the deaths of more than 11 women from Vancouver's East Side.

To look at this drawing, one has a feeling of curiosity, but because the artist does not show us the facial features of Pickton, we cannot feel any emotion towards him.

Why then would this "artist" depict Nathalie Gettliffe in such a negative and defamatory manner? (Drawing on the top left)

In our opinion it is simple: he is discriminating against this woman. The newspaper, the Vancouver Sun, which publishes the work of this "artist", is discriminating against Nathalie Gettliffe...and so it goes on until somebody puts a stop to it.

"Artist" Defames Nathalie Gettliffe in the Vancouver Sun

2006-12-10T11:13:00.000-08:00

Have a good, long look at these two images. The first one, a drawing, by an artist, is supposed to be of Nathalie Gettliffe. It was published in the Vancouver Sun on December 04, 2006, along with a discriminating article by Jeff Lee. Now have a look at the second image, it is a photograph of Nathalie and her baby boy, Martin. Do you see any resemblance? Do you notice how the "artist" has contorted Nathalie's features, put a scowl on her face and distorted her image as a mother? This is called "defamation of character" and its intention is to incite hatred. The Vancouver Sun will be hearing from us, and so will their "artist" buddy.

B.C.Hosts International Forum on Child Welfare -Oh Really??

2006-11-21T18:57:00.000-08:00

Minister of Children and Family Development
Hon. Tom Christensen
Phone: 250 387-9699
Fax: 250 387-9722
PO Box 9057
STN PROV GOVT
Victoria BC
V8W 9E2
Minister.MCF@gems1.gov.bc.ca

November 21, 2006

Dear Minister Christensen,

RE: SAFETY AND WELL-BEING OF JOSEPHINE AND MAXIMILIEN GETTLIFFE-GRANT AND THE INFANT, MARTIN GETTLIFFE-GRUZELLE

We read on November 19, 2006 in the Press Release issued by your office, that British Columbia would be hosting an international forum on Child Welfare.

Of particular interest was your statement regarding the Ministry’s commitment to “strengthening services to build a more positive future for our children and youth.”

Your office goes on to speak about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, “UNCRC”, and Canada’s “theme” for 2006:
“The right of the child to be heard.”

While these words portray an honourable intention, the reality of the day in British Columbia for children like Josephine and Maximilien Gettliffe-Grant and their infant brother, Martin Gettliffe-Gruzelle, is the complete antithesis of “positive”.

As you are aware, Josephine and Maximilien are the children of Scott Grant, a resident of Vancouver, and Dr. Nathalie Gettliffe, a French citizen who has been confined in a prison in British Columbia and denied bail for seven months, despite her pregnancy and subsequent birth of her son, Martin.

In July this year, both Josephine and Maximilien were lured onto a plane in France by Father/Dr.Lucien Larre, a man with a previous history of assaulting children in Saskatchewan, and brought to Canada under the impression that their mother would be immediately released from prison upon their arrival.
She was not.

Since their arrival in Canada and their forced cohabitation with their father, they are prevented from spending reasonable and necessary time with their mother.

It is our distinct belief that it is not in the interests of Josephine and Maximilien to be forced to live with their father against their will.

Josephine has spoken out about their living conditions with their father and she has told witnesses that they are not happy, that they do not sleep well and that they miss France.

The children are deeply distraught that their mother is imprisoned along with their baby brother.

Judge Garson recently acknowledged in November in the Supreme Court of British Columbia that the children were often “rude” and “angry” and “not affectionate” with their father. Surely this is evidence of their distress?

One may surmise, judging by Scott Grant’s very public statements in the local Vancouver newspapers, that he may very well be telling the children that their mother is “sick”. We know he has informed the public that she can see her children when she takes a “pill”.

We do not believe that a mother who acts to protect her children from harm is “sick” or that she needs a “pill”.
In fact, legislation in British Columbia and in Canada instructs us to report harm and abuse to children or suffer legal consequences.
We are also continually reminded by social workers and police officers that if we knowingly allow a child to be exposed to a harmful environment, that we could very well lose custody of the child.

Furthermore, we were informed yesterday that two attempts to strangle Dr. Gettliffe’s infant son, Martin, were made in the Alouette Correctional Centre where Dr. Gettliffe is incarcerated. These actions were apparently committed by another inmate.

Given this situation, we ask on behalf of the children and in their best interests, the following questions:

1. How does the Ministry intend to ensure that the voices of Josephine and Maximilien are heard in the Supreme Court and in the community, as stipulated by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

2. How does the Ministry intend to provide appropriate counseling and support to the children, as stipulated by the UNCRC?

3. Is the Ministry not concerned that the children only speak French and often do not understand their father?

4. Is the Ministry aware that Dr. Lucien Larre is allowed unlimited access to these children?

5. Has the Ministry investigated Dr. Larre to discover whether there is any evidence that he has rehabilitated since his convictions of assaulting two minors in 1992?

6. How does the Ministry intend to ensure the safety and well-being of the two older children, Josephine and Maximilien, as well as baby Martin?

7. How does the Ministry intend to assist Dr. Gettliffe who is nursing her infant while being forced to live in a harmful environment?

We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,

Canada Children First.
B.C. Canada

Copies to: Attorney General of B.C., Mr. Wally Oppal
Solicitor General of B.C., Mr. John Les
UNICEF
Louise Arbour, HCHR Geneva
Foreign Press

COPY

NEWS RELEASE

For Immediate Release

2006CFD0055-001399

Nov. 19, 2006
Ministry of Children and Family Development

B.C. HOSTS INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON CHILD WELFARE

VANCOUVER – B.C. is celebrating International Day of the Child by welcoming more than 1,000 delegates from 40 countries to WorldForum 2006, an international conference on child welfare, underway in Vancouver, Children and Family Development Minister Tom Christensen announced today.

“In B.C., we are continually strengthening our services to build a more positive future for our children and youth,” said Christensen. “WorldForum 2006 is a valuable opportunity for us to broaden our knowledge and perspectives and share our innovative practices with other jurisdictions.”

World Forum 2006: New Directions in Child Welfare is the 17th annual conference held by the International Forum for Child Welfare. As one of this year’s co-hosts, the ministry has contributed $500,000 to help stage the forum, deliver presentations on B.C.’s prevention and protection approaches and support the participation of 400 ministry employees.

This year’s gathering coincides with International Day of the Child, proclaimed to mark the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The theme in Canada this year is “the right of the child to be heard.” WorldForum 2006 celebrates this by providing an opportunity for 100 youth to participate as planners, presenters, delegates and volunteers.

“It’s fitting on this day that so many people who work in the field from around the world gather to share strategies and celebrate accomplishments,” said Christensen. “We hope and trust that everyone will take something away from the event that will enhance their work with children and families.”

World Forum 2006 runs through Nov. 22. For more information on the conference and its hosts, visit www.worldforum2006.ca

Why Attorney General of British Columbia Must Resign

2006-11-21T15:19:00.000-08:00

Why A-G Oppal Must Resign
BC Attorney General Wally Oppal His dumb comment could cause a mistrial.
By Rafe Mair
Published: November 20, 2006

TheTyee.ca
We have, in this semi-lawless country, two daft attorneys general.

The federal chap, Vic Toews, distinguished himself in the 2004 federal election when on the eve of the ballot he accused the Liberals of being soft on kiddie porn.

It started when a man was sentenced to prison for a brutal sex slaying of a young Toronto girl. The assailant admitted that he was very fond of kiddie porn he accessed through his Internet connection. Toews suggested that because the federal Liberals, very much including then Prime Minister Chrétien, hadn't done anything about this stuff on the Internet, they bore a great responsibility for this tragic death.

The public turned out to be on the Liberals' side, which scarcely meant it was uncaring. The voters (though not, lamentably, in Toews's riding) thought that this was a scandalous accusation, trying to take advantage of a terrible crime by making it into a political issue. And they voted accordingly. The Conservatives lost in a tight race and many, including me, thought Toews lost it for them.

Now Mr. Toews has another bright idea. Policemen will be asked to sit on the council that recommends people for the bench.

Police would inject bias

Now I yield to no one in demanding that there be more transparency in the appointment of judges. I have long favoured open hearings for all superior court judgeships. But loading the council with interested pressure groups is hardly what's needed. The proper considerations are whether or not the candidate is a good lawyer in the sense that he knows the law, is of good character and is fair -- "fair" including the absence of prejudice, as far as any human can be.

ADVERTISEMENT
What does the policeman add to this? "I watched Bloggs in practice and noted he only took defence cases. He was always babbling on about 'reasonable doubt,' onuses of proof, prosecutor fairness and almost always challenged police evidenced. Hawkeye, on the other hand, was a brilliant prosecutor who gave no quarter. Sometimes when there was evidence that might help the accused and thus deny justice as we saw it, he didn't tell the defence lawyer. When we told him we wanted John Q Public prosecuted, Hawkeye never said there was insufficient evidence but said, charge that sleazy bugger and I'll get him convicted. On sentencing, he wanted everyone to be put away as long as possible. In fact ,we knew him as Hang 'em High Hawkeye. If we want to rest secure in our beds, Hawkeye is our man."

Now, if Toews doesn't want policemen on the panel so they can a get a judge that's "on their side," what's it all about? And, critical question here: Will a member of the defence bar also be on the panel to ensure that the criminals have a friend in the courtroom?

Blame the lawmakers

Mr. Toews would have us think crime runs rampant because judges are always lenient. The way to cure this, apparently, is to fix things so that acquittals are kept to a bare minimum. Even if the police blow the prosecution, jail the bugger anyway because everyone knows he's guilty.

Notably, Toews fails to note that while judges implement that law, politicians are responsible for making that law, including the penalties to be imposed.

Judges goof. Judges sometimes do things they ought not to -- that's what appeal courts are all about. But when you think of the thousands and thousands of cases heard around this land every day, we should thank God we're so well served.

Oppal's sin

Here in B.C., our attorney general must resign over remarks he made about the infamous Robert Pickton case. He may have caused a mistrial. The Honourable Wally Oppal, QC, made it clear that he was on the side of the prosecutors -- that he was B.C.'s top prosecutor and he could say what he pleased.

I find it utterly beyond belief that a former judge, a veteran of both our Supreme Court and our Appeal Court, should be so ignorant of the traditions of criminal law and prosecutions that have made our courts fair and seen by the world as such.

Mr. Oppal would have learned on his first day taking criminal law in law school -- that the accused is presumed innocent until found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and that the Crown neither wins nor loses, but presents Her Majesty's case fairly. The Crown has obligations that policemen don't like very much, such as disclosing all relevant evidence to the defence even when the Crown doesn't intend to call that evidence. And to ensure that all the evidence is before the Court, even that which is adverse to the Crown's case.

Has Oppal so quickly forgotten the three Ms: Marshal, Milgaard and Morin? All men found guilty by false police evidence or investigations; all men who spent years in jail for an offence they didn't commit; all men who, but just a few decades ago, would have been hanged long before the true story emerged.

Every once in a while, we must pause and examine what our traditions are. Keeping an accused innocent until proved guilty and forcing the Crown to be fair means sometimes people will "get away with it." (As we have seen above, even this hasn't helped some accused.) This is the insurance premium people in a free country pay to ensure that a police state does not befall us.

Guiding precedent

But why do I say Oppal must resign?

Here's a recent precedent. Back in the late 1980s, the then attorney general had a private conversation with one of his deputies intercepted and recorded. In this conversation, Smith said some unkind things about a lawyer acting in a case in which the Crown was involved. When the matter became public, Smith promptly resigned. I suggest that Mr. Smith's deeds were far less serious than those of Mr. Oppal.

I should add that some of Mr. Smith's conversations to others were not the kind that Mrs. Smith would have liked hearing, but these were irrelevant except as personal embarrassments to Smith.

The sad part is that Toews and Oppal will get away with this conduct so unbecoming their offices. That's because the mainstream media won't hold them accountable, and so the public won't either.

2nd Letter to Wally Oppal, Attorney General of British Columbia

2006-11-20T19:41:00.000-08:00

November 20, 2006

MR. WALLY OPPAL
Attorney General of B.C.
Room 232
Parliament Buildings
Victoria, BCV8V 1X4
Phone: 250 387-1866
Fax: 250 387-6411

RE: NATHALIE GETTLIFFE; JOSEPHINE GETTLIFFE-GRANT; MAXIMILIEN GETTLIFFE-GRANT AND MARTIN GETTLIFFE-GRUZELLE

Dear Mr. Oppal:

We have not yet received a response from you regarding our letter of November 10, 2006, wherein we advised you of our concerns for Dr.Nathalie Gettliffe and her minor children, as named above.

In this instance, we bring your attention to an incident or incidents that have been reported to us regarding the Alouette Correctional Centre for women in Maple Ridge, British Columbia.
We are told that at least two attempts to strangle Dr. Gettliffe’s infant son, Martin Gruzelle-Gettliffe, have been made by another woman in prison. The infant boy, who is forced into incarceration along with his mother through the orders of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, has been subjected to cruel and unusual treatment, as has his mother, by the Supreme Court orders which deny her bail.

Associates and colleagues have contacted the Office of the Human Rights Commissioner in Geneva, Louise Arbour, as her official intervention appears necessary to bring a halt to the ongoing violation of Dr. Gettliffe and her children’s fundamental human rights.

We remind you that a priest who previously had a criminal conviction for assaulting children continues to have unlimited access to Josephine and Maximilien Gettliffe-Grant at their father’s residence. We are concerned that your office has not taken this situation seriously. In fact, through vicarious intervention, the Crown Counsel of British Columbia appears to
be enabling this ongoing situation.

Does Crown Counsel or your office have evidence that Father Lucien Larre has rehabilitated and that he is no longer a threat to young children?

We hereby inform you that we hold the Attorney General of British Columbia and your office accountable for the safety and well-being of Nathalie Gettliffe and her children, Josephine, Maximilien and Martin, and we now trust that you will intervene in your official capacity to allow Dr. Gettliffe to exit the prison so that she may nurture her infant child in peace and have reasonable access with her two older children.
We further inform you that we hold the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

We would like to know, in writing, what your office intends to do to ensure the safety and welfare of this mother and her young children.

Sincerely,

Lisa Haeck
Canada Children First

Copy to: The Deputy Minister,
Lesley du Toit
Ministry of Children and Family Development
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Mr. Bruce McNeill
Director of Child Welfare, Fraser Region
British Columbia, Canada
Fax: (604) 586 4153

Attempted Strangulation of Nathalie Gettliffe's Baby in Prison, British Columbia, Canada

2006-11-20T14:48:00.000-08:00

The following letter was sent on Monday, November 20th 2006, from Louis Ripault, a private investigator working on behalf of Dr. Gettliffe's family.
The letter is addressed to the high commissioner of the Human Rights Commission Miguel De la Lama, wherein Louis advises him of the following--English Translation--:

I have just learned that Nathalie's baby was the object of two attempted strangulation from an inmate in prison.

This underlines the urgency of an intervention from the High Commissioner of seeing Louise Arbour in person.

These attempts were acted by a co-inmate whose own child was taken away.

The answer from the authorities on this matter was to place the co-inmate in another building and to hand over to Nathalie Gettliffe a key to her cell and to the building.

This now makes Nathalie appear in the eyes of all inmates like a "guard without arms".

We understand with her being awake every hour in the night by the guards and the pressure from her own lawyers that she ended up pleading guilty.

You had attempted this summer to pass this matter to a service of emergency who did not recognize the importance of accelerating an intervention. So what are we to think now?

I advise you of your obligations to advise Louise Arbour of this matter.

The Attorney General of BC has all the power to stop the grave violations done on Nathalie and her children. Why then is he covering up the violations?

Louis Ripault

Elie Wiesel, Nobel Peace Prize Winner Advises Us to Take Sides

2006-11-19T14:44:00.000-08:00

"I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."

Why Was This Mother Allowed to Stay in France with Her Child, Yet Nathalie Gettliffe's Children were Forced to Come Back to Canada

2006-11-19T11:48:00.000-08:00

Name of case
HC/E/FR 814 [27/10/2005;Cour d'Appel de Paris, 1ere Chambre - Section C (France);Appellate Court]
CA Paris 27 October 2005, 05/15032

Date of decision
27 October 2005

Requesting State
UNITED STATES

Requested State
FRANCE

Name of court
Cour d'Appel de Paris, 1ere Chambre - Section C (France)

Status of case
Final

Level of court
Appellate Court

Published/where available

Articles considered
13(1)(b), 12(2)

Articles or provision upon which disposition of case based
13(1)(b), 12(2)

Order
Appeal allowed; return refused.

Facts
The application related to a child who in December 2003 was removed
from her home in the United States by her mother and taken to France.
The child was 7 1/2 years old at the time and her parents shared
custody rights.
On 29 June 2005 the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris ruled
that the removal was wrongful and ordered the return of the child.

The mother appealed.

Ruling
Appeal allowed and return refused; the child was now settled in her
new environment pursuant to the terms of Article 12(2).

Cases and authorities referred to

Judges
M Perie, Pdt, M Hascher, conseiller, Mme Chadeville, conseiller deleguee.

Legal basis for decision

Art 13(1)(b)
The mother sought to invoke the grave risk of harm exception by arguing that: the father had taken drugs; the father's new partner had behaved inappropriately towards the child's step-brother; a return would separate the child from her step-brother and that a return would prevent the child from seeing her mother.
The Cour d'appel rejected these arguments and a request for a psychological evaluation of the child, finding that; the step-brother's accusations of drug taking by the father lacked detail and did not rebut the results of blood tests done on the father in March 2003; and that the allegations of seduction by the father's new partner had no relevance to the abducted child and her return.

Article 12(2)
The Cour d'appel noted that Article 12(2) was applicable to the application, more than 12 months having elaspsed between the removal and the initiation of proceedings.
In evaluating the child's settlement consideration was given to the fact she had commenced her third year of schooling in France, she was performing well and in a discussion with a school psychologist she affirmed that she wished to continue with her studies in France and to stay with her mother.

Pursuant to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the child's views were gathered and these confirmed to the Court that she was now settled in her new environment. The Court thereby ruled that the best interests of the child required that she not be returned to the United States.

Comments
The Cour d'appel relied directly on Article 12(2) of the UN Convention as justification for ascertaining the views of the child, rather than considering her objections within the separate Hague Convention exception of Article 13(2).
In this the Court was clearly influenced by the decision of the supreme civil jurisdiction in France, the Cour de Cassation, in its decision of 18 May 2005:

Cass Civ 1ère 18/05/2005 (Arrêt n° 891, pourvoi n° 02-20.613).

In this judgment the Cour de Cassation departed from previous rulings in finding that Article 12(2) of the UN Convention was self-executing and could thereby be relied on to allow children to intervene directly in private law proceedings in France.

The approach of the Cour d'Appel in considering the views of the child in assessing the issue of settlement does moreover mirror that adopted by the English High Court in the case of : Re C (Abduction: Settlement)(No 2) [2005] 1 FLR 938 [INCADAT cite HC/E/815].

THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 13(1)(b) IN FRANCE

The treatment of Article 13(1)(b) by French courts has evolved, with a permissive approach being replaced by a more robust interpretation.

Judgments of France’s highest jurisdiction, the Cour de cassation, from the mid to late 1990s, may be contrasted with more recent decisions of the same court and also court of appeal decisions, see:

Cass. Civ. 1ère 12 juillet 1994, Rev. Crit. 84 (1995), p. 96 note H. Muir Watt; JCP 1996 IV 64 note Bosse-Platière, Defrénois 1995, art. 36024, note J. Massip [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 103];

Cass Civ 1ère 21 novembre 1995 (Pourvoi N° 93-20140), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 514];

Cass. Civ. 1ère 22 juin 1999, (N° de pourvoi : 98-17902), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 498];

And contrast with:

Cass Civ 1ère 25 janvier 2005 (N° de pourvoi : 02-17411), [INCADAT cite : HC/E/FR 708] ;

Cass. Civ 1ère 14 juin 2005 (N° de pourvoi : 04-16942), [INCADAT cite : HC/E/FR 844];

Cass. Civ 1ère 13 juillet 2005 (N° de pourvoi : 05-10519), [INCADAT cite : HC/E/FR 845];

CA Amiens 4 mars 1998, n°5704759, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 704];

CA Grenoble 29 mars 2000 M. v. F., [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 274];

CA Paris 7 février 2002 (N° de pourvoi : 2001/21768), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 849];

CA Paris, 20/09/2002 (N° de pourvoi : 2002/13730), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 850];

CA Aix en Provence 8 octobre 2002, L v Ministère Public, Mme B et Mesdemoiselles L (N° de rôle 02/14917) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 509];

CA Paris 27 octobre 2005, 05/15032 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 814].

Updated 22 July 2006.

Copyright © HCCH

The Beginning of the End of Democracy

2006-11-19T09:45:00.000-08:00

When the media refuse to inform, and the public ceases to question, it is the beginning of the end of democracy!!! - David John Thornton

In the Nathalie Gettliffe - Scott Grant situation we should ask if the Canadian and the French media have access to all the facts?
If they do and they are not publishing all of the facts, why is that?
If they don't have access to all the facts, is it because investigative journalism is a dying profession?

The public are asking questions - they have a right to be informed. Why? Because we have a moral duty, as individuals and a community, to look out for each other. Big Bad wolves prowl around by day and night, preying on the vulnerable, the weak and the poor...a lot of the time they are dressed as politicians, lawyers and people in positions of authority.

Inform yourselves, don't be caught unawares, read "Snakes in Suits" by Professor Robert Hare, from Vancouver,

"If you've ever watched in horror while a charming BS artist methodically tore the guts out of your group, your division, your company (... or your country for that matter) and wondered how on earth they managed to pull it off in broad daylight, this book will help you solve the mystery.

There really are human snakes among us and Babiak and Hare explain in detail what motivates them, how they operate, how to recognize them and, most important, how to neutralize their poisonous effects before it's too late.

No one ever said life was going to be a rose garden and there's a whole breed of individual whose sole function in life seems to be to insure it's not for the rest of us.

Just read the headlines. It's an epidemic: Enron, WorldCom, and their close cousins the neo-cons etc.

When the student is ready, the teachers appear. It looks like it's finally time for our society to recognize these people for what they are, acknowledge that they're not going away and deal with them with something other than wishful thinking and denial.

This book is bad news for the charismatic white collar criminal class. It's about time." Ken McCarthy, New York

Think about the children, and before you go to sleep tonight, say a little prayer for them - let us honour the trust our children place in us.

Nathalie Gettliffe Refuses to Meet With French Journalists At Alouette Prison in Canada

2006-11-17T02:59:00.000-08:00

According to the Agence-France Presse, Nathalie Gettliffe, imprisoned in the Alouette Correctional Centre in Maple Ridge, near Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, apparently refused to meet with a group of French journalists who had arrived with the purpose of inspecting the prison and the conditions under which Nathalie and her infant son, Martin, are forced to live.

She explained her decision in a handwritten document, underlining the possibility that all information regarding her detention could be perceived in a "negative manner" by the judge who will decide her sentencing at the beginning of December, next month.

A group of a half a dozen of French journalists visited the prison on Thursday, according to a trip organized by the Canadian Embassy in France, which was intended to review and report on the Canadian judicial system and the Canadian penitentiary.

Ms Gettliffe did not wish to meet the group. One of the journalists wrote a letter asking to speak with her, but she replied in writing something to the effect of, and we paraphrase, 'I cannot speak to you due to a sentencing hearing coming up on November 30 and the 1st December. All positive or negative information concerning my current conditions of detention can be perceived in a negative manner by the judge in charge of ruling. I remain therefore silent and in suffering, on the counsel of my lawyer. Thank-you again for caring about my case and Martin.'

Nathalie Gettliffe referred to her baby son to whom she gave birth on September 26, during her detention. The Canadian authorities indicated Wednesday that an audience devoted to the sentence of Ms Gettliffe would take place on November 30 and 1st December.

The 35 year-old mother of four pled guilty to the accusation to have removed, in 2001, the two children of her marriage with the Canadian, Scott Grant, an offence of a maximum penalty of 10 years of prison.

Her guilty plea avoids the trials that should have begun November 20. It remains for the judge to decide sentencing after having heard the respective arguments of the accusation and defense at the end of November.

The young mother was arrested in Vancouver on April 11 2006 and has been forced to remain in prison as two Canadian Supreme Court Judges have denied her bail.

The two children of Nathalie Gettliffe's marriage to Scott Grant are currently court-ordered to live with him in Canada.

Nathalie Gettliffe refuse de recevoir un groupe de journalistes français

2006-11-17T02:47:00.000-08:00

AFP 16.11.06 | 22h58

Nathalie Gettliffe, incarcérée au Canada depuis avril pour l'enlèvement de deux de ses enfants, a refusé jeudi de s'entretenir avec un groupe de journalistes français venus la rencontrer et visiter sa prison.
La Française a expliqué sa décision dans une note manuscrite, soulignant que toute information sur ses conditions de détention pourrait être perçue "de façon négative" par le juge qui décidera de sa peine début décembre.

Un groupe d'une demi-douzaine de journalistes français a visité jeudi sa prison, le centre correctionnel pour femmes à Maple Ridge (ouest), dans le cadre d'un voyage organisé par l'ambassade du Canada en France pour mieux faire connaître le système judiciaire et pénitentiaire canadien.

Mme Gettliffe n'a pas souhaité rencontrer le groupe. Celui-ci lui a alors adressé un lettre demandant un entretien, requête à laquelle Mme Gettliffe a répondu par écrit.

"Je ne peux pas vous parler car j'ai une audience de remise de peine le 30 novembre et le 1er décembre. Toute information positive ou négative concernant mes conditions actuelles de détention peuvent être perçues de façon négative par le juge chargé de statuer. Je reste donc silencieuse et dans la souffrance, sur les conseils de mon avocat", a-t-elle expliqué.

"Merci encore de vous préoccuper de mon dossier et de Martin", a ajouté Mme Gettliffe en évoquant le bébé auquel elle a donné naissance le 26 septembre, pendant sa détention.

La justice canadienne a indiqué mercredi qu'une audience consacrée à la sentence de Mme Gettliffe aurait lieu les 30 novembre et 1er décembre.

La femme âgée de 35 ans, a plaidé coupable de l'accusation d'avoir enlevé, en 2001, les deux enfants de son mariage avec le Canadien Scott Grant, un délit passible d'une peine maximale de 10 ans de prison.

Son plaidoyer de culpabilité évite le procès qui aurait dû commencer le 20 novembre et il appartient désormais au juge de fixer la sentence après avoir entendu les arguments respectifs de l'accusation et de la défense, lors des audiences du 30 novembre et 1er décembre.

La jeune femme avait été arrêtée à Vancouver le 11 avril 2006 et est en prison depuis cette date, la justice canadienne ayant refusé à deux reprises de la remettre en liberté conditionnelle.

Elle avait justifié son départ du Canada pour la France en 2001 en expliquant qu'elle voulait soustraire ses deux enfants à l'influence de leur père, membre de l'Eglise internationale du Christ, considérée comme un mouvement sectaire par un rapport parlementaire français, mais légale au Canada.

Les deux enfants de son mariage avec M. Grant ont été remis à leur père par la justice française en juillet dernier et vivent actuellement avec lui au Canada.

La juge Garson est depuis le début en faveur de Scott Grant :

2006-11-15T13:50:00.000-08:00

- le 6 septembre 2001, Garson accorde la garde exclusive au père, une semaine après le départ de la mère et elle lance un mandat d'arrêt, sans avoir pris la peine de permettre à Nathalie une défense et une explication (via un avocat...) du pourquoi de son départ.
Cette décision était inutile pour entamer une procédure de retour "Convention de La
Haye", qui était possible dès la date de la violation des droits de visite du père
(j'ignore si il avait ce droit de visite avant le 6 septembre 2001, mais c'est possible)
Que cette décision ait été prise sans possibilité de défense aurait dû alerter la justice française (dans d'autres cas, avec d'autres pays, cela est venu à l'appui d'un refus de retour des enfants...)

- en 2004, Garson a attribué à Scott Grant quelque 78 000 dollars qui appartenaient à la mère de Nathalie et dont il n'était que gestionnaire, avec aucun droit de propriété; elle aurait voulu que Nathalie se présente en personne devant elle...
De quel droit une juge peut "punir" une femme en volant sa mère ?

Je n'ai pas la décision, malgré ma demande à Vincent Pigeon, car la mère de Nathalie

- fin 2004, Garson a levé le mandat d'arrêt et annulé sa décision du 6 septembre 2004, sur demande de Scott Grant, qui acceptait d'entrer dans un médiation internationale.

- fin 2005, Garson a de nouveau décidé que la garde exclusive serait à SG, sur demande de celui-ci.
Elle n'ignorait pas qu'une médiation était en cours, elle n'a pas pris le soin de vérifier si elle était ou non terminée sur un échec ou alors a été trompée.

La mère n'avait pas été du tout prévenue et c'est par hasard qu'elle l'a su.
Plus vicieux encore, c'est en novembre 2005, donc après cette décision, que les services de l'AG de BC ont envoyé à Nathalie... une copie de la décision d'annulation datant de 2001 !
Louis Ripault, Paris France

Canadian Families Shocked by Light Sentence for Sexual Offenders

2006-11-14T20:03:00.000-08:00

Families shocked by sentence for Winnipeg couple who sexually assaulted teens

14 Nov, 6:34 PM

WINNIPEG (CP) - Family members of two young sex assault victims cursed and sobbed in court Tuesday after a judge handed down what they considered light sentences for a husband and wife who lured the girls to their home and raped them.

Winnipeg police and justice officials have called the case one of the worst they've ever seen, and it has drawn comparisons to the shocking sex murders of two Ontario schoolgirls by Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka.

The 25-year-old woman, who was convicted of three counts of sexual assault and forcible confinement, was to be released Tuesday after Justice Gerald Jewers gave her a sentence equal to the two years she spent in pretrial custody.

Her common-law husband, who was convicted of eight charges including kidnapping and sexual assault, was sentenced to seven additional years in prison. Jewers said he was given less credit for time served because of his "continuous and appalling bad behaviour" in custody.
The pair, dressed in matching grey sweatshirts, chatted amicably in the prisoners box while waiting for Jewers to arrive.

As the man, now 34, was led out of the courtroom in handcuffs, he aimed a smile towards some of the victims' relatives and rubbed his hands together.

"I'm very upset," one woman said through tears as she left the courthouse. "My family's very upset."

Another woman said the female accused was Manitoba's answer to Karla Homolka.

One young victim testified that as a 12-year-old she was held as a sex slave by the couple for several months, given pills and alcohol and tied to a bed and raped.

The victim, now 14, said she was twice abducted off the street, including one time that involved her being thrown in the trunk of a car.

The girl is a cousin of the woman. Her attackers are not being named in order to protect her identity.

Another victim, now 20 years old, testified she was 13 when she started going to the couple's house, where she was offered free liquor. The first time, the man raped her while the wife held her down, she said.

Fear kept her going back to the house, every weekend for a year or two, because the man told her he knew Hells Angels members and he would torture and kill her and her family, she said.

The girl became pregnant with the man's child when she was 16.

Crown prosecutor Jill Duncan had asked for sentences of up to 18 years for the man and up to eight years for his spouse.

She said both girls are still struggling to recover from their ordeal, but a psychological assessment of the 14-year-old victim is especially discouraging.

"This girl has no hope, she has no dreams, she has no future," said Duncan. "It's unfathomable the damage this girl has undertaken."

During a sentencing hearing last month, Duncan said the crimes could only be described as evil.

"The extent of the depravity and perverseness of this case is rarely seen."

Duncan noted that while she never mentioned in court the similarities to the Bernardo and Homolka case, the comparison has been made to her "innumerable times."

Bernardo is serving a life sentence for the sex slayings of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy in the early 1990s.

His former wife, Homolka, is living in Montreal after serving her full 12-year manslaughter sentence.

The Winnipeg couple faced 21 charges, but Jewers said not all the charges were proven to his satisfaction.

"What remains is serious enough."

He said the couple showed no remorse and did not spare their victims the trauma of testifying.

But he also noted the woman did not have a prior record and the man had only one dated, minor conviction that was unrelated to the current charges.

Defence lawyer Jeff Nichols, who represents the man, said he'll review the merits of an appeal, especially on the judge's decision not to grant the standard credit of double-time for pretrial custody.

He said it is "a tremendous exaggeration" to compare the case to Bernardo.

"There was a lot of evidence presented that ultimately, at the end of the day, the court decided not to accept," said Nichols.

News from © The Canadian Press

La Justice Refuse a Nathalie Gettliffe La Garde Conjointe De Ses Enfants

2006-11-14T18:12:00.000-08:00

AFP. Publié le 14 novembre 2006Actualisé le 14 novembre 2006 : 21h46

Nathalie Gettliffe, emprisonnée au Canada depuis avril pour l'enlèvement des deux enfants de son mariage avec le Canadien Scott Grant, ne s’est pas vu accorder la garde des deux enfants.

La Française avait demandé dans une action au civil à se voir reconnaître la garde conjointe des enfants. Mais la juge Nicole Garson, de la Cour suprême de Colombie-Britannique, a refusé de se prononcer sur sa demande, tant que la Française est encore en prison.

Elle a ainsi confirmé, au moins temporairement, la garde des deux enfants âgés de 11 ans pour l'un et de bientôt 13 ans pour l'autre à leur père Scott Grant.

Judge Garson Rebukes Nathalie Gettliffe in B.C. Supreme Court

2006-11-14T15:44:00.000-08:00

14 Nov, 5:16 PM

VANCOUVER (CP) - A French woman who abducted her kids received a scathing rebuke from the judge in her child custody case Tuesday.

In the latest instalment of what has been described as an international soap opera, Justice Nicole Garson decided that the ex-husband of Nathalie Gettliffe would keep interim custody of the children but Gettliffe would be allowed more frequent visits.

The judge didn’t mince words about Gettliffe’s conduct over the past five years as she ruled that Scott Grant, father of Max, 12, and Josephine, 11, would continue to have interim custody. Permanent custody will be sorted out a trial sometime in the future.

“In this case, Miss Gettliffe has denied (the children) permission to love their father,” Garson said in her ruling on the custody battle.

“This order is designed to redress to the extent possible that harm.”

The case has attracted wide attention, particularly in France, over the woman’s abduction of the children to France from Vancouver in 2001.

The case’s twists and turns have included citings of the Hague Convention, nasty accusations in France against her ex-husband, Gettliffe’s voluntary return in immediate arrest in Vancouver, charges that she was abused in prison where she also gave birth to a new son, and allegations that her Canadian ex-husband belonged to a cult-like church.

Gettliffe also announced recently that she wants to run for the presidency of France.

On the criminal side of the ledger, she pleaded guilty to abduction in B.C. Supreme Court earlier this month and will be sentenced later.

On Tuesday, as Grant sat in court and the former couple’s two lawyers handling the civil matter listened to the oral ruling, the judge raked Gettliffe over the coals. At the conclusion, Grant’s lawyer, Theresa Stowe, turned and smiled broadly at him.

“Miss Gettliffe has conducted a publicity campaign to support her decision to defy the Canadian and French court orders,” said Garson.

“She set up an Internet website and association to protect her children. She has made numerous public statements about Mr. Grant and his religious practices. She has exposed her children to the public campaign.”

The judge said Gettliffe appeared “completely without insight as to any potential damage such a custody battle could have on her children.”

Gettliffe had asked the court to see her children twice weekly but the judge sided with Grant, who wanted two visits a month. Still, that order allowed her more visits than the total of six times the children have visited her in jail since April.

The children now live with the father alone in suburban Surrey, B.C., but they “are not affectionate with him” as they were before their abduction.

“The children have been rude and angry at times,” the judge said, allowing that they miss their mother.

She said their behaviour was not surprising since they have spent little time with their father in the past five years.

“I infer from the evidence that they have been told over the past five years that he was not a suitable father,” said Garson.

The children must have time to establish affection “without interference from her.”

“That relationship cannot be nurtured if Miss Gettliffe continues her campaign of vilifying Mr. Grant to the children.”

While she will be allowed more frequent visits, the court ordered her to refrain from making “adverse comments” about the father or his church.

She must also not discuss with the kids any possible return to France.

The jail visits must be supervised because Gettliffe does not appreciate the impact on her children of her “very public campaign” against Grant.

Gettliffe also had asked the court to allow her children contact with friends and relatives in France, but the judge again sided with Grant and left it to him to decide on the degree of contact.

“I am also concerned that such communications might be misused by Miss Gettliffe, her husband or supporters in their continued efforts to maintain public support for the custody battle.

Gettliffe was arrested in April when she returned to defend her PhD thesis in linguistics at the University of British Columbia.

The judge suggested that she returned because her arrest and contempt order, issued in 2001 after she fled, were set aside in 2004 at Grant’s request.

“He took this step because he believed Miss Gettliffe might voluntarily return to Canada if she were not in jeopardy of being arrested,” the judge said.

Gettliffe said previously she took her children to France to remove them from the influence of their father because of his activities in a church that’s considered a cult in France - the International Church of Christ.

But the judge said Gettliffe never talked disparagingly of his church until she reached France.

Although the mother had also asked the court to prevent Grant from taking the kids to his church, the judge allowed him to take them but no more than once a week.

French Journalists Travel To Vancouver, Canada to Report On Nathalie Gettliffe Case

2006-11-13T23:34:00.000-08:00

Word on the street has it that at least 10 French journalists are on their way to Vancouver, British Columbia, in Canada, for a week to report on the living conditions of Nathalie Gettliffe and her infant son, Martin Gruzelle-Gettliffe.

We're not yet sure if this is sponsored by the French or Canadian government, but it is an interesting development nonetheless.

Nathalie Gettliffe has been incarcerated since April this year, and her two young children, Josephine and Maximillien Gettliffe-Grant have been forced to live in Canada against their wills with their father, Scott Grant.
Neither child speaks English, as they have been raised in France for the past five years.
We are waiting to hear from the Ministry of Children and Family Development in British Columbia to understand how they will assist the children to visit their mother and infant brother on a regular basis, given that Scott Grant appears to deny them this right, at whim.

We are concerned for the children, that they have been caught up in a manipulated situation where one spouse is taking advantage of the criminal justice sytem in order to punish his former wife, despite the fact that he signed a document stating that he agreed that their children would live their mother in France.

Something smells awful in the land of Canada....

Ministry of Children and Family Development of B.C. Replies Regarding Josephine and Maximilien Gettliffe-Grant

2006-11-13T01:31:00.000-08:00

----- Original Message -----
From: McNeill, Bruce MCF:EX
To: lisa@canadachildrenfirst.com
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 4:05 PM
Subject: Your letter to the Deputy Minister

(reference #: 156380)

September 8, 2006

Lisa Haeck
Director, Canada Children First
British Columbia Canada

Dear Ms Haeck

The Deputy Minister of Children and Family Development, Lesley du Toit, has requested that I respond to your e-mail letter of August 24, 2006. I wish to thank you for taking the time to bring these concerns to the Deputy Minister’s attention.

Your letter expressed concerns about the welfare of two children who were repatriated to Canada recently and whose mother is now incarcerated. While I am not, due to privacy and confidentiality considerations, able to discuss an individual family’s circumstances with you, I can assure you that in such situations, the Ministry is very willing to provide family support services.

Thank you once again for your letter.

Yours truly

Bruce McNeill,
Director of Child Welfare, Fraser Region
(604)586-2628 Fax (604) 586-4153
"Value the Vulnerable"

Lettres de Prison: Nathalie Gettliffe

2006-11-12T21:54:00.000-08:00

Description du produit
Présentation de l'éditeurLes autorités de la Colombie-Britannique lui avaient interdit de quitter le territoire avec ses deux enfants. Seulement ces enfants étaient en danger, prisonniers d'une secte dont son ex-mari canadien fait partie depuis plusieurs années. Alors Nathalie Gettliffe, une jeune Française de 35 ans, s'est enfuie avec eux dans son pays natal. Donc elle a bafoué la loi. Mais est-ce une raison pour la traiter comme une dangereuse criminelle ? Au fil des lettres qu'elle a envoyées à ses proches et que présente ici son nouveau compagnon, on découvre peu à peu le traquenard dans lequel elle est tombée. Arrestation dès qu'elle pose le pied à Vancouver où elle était censée venir signer un protocole d'accord. Incarcération dans des conditions abominables, sans égards pour la santé du bébé qu'elle attend. Omniprésence de la secte dans les coulisses des prétoires et de la presse, refus de mise en liberté provisoire. Au terme d'un procès prévu en novembre 2006, Nathalie Gettliffe risque... dix ans de prison. Mais elle continue de lutter, et de demander qu'on lui vienne en aide. Ces lettres sont aussi publiées dans ce but.

La Visite Prevue de Max et Josephine, les enfants de Nathalie Gettliffe, a ete annulee

2006-11-12T21:32:00.000-08:00

Report de l’audience préparatoire au procès. La Colombie-Britannique continue dans le lamentable…Une communication téléphonique de Nathalie avec sa maman dimanche 22: Martin va bien mais la visite prévue de Max et Jo a été annulée. Aucune raison invoquée pour les deux cas...

1 – Avis de recherche
Afin de préparer le procès il faut absolument que nous ayons les contacts suivants :
-A Vancouver l’ex épouse de Tom KRIEDEMAN berger spirituel de Scott que Nathalie a supporté bien des jours et des soirées (voir des nuits) dans sa maison avant de fuir de guerre lasse. Ce Tom a vu sa femme, une Autrichienne, le quitter. Son contact en vue de témoignage nous est indispensable.

-A Vancouver l’ex-épouse du procureur Mike LUCHENKO qui vit avec la mère de Scott Grant et qui a signé le bulletin d’écrou illégal de Nathalie.

-Pour les recherches en France: essayer de savoir la réalité du centre Tomatis de Vancouver dans lequel travaillait sous ce vocable Larré et sa bande. Est-ce une émergence officielle du Tomatis Français ?

2 - Enfants
Rien de neuf sur leur état de santé… le Ministère des Affaires Etrangères, contacté par téléphone lundi, ne dit rien connaître de nouveau; le Consul de Vancouver ayant été saisi (encore et encore !!!). L’association ne peut essayer d’en savoir plus au risque de faire payer aux enfants notre aide et de voir reprocher à Nathalie lors du procès notre action qui sera retenue contre elle.

3 - Nathalie, 199 jours de détention…
Pour répondre à la question de la négociation avec Scott Grant, nous sommes dans la situation de 38 : il n’est ni possible ni utile de négocier avec un pervers. L’histoire de Nathalie nous montre même qu’il est dangereux de négocier avec Scott lequel n’ayant aucun sens de l’altérité, est le type même du pervers.
Pervers qui se dit bon chrétien charitable mais- jouit de voir son ex-épouse en prison pour punition de ne pas lui avoir obéi,- prend son pied à accompagner ses enfants voir leur mère coupable en tôle,- exulte de se venger de la nouvelle cellule familiale crée en maintenant Martin le frère et fils en incarcération.

Oui c’est vraiment une bonne et charitable Eglise que celle qu’il fréquente… il n’est pas étonnant que le « père » Larre prêtre condamné pour violence et pédophilie soit dans cette mouvance, d’autant que l’Archidiocèse de Vancouver, auquel il a été imposé après sescrimes, s’en démarque très nettement.
Diffusez ce bulletin aux amis sûr et autorités…
Jean-Louis BAERT
Président de l'association
S'unir pour protéger Maximilen et Joséphine.

Women Barred from Justice

2006-11-12T19:52:00.000-08:00

Women barred from justice
Conditions for women in prisons in BC are deplorable and unnecessary
by Sonia Marino
Although the vast majority of women in prison are incarcerated for non-violent offences and pose no threat to the community, many women in prison in BC are held under conditions that are far more severe than their crime warrants. The closure of the Burnaby Correctional Centre for Women in 2004 has brought many changes for women in prison in BC.

Provincially-sentenced women (those sentenced to less than two years) are now mainly held in the Alouette Correctional Centre for Women in Maple Ridge. Many of the women imprisoned at Alouette are classified as minimum security but have no access to a minimum-security prison environment. The conditions at Alouette are officially said to be designed for women classified as medium security, but a full perimeter fence and other security measures suggest that the conditions are actually more like maximum security.

However, provincially-sentenced women designated as maximum security are held in virtual isolation in a maximum security unit inside the Surrey Pretrial Centre, a men’s prison. Women are serving time in men's lock-ups all over the province (including in the Prince George Regional Correctional Centre) under conditions that are not appropriate to either their gender or their security classification.

Federally-sentenced women (those sentenced to two years or more) are now held in the Fraser Valley Institution for Women in Abbotsford. Although Fraser Valley already has a maximum-security perimeter, a new Maximum Security Unit has been built (at great expense) and is scheduled to open in August 2005. Yet despite a recommendation by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Correctional Service of Canada has failed to build a minimum security unit at Fraser Valley outside the perimeter. Women designated as minimum security are living under maximum security conditions at this prison.

At the Burnaby Correctional Centre for Women, women with a minimum security designation had access to an open living unit which held up to 28 minimum security prisoners. When the Burnaby centre closed, the cell space for women prisoners in BC increased by over 100 beds, but women designated minimum security no longer have access to a minimum security prison.

The only real minimum security prison for federally sentenced women in Canada is the Isabel McNeill Minimum Security House in Kingston, Ontario. The Correctional Service of Canada keeps threatening to close Isabel McNeill, however, so women are hesitant to transfer there.

Having access to a minimum security prison is essential for women, as they require opportunities to leave the prison to work and to build community supports to prepare for release. Being held in a higher security prison means being subjected to much more intense surveillance, having less access to programs, and remaining more isolated from the community, all of which put women at a disadvantage when it comes to release from prison.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission recently concluded that “the lack of minimum security facilities for federally-sentenced women prevents them from being incarcerated in the least restrictive conditions possible as required by the Corrections and Conditional Release Act …

Thus, minimum security women live with physical barriers such as fences, locked gates, razor wire and cameras while their male counterparts tend to be housed in facilities that do not even have chain-link fences.”

Despite the fact that almost half of federally sentenced women are designated as minimum security prisoners, only a handful of those women have access to a minimum security facility.
With the announced closure of Kingston’s notorious Prison for Women in 1994, five regional prisons were built. These prisons were supposed to incorporate a more holistic approach to women’s imprisonment based on empowerment, meaningful and responsible choices, respect and dignity, shared responsibility, and supportive environments.

In 1996, after a walkaway escape, slashings and suicide attempts by women in the new regional prisons, the Correctional Services Commission responded by transferring all women classified as maximum security out of the women’s prisons and into isolated sections of men’s maximum security prisons. For the past nine years women have been held in isolation in men’s maximum security prisons.

On March 8 th 2001, the women in Saskatchewan Penitentiary brought a discrimination complaint against Correctional Services. The Canadian Human Rights Commission agreed to investigate. In January 2004 they found discrimination against federally sentenced women based on gender, race and disability, and made 19 recommendations for change. The report, Protecting Their Rights, can be viewed online at chrc-ccdp.ca.

Rather than moving the women out of the men’s prisons and into the existing women’s prisons, Correctional Service has started building new maximum security units within prisons that are already designed for maximum security prisoners. Some of these new maximum security units have already opened, and the conditions under which the women now live are still not equivalent to the conditions for maximum security men: they are much harsher, and more in line with the super maximum conditions at Special Handling Units in men’s prisons.

According to Filis Iverson, prison abolitionist and prison justice day organizer, women in these new “Max Units” spend their first six months locked in their cells, only to come out for doctor’s appointments and visits; they are not allowed to communicate with any other prisoners; and when they come out of their cells they are in leg shackles and handcuffs, and are escorted by two or more guards. “A woman can work her way to the next step where there are no shackles,” Filis explains, “just handcuffs and two guards. But if at any point she exhibits ‘inappropriate behaviour’ she can be sent back to the first step. When one prisoner is out of her cell, all other prisoners are locked up.”
This level of security is not justifiable in terms of women’s crime nor women’s threat to the community. Women are a low risk to re-offend and have high needs in terms of treatment and healing from physical and sexual abuse, substance abuse, employment training, and education.

The majority of maximum security classified women are First Nations women and women with mental health issues. The needs of women in society have been turned into risk factors and as a result women who are the most socially and economically disadvantaged are classified as maximum security.

Despite the fact that a new provincial prison for women at Alouette opened recently in BC, large numbers of provincial women prisoners in this province are being held in men’s lock-ups in virtual isolation. While some northern or rural women might choose this option because it is preferable to being transferred to a women’s prison so far from home and community, others are being held in the Surrey Pre-trial Centre, a men’s lock-up just a short distance away from the women’s prison. Any woman who is being held on remand or on an immigration hold or who is classified as maximum security is being held in an isolated section of the Surrey Pretrial Centre, or other men’s lock-ups in rural communities across the province.
This is unacceptable.

With ample space and a full perimeter fence at Alouette, there is no reason why these women cannot be removed from Surrey Pre-trial (or other men’s lock-ups if they so choose) and held at Alouette. There are few programs and resources available to women held in men’s prisons. The women are being held in virtual isolation, segregated from the programs and treatment that are needed for release.

We encourage you to write to Premier Gordon Campbell and Solicitor General Wally Oppal and urge them to stop holding women in men’s prisons in BC.
This article was written by the Prison Justice Day Committee. Come to the Prison Justice Day Memorial Rally on Wednesday, August 10 th at 7pm at Trout Lake Park in East Vancouver to show your solidarity and support for prisoners and prison justice. For more information, visit prisonjustice.ca
****

No Charges To be Laid Against Actress Denise Richards, say RCMP in Vancouver, Canada

2006-11-12T13:55:00.000-08:00

Denise Richards

Speaking of injustice....
Did I read correctly? This Hollywood actress/Playboy centrefold injured two elderly women in a Richmond hotel, this past week and the Canadian police won't press charges???
There were over 30 witnesses to Richards's aggressive attack on the reporter and her subsequent violent reaction which caused injuries to two people in the crowd.
In any other circumstance, this would be known as "aggravated assault" or plain and simple, "assault".

Corporal Peter Thiessen, of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, (RCMP), said on Friday that it is not in the public interest to press criminal charges.
Why not? How do we know that Richards won't throw something else into a crowd next week or next month and injure two children?

What is so special about Denise Richards that she cannot be charged?
In the United States law enforcement has not hesitated to charge Wynona Rider and Daniel Baldwin for theft, which seems minor in comparison to aggressively injuring two elderly ladies.

In our opinion, it doesn't matter who you are lady, the law is supposed to be equal for all. Obviously, in this case, it is more "equal" for a Hollywood actress than for Dr. Nathalie Gettliffe, a Mother of four children who remains imprisoned in Maple Ridge, near Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, for trying to protect her children from harm.

There is something very, very wrong with the Canadian justice system: mothers and fathers like Nathalie Gettliffe, Carline vandenelsen and Larry Finck and Rob Nicholson come forward to seek protection for their children and are punished/imprisoned/fined or castigated by judges who appear to have lost their minds...
Pedophiles and those who commit crimes against children, like Robin Sharp, David Frost and Dr. Lucien Larre are free to walk the streets.
How on earth are Canadians and their children supposed to feel safe in their communities if the "law" is so unequal?

Parlons de l’injustice…
Ai-t-je lu correctement ? Ceci la pin-up d’actrice de Hollywood a blessé deux femmes âgées dans un hôtel de Richmond, cette semaine passée, et la police canadienne n’appuieront pas de charges ? ? ?
Il y avait par-dessus 30 témoins à l’assaut de Richards agressif sur le journaliste et sa réaction violente subséquente qui ont causé des blessures à deux gens dans la foule.
Dans aucune autre circonstance, ceci serait su comme « a aggravé l’assaut » ou la plaine et simple, l’ « assaut ».

Peter Thiessen, corporal du Canadien Royal Mounted Police, (RCMP), dit vendredi que ce n’est pas dans l’intérêt public pour produire les charges.
Pourquoi pas ? Comment savons-nous que Richards ne lanceront pas quelque chose d’autre dans une foule ou le mois prochain et blesse la semaine prochaine deux enfants ?

Quel est si spécial de Denise Richards qu’elle ne peut pas être chargée ?
Dans les Etats-Unis que l’application de la loi n’a pas hésité pour charger Wynona Rider, Daniel Baldwin pour le vol, qui semble le mineur dans la comparaison à blessant d’une manière agressive deux dames âgées.

Il n’a pas d’importance qui vous êtes Madame, la loi est supposée pour être l’égal pour tout. Evidemment, dans ce cas, c’est plus « égal » pour une actrice de Hollywood que pour Dr. Nathalie Gettliffe, une Mère de quatre enfants qui reste emprisonnés dans Maple Ridge, (approcher de Vancouver, Colombie Britannique, Canada), pour essayer de protéger ses enfants du mal.

Il y a quelque chose très, très mauvais avec le système de justice canadien : les mères et les pères comme Nathalie Gettliffe, Carline vandenelsen et Larry Finck et Rob Nicholson est présenté se chercher la protection pour leurs enfants et est puni/emprisonné/condamné à une amende ou fustigé par les juges qui apparaît avoir perdu leurs esprits...
Les pédophiles et ceux qui commettent des crimes contre les enfants, comme Robin Sharp, la David Frost et Dr. Lucien Larre est libre de marcher les rues.
Comment les Canadiens et leurs enfants sont-ils supposés pour se sentir sûrs dans leurs communautés si la « loi » est s’inégale ?

Last Updated: Friday, November 10, 2006 3:23 PM PT
CBC News
American actress Denise Richards will not be charged in connection with an altercation with two photographers earlier this week at Richmond's River Rock Casino, the RCMP say.
RCMP spokesman Cpl. Peter Thiessen said Friday it's not in the public interest to press criminal charges.
Actress Denise Richards had a run-in with paparazzi in Richmond, B.C., this week.(Chris Pizzello/Associated Press) He added that Richards, her management company and the photographers have agreed to settle the matter of damages civilly.
Richards is in Greater Vancouver shooting the film Blonde and Blonder with Pamela Anderson, who is originally from Vancouver Island.
Wednesday evening's incident was apparently triggered when two photographers got on to the set of the film on the second floor of the casino without permission
Richards was accused of throwing the photographers' laptop computers over the railing into the lobby below, where they grazed two elderly women.
Police said neither the 80-year-old nor the 91-year-old was seriously injured. They were at the casino as part of an organized visit from a Lower Mainland seniors' facility.
Richards has been in the spotlight recently after she split with actor Charlie Sheen.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2006/11/10/bc-denise-richards.html#skip300x250

B.C. Supreme Court Judge Protects Nathalie Gettliffe's Rights of Privacy

2006-11-11T11:04:00.000-08:00

At last, words of wisdom and a sound decision from a Judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia with integrity. It is so refreshing and encouraging to witness the application of law and wisdom.
It is as if we have been starved of justice for so long, that when it happens, we are stunned and require some time to absorb its meaning.

We had no doubt that the Crown was overreaching its jurisdiction by requesting this psych assessment in a further attempt to discredit Dr. Nathalie Gettliffe, and Judge Koenigsberg's decision confirms our initial suspicion.

We now trust that further wisdom and the application of justice will reign in Nathalie's case.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No mental exam for abductor, court rules
Invasion of French mother's privacy cited in judge's decision
DEBORAH JONES
Special to The Globe and Mail
VANCOUVER -- Nathalie Gettliffe, a French university professor who abducted her two Canadian children, will not be forced to undergo a psychiatric assessment, a B.C. Supreme Court judge ruled yesterday.

"Non-consensual psychiatric assessments are profound invasions of a person's privacy," Madam Justice Marvyn Koenigsberg told lawyers, as she turned down an extraordinary prosecution application to order Ms. Gettliffe to be interviewed by a psychiatrist before sentence is passed.
The ruling was described as a "victory" for Canadian justice and civil liberties by Ms. Gettliffe's defence lawyer, Richard Fowler, and by Jason Gratl, president of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association.
"The scope of what the Crown was requesting in this case was broader than anything that has ever been ordered before," Mr. Fowler told reporters after the ruling.

"In a way, what the Crown was seeking was a warrant to search the inside of the accused's mind," Mr. Gratl said.
"The standard for such a search is that the person is a danger to themselves or others" under mental-health legislation.

The criminal case, which began when Ms. Gettliffe was arrested in Canada in April, has become an international dispute, especially since she announced while in a Canadian jail that she would run in the election for president of France.

Ms. Gettliffe, 35, pleaded guilty Nov. 3 to kidnapping two children she had with her ex-husband, Surrey financial planner Scott Grant. At the time, the court ordered a pre-sentence report, and independent prosecutor Gail Dickson requested that it include a psychiatric assessment. Ms. Gettliffe opposed the assessment.

In arguments this week, Ms. Dickson cited Ms. Gettliffe's actions as reason for "concern" about a possible mental disorder -- including the abduction, Ms. Gettliffe's repeated allegations that her ex-husband is in a "cult" because he belongs to the controversial Vancouver Church of Christ, that Ms. Gettliffe did not obey court rulings to co-operate with Mr. Grant on returning the children, and her bid for the French presidency.

"These are unusual facts," Ms. Dickson had told the court. "These are extraordinary facts, bordering on the bizarre."
She had argued that a psychiatric assessment would be needed to explain such behaviour for the purposes of the sentencing hearing, a date for which has not been set but is expected late this month.

In her ruling, Judge Koenigsberg said the application for a psychiatric assessment raised two issues: whether the court had jurisdiction under the laws to which Ms. Gettliffe pleaded guilty, and whether there was a "sufficient actual foundation to justify making the order."
The judge ruled no in both cases. "Non-consensual psychiatric assessments are profound invasions of a person's privacy," Judge Koenigsberg said. "In my view no such evidence can be discerned here.'

Mr. Fowler, who had argued there was no evidence of a mental disorder in Ms. Gettliffe, partly because of her positive reports for good behaviour in jail and the fact she defended her PhD thesis while in jail, said after the ruling: "Courts have to be wary about telling any individual to essentially provide evidence against themselves. . . . It's contrary to the fundamental principles in our criminal justice system."

Mr. Gratl, who is a lawyer as well as a civil-liberties activist, said the danger of an application like the one brought by Ms. Dickson is that prosecutors could use it "to obtain an order that would assist them in laying the groundwork for a psychiatric assessment which might have a person incarcerated in a mental institution indefinitely."

Ms. Gettliffe, a dual French and Canadian citizen, took the children to France in 2001 in the midst of a bitter custody dispute with Mr. Grant.
While in France, she had a third child with French journalist Francis Gruzelle, and was pregnant by him with her fourth baby when she came to Vancouver in the spring to defend a PhD thesis in languages at the University of B.C.
She was denied bail after her arrest, and gave birth to a boy in September, while living at the Alouette Correctional Centre for Women in B.C.

B.C. Judge Rejects Crown's Request for Psychiatric Test in Nathalie Gettliffe Case

2006-11-11T10:47:00.000-08:00

November 10, 2006
B.C. judge rejects Crown's psych request in kidnapping case
Globe and Mail
10/11/06
Canadian Press

Vancouver — A B.C. Supreme Court judge has rejected the Crown's request for a psychiatric assessment of a French woman convicted of abducting her two kids.
Justice Marvyn Koenigsberg says there is no evidence to justify such an exam, and calls it a “profound invasion of a person's privacy.”
Prosecutors wanted the assessment before sentencing to determine whether Nathalie Gettliffe posed a risk of kidnapping the children again.
She took her two children to France from Canada in 2001, triggering a five-year legal fight by the Vancouver father, Scott Grant, to bring them home.The defence argued that irrational acts do not mean a person is mentally ill.
A date for a sentencing hearing has not been determined.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/
RTGAM.20061110.wpsych1110/BNStory/National/home
Posted by Perry at 04:22 PM

Pas d'évaluation psychiatrique pour Nathalie Gettliffe
Le vendredi 10 novembre 2006
Presse Canadienne
Vancouver
Une juge de la Cour suprême de Colombie-Britannique a rejeté, vendredi, la requête de la Couronne, qui souhaitait obtenir une évaluation psychiatrique en vue des plaidoiries avant sentence pour la Française Nathalie Gettliffe, qui a plaidé coupable d'avoir enlevé ses deux enfants.
Selon la juge Marvyn Koenigsberg, rien ne justifie une telle évaluation, qui constitue une «invasion profonde de la vie privée».

La Couronne souhaitait obtenir une telle évaluation afin de déterminer si Gettliffe pourrait enlever à nouveau ses deux enfants dont le père, un Canadien, a la garde.

Elle avait enlevé ses deux enfants en 2001 et était retournée en France avec eux, afin, dit-elle, de les soustraire à l'influence de leur père, Scott Grant, un membre d'une église considérée comme une secte en France. La saga judiciaire dure depuis cinq ans.

La date pour les plaidoiries avant sentence n'a pas été fixée.

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061110/CPACTUALITES/61110082/1019/CPACTUALITES

Letter to Attorney General of British Columbia, Mr. Wally Oppal

2006-11-10T19:08:00.000-08:00

MR. WALLY OPPAL
Attorney General of B.C.
Room 232Parliament BuildingsVictoria, BCV8V 1X4
Phone: 250 387-1866
Fax: 250 387-6411

RE: NATHALIE GETTLIFFE; JOSEPHINE GETTLIFFE-GRANT; MAXIMILIEN GETTLIFFE-GRANT AND MARTIN GETTLIFFE-GRUZELLE

Dear Mr. Oppal:

Given your previous experience as a Judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, a Justice of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia, and a Director of Family Services of Vancouver, we confess our confusion in your notable detachment from the Nathalie Gettliffe-Scott Grant case.

As this case involves the safety and well-being and the fundamental human rights of four young children and their mother, we are concerned that your office has not acted upon its mandate. In your letter to your constituents on your website you state:

“I will fight to make the streets of Vancouver-Fraserview safer and to strengthen our community as a whole. I have studied and practiced in the Canadian legal system for many years and am confident that together we will create a safer community for our children.
I am committed to being an advocate for you and your issues. I will be accessible and accountable to you at all times. I welcome your concerns with open arms and give you my word that I will work to find solutions and resources to address your concerns.”
With respect, we have not seen you making the least effort to appoint a legal representative for Josephine and Maximilien Gettliffe-Grant, which is their legal right according to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and according to UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, nor have we seen you dedicate any effort to creating a safer community for the Gettliffe-Grant children. In fact, we are convinced that if you took the time to interview the children, they would tell you that they are desperately unhappy and afraid.
“By agreeing to undertake the obligations of the Convention, national governments have committed themselves to protecting and ensuring children’s rights and they have agreed to hold themselves accountable for this commitment before the international community.
States parties to the Convention are obliged to develop and undertake all actions and policies in the light of the best interests of the child. Canada is a State Party to the Convention.” UNCRC
As members of the public who are concerned for the safety and well-being of the two minor children, Josephine and Maximilien Grant-Gettliffe and the infant child in this case, Martin Gruzelle-Gettliffe, we would appreciate it if, in your role as Attorney General, you would provide us with answers to the following questions and your intended action with regard to this File:
1. Why was Dr. Gettliffe lured to Canada under false pretences and arrested in Vancouver after the Canadian embassy in Paris had informed her that there weren’t any outstanding charges against her and that it was safe to travel to Canada?
2. Why were Josephine and Maximilien Gettliffe-Grant lured onto a plane in France by Rev/Dr. Lucien Larre in July after their pregnant mother had been incarcerated in Canada?
3. Why did the Attorney General and the Crown Council not bother to investigate Lucien Larre to understand that in 1992 this man was arrested, charged and convicted of two counts of assaulting a minor; that he was also charged with 9 other counts, including 1 for sexual abuse?
4. Why has the father of these children, Scott Grant, allowed Lucien Larre unlimited access to both his young children since 2003 or before?
5. Why has your office not appointed an independent legal representative for the children?
6. How are we, the people of Canada, supposed to have any trust in the justice system when David Frost, a pedophile in Ontario, was released on bail in August 2006, and yet Dr. Gettliffe, a pregnant mother who claims to have acted to protect her children, was denied bail by the Supreme Court of British Columbia at the same time?
7. Why was Dr. Gettliffe forced to give birth to her son, Martin, while imprisoned?
8. Why has the low birth-weight of baby Martin been kept from the public knowledge?
9. Why has the Canadian Press not published the true facts about Dr. Gettliffe’s journey to Canada: that she came to finalize a mediation agreement that had been sent to her by Scott Grant through the Canadian Embassy in Paris?
10. Why has the Ambassador to Canada in Paris not informed the Canadian public of these facts instead of misleading the public and causing them to believe that Dr.Gettliffe only came to Canada to support her thesis?
11. Why, on the very day that B.C. Crown Council publically announced that Dr.Gettliffe would plead guilty, did the local media publish Front Page news of you speaking to women about domestic violence in Vancouver?
12 Why was Scott Grant’s speech from a podium broadcast to the public and yet, the mother’s television interview was not relayed to the Canadian public?
13. Is Dr. Nathalie Gettliffe a political prisoner in Canada?

14. Why have the children not been allowed to express their views, as is guaranteed in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?
15. Has your office determined whether it is true that the children are in distress and not doing well at school?
16. Is your office aware that the children are becoming depressed because they are not allowed reasonable access with their mother and that they do not have the freedom to express their own views or needs?
18. Has your office determined whether Dr.Gettliffe pleaded guilty under duress?
19. Has your office investigated the reason for the involvement of Lucien Larre in this matter? (Re:Article 36 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child)
20. The Attorney General of B.C. provided funding for the accused in the Air India trial. Why then will the Attorney General not provide funding for the legal representation of Dr. Gettliffe and her children?
21. We respectfully remind the Office of the Attorney General of its fiduciary duty to the minor children according to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as they pertain to Josephine and Maximilien Grant-Gettliffe and to the infant Martin Gruzelle-Gettliffe who remains in prison with his mother, Nathalie Gettliffe.

We look forward to your response,

Canada Children First
B.C. Chapter
Vancouver, British Columbia
Canada

PRESS RELEASE: THE TRUTH ABOUT THE NATHALIE GETTLIFFE-SCOTT GRANT CASE - BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA

2006-11-10T16:22:00.000-08:00

PARIS, FRANCE:
FOR THE ATTENTION OF MONSIEUR CLAUDE LAVERDURE, CANADIAN AMBASSADOR IN FRANCE

In the matter Nathalie Gettliffe, an OPEN LETTER has just been sent to the Canadian Ambassador in Paris.
The author is the same person who requested the intervention of the High Commission on Human Rights in Geneva.

The Federal Government of Canada has only a few days to explain the subject of arbitrary arrest and detention.

Mister Claude Laverdure has previously intervened in person with the media , which is why it is now necessary for him to explain his silence on the role of his embassy in the sending of the document to Nathalie Gettliffe which served towards her entrapment.

A provisional agreement of international mediation had been composed in January 2006 by a Canadian mediator, employed by the Attorney General of British Colombia. In March and April, the parents of Maximilien and Joséphine maintained contact, with the ex-husband signing what appeared to be a perfectly credible document.

He acknowledged, without any constraint, that the custody of their children should be with their mother in France. He also committed to not pursuing the matter. All that remained was to set up the dates of vacation time that the children would spend with him in Canada.

He sent this document to his former spouse, at the end of March 2006, not directly, but through the Canadian Embassy in Paris. The Embassy ascertained the authenticity of the document and confirmed to Nathalie Gettliffe that she could confidently fly to Canada in April.

Nathalie had already requested a Canadian passport from the Embassy in March 2006 for this voyage. She also verified with the Supreme Court of British Columbia that there wasn't anything outstanding against her.

Why then, has Mister Claude Laverdure concealed these facts?

Despite the official "information" in France and in Canada,
it is contrary to the fact that this Anglo-French teacher of linguistics came to Canada only to support her thesis.

She did not come to Canada without announcing it, as her former spouse well knew, and she did not taunt authorities. Her first goal was to finalize, as she believed, the agreement between the parents. At the same time, she counted on supporting her thesis which would have saved her having to support it in France.

The affirmations of the ex-husband regarding a failure of the mediation in 2005, are in total contrast to the existing documents.
How it is that this man is at liberty to dress up the real facts, without an official intervention, when the mediation unfolded itself under the watchful eye of the judicial authorities of the two countries, and when he himself signed this same document?

The open letter also informs the Ambassador of the consequence of the repeated deprivations of inflicted sleep on Doctor Nathalie Gettliffe.
In fact, a jury panel from the university of British Colombia attended in prison so that Nathalie could defend her thesis.

The UBC panel was dazzled by her vivacity of spirit, despite several months of detention.
However, since the past few days, she is does not appear to be herself.
In effect, since the birth of baby Martin, she has been subjugated to a very particular treatment, especially for a young new mother: hourly, every night, she is awakened by the guards.
The result of more than a month of this form of sleep deprivation has not only deprived her of the benefit of "innocent until proven guilty", but it has caused her to plead guilty under duress.

The matter is applicable to the United Nations,concerning the working group on arbitary detention, torture and cruel and degrading treatment, in that France has violated the fundamental rights of the children and their mother, through its judicial decisions. It does not help matters that Canada now, in turn, adds fuel to the fire.

It is noteable that the High Commissioner of Human Rights is the Canadian, Louise Arbour, previously Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal.

As the Ambassador well knows, while a Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1996, this competent and determined person had established a report stigmatizing the violations of the rights of women prisoners in Canada. She would therefore appreciate the "progress" since then accomplished..

For more precise information, please address yourself to:
Louis Ripault(author of the Memorandum to the Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights), so that all investigative journalists wanting to examine the facts may do so in this major case of French-Canadian judicial abuse concerning domestic violence which has been amplified by a sectarian environment.
louis.ripault@tiscali.fr

Open Letter to B.C. Attorney General Wally Oppal Concerning Nathalie Gettliffe

2006-11-10T13:40:00.000-08:00

MR. WALLY OPPAL
Attorney General of B.C.
Room 232Parliament BuildingsVictoria, BCV8V 1X4
Phone: 250 387-1866
Fax: 250 387-6411

RE: NATHALIE GETTLIFFE; JOSEPHINE GETTLIFFE-GRANT; MAXIMILIEN GETTLIFFE-GRANT AND MARTIN GETTLIFFE-GRUZELLE

Dear Mr. Oppal:

Given your previous experience as a Judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, a Justice of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia, and a Director of Family Services of Vancouver, we confess our confusion in your notable detachment from the Nathalie Gettliffe-Scott Grant case.

As this case involves the safety and well-being and the fundamental human rights of four young children and their mother, we are concerned that your office has not acted upon its mandate. In your letter to your constituents on your website you state:

“I will fight to make the streets of Vancouver-Fraserview safer and to strengthen our community as a whole. I have studied and practiced in the Canadian legal system for many years and am confident that together we will create a safer community for our children.
I am committed to being an advocate for you and your issues. I will be accessible and accountable to you at all times. I welcome your concerns with open arms and give you my word that I will work to find solutions and resources to address your concerns.”

With respect, we have not seen you making the least effort to appoint a legal representative for Josephine and Maximilien Gettliffe-Grant, which is their legal right according to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and according to UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, nor have we seen you dedicate any effort to creating a safer community for the Gettliffe-Grant children.

In fact, we are convinced that if you took the time to interview the children, they would tell you that they are desperately unhappy and afraid.

“By agreeing to undertake the obligations of the Convention, national governments have committed themselves to protecting and ensuring children’s rights and they have agreed to hold themselves accountable for this commitment before the international community.
States parties to the Convention are obliged to develop and undertake all actions and policies in the light of the best interests of the child. Canada is a State Party to the Convention.” UNCRC

As members of the public who are concerned for the safety and well-being of the two minor children, Josephine and Maximilien Grant-Gettliffe and the infant child in this case, Martin Gruzelle-Gettliffe, we would appreciate it if, in your role as Attorney General, you would provide us with answers to the following questions and your intended action with regard to this File:

1. Why was Dr. Gettliffe lured to Canada under false pretences and arrested in Vancouver after the Canadian embassy in Paris had informed her that there weren’t any outstanding charges against her and that it was safe to travel to Canada?

2. Why were Josephine and Maximilien Gettliffe-Grant lured onto a plane in France by Rev/Dr. Lucien Larre in July after their pregnant mother had been incarcerated in Canada?

3. Why did the Attorney General and the Crown Council not bother to investigate Lucien Larre to understand that in 1992 this man was arrested, charged and convicted of two counts of assaulting a minor; that he was also charged with 9 other counts, including 1 for sexual abuse?

4. Why has the father of these children, Scott Grant, allowed Lucien Larre unlimited access to both his young children since 2003 or before?

5. Why has your office not appointed an independent legal representative for the children?

6. How are we, the people of Canada, supposed to have any trust in the justice system when David Frost, a pedophile in Ontario, was released on bail in August 2006, and yet Dr. Gettliffe, a pregnant mother who claims to have acted to protect her children, was denied bail by the Supreme Court of British Columbia at the same time?

7. Why was Dr. Gettliffe forced to give birth to her son, Martin, while imprisoned?

8. Why has the low birth-weight of baby Martin been kept from the public knowledge?

9. Why has the Canadian Press not published the true facts about Dr. Gettliffe’s journey to Canada: that she came to finalize a mediation agreement that had been sent to her by Scott Grant through the Canadian Embassy in Paris?

10. Why has the Ambassador to Canada in Paris not informed the Canadian public of these facts instead of misleading the public and causing them to believe that Dr.Gettliffe only came to Canada to support her thesis?

11. Why, on the very day that B.C. Crown Council publically announced that Dr.Gettliffe would plead guilty, did the local media publish Front Page news of you speaking to women about domestic violence in Vancouver?

12 Why was Scott Grant’s speech from a podium broadcast to the public and yet, the mother’s television interview was not relayed to the Canadian public?

13. Is Dr. Nathalie Gettliffe a political prisoner in Canada?

14. Why have the children not been allowed to express their views, as is guaranteed in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

15. Has your office determined whether it is true that the children are in distress and not doing well at school?

16. Is your office aware that the children are becoming depressed because they are not allowed reasonable access with their mother and that they do not have the freedom to express their own views or needs?

18. Has your office determined whether Dr.Gettliffe pleaded guilty under duress?

19. Has your office investigated the reason for the involvement of Lucien Larre in this matter? (Re:Article 36 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child)

20. The Attorney General of B.C. provided funding for the accused in the Air India trial. Why then will the Attorney General not provide funding for the legal representation of Dr. Gettliffe and her children?

21. We respectfully remind the Office of the Attorney General of its fiduciary duty to the minor children according to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as they pertain to Josephine and Maximilien Grant-Gettliffe and to the infant Martin Gruzelle-Gettliffe who remains in prison with his mother, Nathalie Gettliffe.

We look forward to your response,

Canada Children First
B.C. Chapter
Vancouver, British Columbia
Canada

Update on Nathalie Gettliffe's Appearance in the Supreme Court of British Columbia

2006-11-09T22:41:00.000-08:00

9 novembre 2006

Bonjour à tous,

What is important to note is that the Canadian media, which is not an independent press, is very bias regarding Nathalie. They continue trying to make Nathalie look like she is a bad person.

I was in the court this morning and heard the Crown’s argument.

I also heard the argument of Fowler and I say that Fowler at that moment made the case that it is OK to be different, and a person cannot be classified as crazy because one wants to run for the leadership of a country. –If that would be the case, all politicians should be classified crazy and locked up---

In truth Nathalie made a reasonable declaration by trying to protect her children and making serious complaints about the Judiciary system and the jail in Canada, which are not fit for any human being, let alone a pregnant woman.

Nathalie was not of free mind when she pleaded guilty last Friday.

Nathalie should now put a Motion before the Court to quash her guilty plea.

We believe that whether it is her lawyers, or others who convinced her she would be free from prison if she pleaded guilty, it is now time for her to fire all of her lawyers and put a motion before the court and ask the court for an order to quash and reverse the guilty plea.

It is 7 months past the time that her lawyers should have also put before the court the habeas corpus writ under the Charter s. 10. (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms)

The Govt. is making Nathalie a political prisoner.

From my point of view and others who were with me in Court today: Gail Dickson’s argument was for the divorce court and not for the criminal court.

This is to say that the Crown is trying to obtain an order from the court for a psychiatrist assessment to save Scott Grant from paying for it at divorce trial from his own pockets.

Make no mistake, Nathalie has and is being tortured by people who rather let pedophiles walk the streets of Vancouver and lock up mothers who try to look after their children.

I am ashamed of being a Canadian today but I am more sad for Nathalie’s 4 children.

I call on every citizen of Canada and France to come to the rescue of Nathalie, a mother of 4 children, who only wants to protect her children.

We will forward any material we are trying to put together and pass it along to all other AG’s of Canada and also to the press in France.

T.

Priorité : faire sortir Nathalie Gettliffe des geôles canadiennes

2006-11-09T21:08:00.000-08:00

Depuis le 11 avril dernier, Nathalie Gettliffe, professeure d’anglais à l’Université de Lyon II, est donc retenue en prison au Canada. Enceinte, elle n’a pas cédé.

Ségolène Royal, qui a remarqué que Zinédine Zidane avait le sens du combat pour défendre ses valeurs, pourrait se tourner vers le sort autrement plus dramatique de Nathalie Gettliffe...

Question valeurs, la jeune femme se pose là aussi. Elle veut aussi faire connaître la condition féminine dans ce genre de situation et, pour plus se faire entendre, elle aurait reçu le soutien de Pierre Giraud, maire de Satillieu (Ardèche) pour sa candidature aux présidentielles de 2007.

Après plusieurs médiations, conduites pour certaines sous l’égide de la MAMIF, Nathalie Gettliffe s’était rendue au Canada, conjuguant la possibilité de présenter un mémoire de fin d’études et de conclure un accord avec son ex-mari concernant leurs enfants. Certes, de la part de N. Gettliffe, cette ambition s’est révélée présompteuse. La police canadienne prévenue de son arrivée l’a arrêtée une première fois. Faute de mandat, Nathalie Gettliffe avait été relâchée. Le lendemain, un mandat de circonstance était émis dans un environnement judiciaire familiale proche de Scott Grant. Nathalie Gettliffe était emprisonnée comme une grande criminelle, sommée de faire revenir ses enfants au Canada. Elle risque dix ans de prison...

Des médiations dans un climat de suspicion
Les médiations conduites n’ont en fait pas permis de consolider un accord quelconque, ne fût-ce qu’un accord sur les désaccords. Il est clair que les propos tenus par des intervenants - ou prétendus tels, notamment sur des forums Internet - ont alimenté le constat d’incompétence plus que de qualité et de rigueur.

Cette affaire dramatique, où l’on voit des parents s’entredéchirer, les systèmes judiciaires sanctionner le sacrifice d’une mère, des amateurs de la médiation se déresponsabiliser en accusant cette mère de tous les maux et, entre autres, de mauvaise volonté, ne va-t-elle pas enfin trouver une issue ?

Comment désormais avoir confiance dans la MAMIF et ses acteurs, d’autant que l’intitulé même de cette "Mission d’aide à la médiation internationale pour les familles", placée sous l’égide du ministère de la Justice, qualifie le comportement de l’une des parties d’enlèvement d’enfant ? C’est déjà un parti pris. Parti pris jugeant. Parti pris conditionné par une perception juridique de la démarche.

Les affaires de la médiation familiale ne sont pas négociables
Comment avoir confiance dans une démarche qui privilégie une méthodologie fondée sur les enjeux et les intérêts, la négociation, alors que nous sommes ici dans un contexte qui doit permettre aux parties de trouver des repères de régulation relationnelle, avant toute recherche de solution, pour justement créer le climat favorable à la construction d’un accord durable ? Manifestement, le ministère de la Justice n’est pas aidé dans ce domaine qu’il souhaite développer.

Lorsque la médiation est conduite avec plus de prétention que de compétence, elle peut devenir, comme ici, dans cette affaire, un instrument de la Justice dure.
Il conviendrait que les médiateurs qui exposent des personnes à leurs prestations, popularisant ainsi l’échec de la médiation familiale dénoncée dans un rapport tout aussi peu éclairé, se réfèrent à l’idée qu’en matière familiale, la priorité n’est pas à la négociation ou à la conciliation, mais aux conditions spécifiques de la communication entre les parties.

Les "médiateurs" ne devraient-ils pas être appelés en cause ?
Si le médiateur est un professionnel, alors il doit poser le cadre de son intervention, définir les modalités de son déroulement, assumer la responsabilité de sa prestation. Ce n’est pas aux parties de dire ce qu’elles veulent comme modalités de fonctionnement, mais au médiateur de maîtriser son processus. Ainsi, si le médiateur se réfère au droit interne, lequel disposerait qu’il conviendrait d’engager immédiatement des rencontres entre les parties, il est déjà hors médiation et ne peut que revendiquer être un "pourparleur", pas un médiateur. En médiation, il ne s’agit que d’amateurisme, ou tout au plus de dilletantisme.

Un médiateur ne saurait s’appuyer sur le droit pour intervenir.
Quand tous les médiateurs auront compris que leur seul parti pris ne peut être que celui de la médiation, alors nous aurons répandu des médiations de qualité, efficaces, et de leur côté les juristes pourront exercer, sans qu’il y ait ces confusions qui débouchent sur ce genre de situation.
Quand les médiateurs auront compris que la bonne volonté, la psychologie et le droit ne sont pas leurs outils d’intervention, alors ils pourront développer une discipline qui inspirera confiance aux personnes confrontées à des différends qui leurs paraissent inextricables.

Dans cette affaire, il serait opportun que les médiateurs intervenus puissent justifier non seulement de leur mandatement, de leurs compétences, mais également de leur indépendance, de leur neutralité, et de la tenue de leur processus. Ont-ils mis en oeuvre tous les moyens professionnels pour permettre aux parents de se sortir de leurs ornières conflictuelles ?

Priorité : faire sortir Nathalie Gettliffe des geôles canadiennes
Maintenant, deux choses, compte tenu des soupçons sectaires qui font plus que planer sur cette affaire : ne conviendrait-il pas que le Canada accepte que Nathalie Gettliffe soit jugée en France, et, deuxième chose, qu’une médiation plus sérieuse soit conduite pour que cette famille décomposée trouve le chemin qui se trouve tracé dans le roman d’Erik Orsenna, La grammaire est une chanson douce ?
URL TRACKBACK : http://www.agoravox.fr/tb_receive.php3?id_article=11585

A Canadian Citizen is Outraged by the False Reports from the Canadian Media about Nathalie Gettliffe

2006-11-09T19:49:00.000-08:00

Each and every one of them, who in my humble opinion deserve to be together as a family enjoying the comfort of their mother.
I suspected early on that Nathalie had been tricked, the smug look on Scott's face in the news clips gave me chills.
It took hours upon hours of searching the internet looking for the real story behind the incarceration of Nathalie and upon finding it, I just felt I needed to thank you for your blog.

Some of the most outrageous things I read in your blog, like what the priest told the children to get them to go with him, I haven't seen anywhere else.

I hope thousands of other Canadians just like me have also gone searching for the truth. Nathalie and Josephine need to know that in British Columbia most children over the age of 13 can choose their own living arrangments. I would hope that Richmond Provincial Court will see fit to allow Josephine the same rights other children her age when she turns 13.
Name withheld, Canada

Chaque et chaque un d'eux, qui dans mon opinion humble mérite pour être ensemble comme une famille appréciant le confort de leur mère. J'ai soupçonné tôt sur que Nathalie avait été trompé, le regard suffisant sur la visage de Scott dans les trombones de nouvelles a donné me refroidit.
Il a pris des heures sur les heures de chercher l'internet cherche la vraie histoire derrière l'incarcération de Nathalie et sur la conclusion il, je me suis senti juste que j'ai eu besoin d'à merci pour votre blog.
Certaines des choses les plus indignes je lis votre blog, comme ce que le prêtre a dit que les enfants les obtiennent pour aller avec lui, je n'ai vu nullepart d'autre. J'espère des milliers d'autres Canadiens juste comme sont allés me chercher aussi la vérité.
Le besoin de Nathalie et Josephine de savoir que dans Colombie Britannique la plupart des enfants par-dessus l'âge de 13 peut choisir leur propre arrangments vivant. J'espérerais que Richmond le Tribunal Provincial voie que la crise permet les droits pareils à Josephine autres enfants son âge quand elle tourne 13.
Le nom a retenu, Canada

Que l'Ambassadeur Laverdure cache-t-il du public ?

2006-11-09T15:02:00.000-08:00

Sujet: LETTRE OUVERTE A MONSIEUR L'AMBASSADEUR
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 16:46:37 +0100
De: Louis Ripault
Pour: anne.turcotte@international.gc.ca

A l'attention de Madame Anne Turcotte :
Madame, Suite à mon appel téléphonique, veuillez trouver ci-après le texte de la lettre envoyée ce jour à Monsieur l'Ambassadeur par voie postale.Comme je le mentionne in fine, c'est une "lettre ouverte", dont j'envoie également ce jour par courriel le texte aux médias.
Sentiments distingués.
Louis Ripault

Louis RIPAULT
e-mail: louis.ripault@tiscali.fr
Montsûrs, le 09 novembre 2006

Monsieur Claude Laverdure
Ambassade du Canada
35, avenue Montaigne
75008 PARIS
France

Affaire Nathalie Gettliffe

Monsieur l’Ambassadeur,

Dans l’affaire en référence, fin juillet 2006 j’ai attiré l’attention du Haut Commissariat aux Droits de l’Homme à Genève, par un mémorandum explicitant le caractère arbitraire des arrestation(s) et détention(s) de cette franco-canadienne.
Comme vous devez le savoir, le Gouvernement fédéral du Canada n’a plus que quelques jours pour répondre aux services de l’ONU dirigés par Madame Louise Arbour…

Vos récentes interventions dans la presse rendent nécessaire d’éclairer des évènements impliquant votre ambassade.
Curieusement, vous omettez d’en faire état dans vos déclarations aux médias et lors de vos appels téléphoniques à des élus français…

Notamment, je fais ici référence à l’accord provisoire de médiation internationale que votre ambassade a fait parvenir à Nathalie Gettliffe, fin mars 2006.
Cet accord avait été rédigé, en anglais, en janvier 2006, par Pamela Jeffrey, médiatrice employée de l’Attorney Général de Colombie Britannique.

Le document envoyé à Nathalie Gettliffe était signé par Scott Grant, qui y reconnaissait que la garde des enfants devait être avec leur mère en France (premier alinéa de la page 3…).

La mairie de Satillieu, où, côté français, les sessions de médiation se faisaient par téléconférence, a enregistré que la dernière de ces réunions « officielles », en présence de la médiatrice française, datait du 27 février 2006.
L’envoi du document signé ayant été fait ensuite, qui plus est par vos services, cela accréditait, aux yeux de Nathalie Gettliffe, la confirmation de l’accord de Scott Grant, pour le bien des enfants Maximilien et Joséphine.
L’envoi, non pas en direct mais par une voie officielle, venait donc à l’appui des conversations et courriels entre les ex-conjoints, postérieurs à la dernière téléconférence en présence des médiatrices.

L’ensemble prouve que Scott Grant, à cette date, fin mars 2006, acquiesçait à la garde des enfants par la mère en France et que sont parfaitement contraires aux faits ses déclarations, jamais démenties officiellement, que la médiation internationale aurait échoué en 2005.

Je détiens aussi une attestation du maire de Satillieu, quant à sa certification de photographies de Nathalie Gettliffe, en vue de l’obtention en mars 2006 d’un passeport canadien par vos services.

J’ai aussi recueilli les témoignages d’universitaires de Lyon et de Grenoble, sur son annulation des dispositions antérieurement prises pour soutenir sa thèse depuis la France.

Elle a changé de modalité à partir du moment où, au vu des courriels de la médiatrice canadienne (dont j’ai copie…), elle se croyait, a-t-elle déclaré à ses collègues, libre d’aller au Canada sans y être inquiétée, croyant en la « bonne foi » de son ex-conjoint.
Elle a cru ensuite celle-ci confirmée, par le fait que votre ambassade s’impliquait dans la transmission de ce document, comportant aussi l’engagement signé par l’ex-mari de ne pas la poursuivre.

Les pièces établissent donc que Nathalie Gettliffe ne venait pas au Canada « en douce », en narguant les autorités, suite à une prétendue obligation de se déplacer en personne pour une soutenance universitaire.

S’il s’était agi seulement de valider sa thèse, il est attesté qu’elle aurait procédé autrement.
Il est de plus certain que sa venue à Vancouver, prévue dans un courriel de la médiatrice canadienne aux deux parents, ne pouvait être ignorée ni de l’ex-conjoint, ni d’ailleurs des autorités canadiennes, tant judiciaires que consulaires.

Son but premier était bien de finaliser l’accord de médiation transmis par vos services.
Par la même occasion, cette enseignante avait organisé avec UBC la soutenance sur place de sa thèse, notamment pour éviter les frais d’une vidéoconférence depuis l’Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon…

Il apparaît donc, Monsieur l’Ambassadeur, que vous couvrez, par votre silence quant à la transmission de ce document par votre ambassade, les agissements ultérieurs de membres de la Couronne, intimes de l’ex-mari, notamment Mike Luchenko et Heather Holt.

Ces personnes ont utilisé leurs fonctions officielles pour poursuivre, suivant des modalités plus que curieuses, une mère venant au Canada dans le cadre d’une médiation internationale, pourtant placée sous l’égide des services officiels des deux pays.
Cette affaire sonne le glas de la notion de médiation familiale, tant vantée pourtant au Canada.
Par ailleurs, selon vous Nathalie Gettliffe bénéficierait à Alouette d’un traitement bien adapté.
Certes l’établissement a été rénové, mais il n’en reste pas moins, à jamais dans l’histoire, un « lieu de séjour » dont nombre de pensionnaires nippons ne revinrent pas vivants…
De plus, le Pacte international relatif aux droits civiques et politiques ne spécifie-t-il pas, en son article 10, que ne doivent pas être mis ensemble des prévenus et des condamnés ?
Surtout, dans quel but réveille-t-on cette jeune accouchée, « présumée innocente », toutes les heures de la nuit, depuis le 28 septembre, en lui braquant une lampe torche dans les yeux ?

Vous ne serez pas étonné que ma plainte à l’ONU, pour arrestation(s) et détention(s) arbitraires, puisse s’étoffer maintenant d’une plainte pour des actes de privation de sommeil. On en voit bien les effets nocifs sur la personne du Docteur Nathalie Gettliffe, qui avait ébloui son jury de thèse cet été.

Depuis, ces agissements pernicieux l’ont mise dans un tel état qu’elle a été contrainte à plaider coupable, alors que ce dont on l’accuse nécessite une intentionnalité qui n’était pas la sienne.

A Genève, le dossier vient d’être transmis au bureau de Monsieur Manfred Nowak, Rapporteur spécial sur la torture et autres peines ou traitements cruels inhumains ou dégradants.
L’éventuelle validation de ma qualification des faits, par la Canadienne qui fut Procureur Général du Tribunal Pénal International, ne manquerait pas d’attirer l’attention du monde entier sur un « dysfonctionnement » des institutions judiciaires et pénitentiaires dont vous vantez tant la qualité.

Dans cette affaire, la France encourt une sanction par la Cour Européenne des Droits de l’Homme.
Les décisions judiciaires, dont vous vous prévalez, résultent d’une accumulation de violations des droits de la personne. Entre autres, il n’y a pas eu d’audition des enfants, malgré leurs demandes, et n’ont pas été appliquées, dans leur intérêt, les clauses de refus de retour, prévues par la Convention de La Haye, en particulier à l’alinéa 2 de l’article 13.
Certes, cette sanction de la France va prendre un certain délai.
Mais est-ce une raison pour que, dans l’intervalle, le Canada fasse
« encore mieux dans le pire » ?
Le résultat des traitements subis par Nathalie Gettliffe, présumée innocente ainsi contrainte à plaider coupable, m’amène à ne pas attendre votre réponse quant au rôle joué par votre ambassade.

C‘est pourquoi je communique ce jour même aux médias copie de cette LETTRE OUVERTE.
Veuillez être assuré, Monsieur l’Ambassadeur, de ma détermination à faire connaître les faits réels.

Louis Ripault

LETTRE OUVERTE A MONSIEUR L'AMBASSADEUR

2006-11-09T14:50:00.000-08:00

AFFAIRE NATHALIE GETTLIFFE :
LETTRE OUVERTE A L'AMBASSADEUR DU CANADA A PARIS

Dans l'affaire Nathalie Gettliffe, une LETTRE OUVERTE vient d'être envoyée à l'Ambassadeur du Canada à Paris.L'auteur en est la personne qui a déclenché l'intervention du Haut Commissariat aux Droits de l'Homme à Genève.

Le Gouvernement fédéral du Canada n'a plus que quelques jours pour s'expliquer à l'ONU, au sujet des arrestation(s) et détention(s) arbitraires de l'enseignante franco-canadienne.

Monsieur Claude Laverdure étant intervenu en personne auprès des médias, quelle explication faut-il donner à son silence sur le rôle de son ambassade, dans l'envoi à Nathalie Gettliffe du document ayant servi à la faire tomber dans un piège?

Un accord provisoire de médiation internationale avait été rédigé en janvier 2006 par la médiatrice canadienne, employée de l'Attorney Général de Colombie Britannique. En mars et avril, les parents de Maximilien et Joséphine ont poursuivi leurs contacts. L'ex-mari a fait croire à un parfait accord, en signant ce document tel quel.
Il y reconnaissait, sans aucune condition suspensive, que la garde des enfants devait être avec leur mère, en France. Il s'engageait aussi à ne pas la poursuivre. Il ne restait plus à fixer que les dates des vacances des enfants avec lui.
Il a transmis, fin mars 2006, ce document à son ex-épouse, non pas en direct, mais via l'ambassade du Canada.Cela en a authentifié la valeur et confirmé à celle-ci qu'elle pouvait prendre l'avion, début avril, en toute confiance.

Elle avait d'ailleurs demandé en mars 2006, à l'ambassade, un passeport canadien pour ce voyage.Elle avait également vérifié auprès de la Cour Suprême de Colombie Britannique qu'il n'y avait rien contre elle.

Pourquoi donc Monsieur Claude Laverdure dissimule-t-il tous ces faits?
Malgré les "informations" officielles, tant de la France que du Canada, il est contraire aux faits de prétendre que l'enseignante franco-canadienne serait venue à Vancouver dans le seul but de soutenir sa thèse.
Elle avait d'ailleurs obtenu de le faire depuis la France et pris les dispositions à cette fin.
Elle ne venait pas "en douce", son ex-conjoint le savait et elle ne narguait pas les autorités.
Son but premier était de finaliser, croyait-elle, l'accord entre les parents. Par la même occasion, elle comptait effectuer la soutenance et a donc annulé les dispositions pour le faire en France.

Les affirmations de l'ex-mari, quant à un échec de la médiation en 2005, sont totalement contraires aux documents existants.

Comment se fait-il qu'on laisse cet homme ainsi travestir les faits réels, sans aucun démenti officiel, alors que la médiation se déroulait sous l'égide des autorités judiciaires des deux pays et qu'il avait lui-même signé ce document?

La lettre ouverte informe aussi l'Ambassadeur de la conséquence des privations répétées de sommeil infligées au Docteur Nathalie Gettliffe.
Au Canada, désormais c'est ainsi qu'on devrait l'appeler. En effet, l'Université de Colombie Britannique a obtenu que sa soutenance de thèse ait lieu en prison.

Son jury a été ébloui alors par sa vivacité d'esprit, malgré déjà plusieurs mois de détention.
Mais, depuis quelques jours, elle n'est plus la même personne.En effet, depuis la naissance de Martin-Tamilin, elle a "bénéficié" d'un traitement très spécial, surtout pour une jeune accouchée : d'heure en heure, toutes les nuits, elle est réveillée par les gardiennes...Le résultat de plus d'un mois de cette forme raffinée de privation de sommeil n'est pas seulement d'avoir déprimé cette "présumée-innocente-traitée-en-criminelle", au point de l'amener à plaider coupable sous la contrainte.

La conséquence est aussi qu'à l'ONU, en sus du Groupe de travail sur la détention arbitraire, est maintenant saisi le Rapporteur spécial sur la torture et autres peines ou traitements cruels inhumains ou dégradants Que la France ait, dans ses décisions judiciaires, violé les droits fondamentaux des enfants et de leur mère, avec obstination, ne saurait excuser que le Canada s'applique à son tour à faire "encore mieux dans le pire"...Il est à souligner que le Haut Commissaire aux Droits de l'Homme est la Canadienne Louise Arbour, antérieurement Procureur Général du Tribunal Pénal International.

Comme le sait bien l'Ambassadeur, en 1996, en tant que Juge à la Cour Suprême du Canada, cette personne compétente et résolue avait établi un rapport stigmatisant des violations des droits des femmes détenues dans les prisons canadiennes.Elle saura donc apprécier les "progrès" accomplis depuis...

pour plus de précisions, s'adresser à :
Louis Ripault(auteur du mémorandum au OHCHR-ONUG), qui est à la disposition de tout journaliste d'investigation voulant enfin examiner sur pièces les faits, dans ce cas majeur de maltraitance judiciaire franco-canadienne, suite à violences domestiques amplifiées par un environnement sectaire.louis.ripault@tiscali.fr

Proof that An Ordinary Citizen Can Run for President in France

2006-11-09T13:53:00.000-08:00

Many Canadians have not been informed that an ordinary citizen may be eligible to run for President of France. The French system is therefore completely different to Canada's electoral requirements for Prime Minister.

Nathaliffe Gettliffe enlisted for the Presidential campaign in France, as she is entitled by French law. In order to qualify for the campaign, she needs 500 signatures from Mayors in France.
So far she has more than 100 signatures from more than 100 French Mayors who have shown their support.

The Canadian media have done Nathalie Gettliffe further injustice by insinuating that she is unstable in some way because she has entered the Presidential campaign. In so doing, the Canadian media and all those ignorant of the facts have insulted all French Presidential candidates by association, instead of doing their job and informing the public of the truth.

As an example, Rachid Nekkaz, another ordinary citizen of France, has entered the Presidential Campaign in France. ( French article in its original format below.)
Monsieur Nekkaz is well aware of Nathalie Gettliffe's case and he is advocating for her.
Monsieur Nekkaz has had 477 Mayors provide their signatures of support.
(Rough translation from the French...)
"Welcome,
For 2007, my Program is to form an apolitical Government representing all the political interests of the country and to regulate together the serious problems in France. There are good ideas from all.

Already 477 Mayors (0 Mayor of suburbs + 477 country Mayors) support the candidacy of Rachid NEKKAZ, President of the Club of the Elus Go France, apolitical Candidate to the presidential election, and author with Jacques CHIRAC and Bill CLINTON of a book on the future of humanity (Editions Robert Laffont, 2000).

DIARY
November 21 2006 to 11h30: National Press Assembly - Conférence on:- the proposition in Law suggestion (supported by 414 Representatives and 2417 Mayors) on the automatic inscription of all the French citizens on the electoral lists and a study on the 100 first France cities with their non-inscription rate on the lists.- the proposed legislation suggests that all the Mayors perceive the SMIG (21 317 Mayors touch currently the equivalent one of the RMI).

November 22 2006 to 19H: Presidential Meeting in Paris
Rachid NEKKAZ will organize his second presidential meeting November 22 2006 in Paris (ASIEM: 6 encores street Albert of Lapparent, 75 007) in order to celebrate together the 500 elus parrainages in the presence of Mayors and of persons in charge of associations and to support also Nathalie GETTLIFFE, family mother imprisoned in Canada.
This meeting will be introduced by Madam Christine DELAFONTAINE, Mayor (27), Knight on the order of the merit and President of the national Committee of support of the Elus to the candidacy.

From the website...
Bienvenue
Pour 2007, mon Programme est de former un Gouvernement apolitique représentant toutes les tendances politiques du pays et de régler ensemble les problèmes profonds de la France, car il y a partout de bonnes idées.
Maires
Déjà 477 Maires (0 Maire de banlieue + 477 Maires de campagne ) soutiennent la candidature de Rachid NEKKAZ, Président du Club des Elus Allez France, Candidat apolitique à l’élection présidentielle, et auteur avec Jacques CHIRAC et Bill CLINTON d’un livre sur l’avenir de l’Humanité (Editions Robert Laffont, 2000).
AGENDA
21 Novembre 2006 à 11h30 : Assemblée NationaleConférence de presse sur :- la proposition de Loi (soutenue par 414 Députés et 2417 Maires) sur l’inscription automatique de tous les citoyens français sur les listes électorales et une étude sur les 100 premières villes de France avec leur taux de non-inscription sur les listes.- la proposition de Loi pour que tous les Maires perçoivent le SMIG ( 21 317 Maires touchent actuellement l’équivalent du RMI).

22 Novembre 2006 à 19h : Meeting présidentiel à ParisRachid NEKKAZ organisera son deuxième meeting présidentiel le 22 Novembre 2006 à Paris (ASIEM : 6 bis rue Albert de Lapparent, 75 007) afin de célébrer ensemble les 500 parrainages d’Elus en présence de Maires et de responsables d’associations et de soutenir aussi Nathalie GETTLIFFE, mère de famille emprisonnée au Canada.Ce meeting sera introduit par Madame Christine DELAFONTAINE, Maire d’Ecouis (27), Chevalier de l’Ordre du mérite et Présidente du Comité national de soutien des Elus à la candidature de Rachid NEKKAZ à l’élection présidentielle.

Rachid Nekkaz website....

Why is A Catholic Priest with a Criminal Background Involved in the Nathalie Gettliffe-Scott Grant Case?

2006-11-07T13:32:00.000-08:00

Do you know this man? His name is Father or Dr. Lucien Larre...

We have the following questions:

Why is this man still a priest after he was charged and convicted of assaulting at least one minor in Saskatchewan in 1992?

Why is this man still allowed to practise as a psychologist who works with special needs children after he was charged with 9 offences in 1992, including one for sexual assault?

How is it that he is not allowed to practise in Saskatchewan as a psychologist, yet the College of Psychologists of British Columbia allows him to practise there?

Why has he insinuated himself into the life of Scott Grant and the children he shares with Nathalie Gettliffe?

Why did this man get on a plane and fly to France with Scott Grant in July 2006?

Why did he tell the children that if they got onto the plane and flew to Canada, that their Maman would be released from prison?

Why is the Archdiocese refusing to answer questions that concerned residents of Vancouver are asking about this man?

Why did the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation air a documentary about Lucien Larre shortly after he was charged and convicted in 1992 along with several of his adult victims?

Why did the same CBC broadcast on Radio One a program on October 19 called "In Your Ear" which declares that Lucien Larre is a "remarkable" man?

Why, since a letter was written to the Archdiocese of Vancouver expressing concern about Larre, are we told that the Crown prosecutor will no longer be calling Larre as an expert witness?

Did you know that an official complaint was made to the College of Psychogists of British Columbia by a mother whose children were removed from her care after Lucien Larre wrote a false report about her?

Did you know that as a result of that report that two children have had their mother ripped from their lives and been sexually assaulted?

Why does Scott Grant allow this man who has been prosecuted for crimes against children, unlimited access to his children?

How is Nathalie Gettliffe supposed to believe that her children are safe if her former husband allows a man convicted of assault against children near their own children?

How is Nathalie Gettliffe supposed to protect her children from any harm if she is forced to remain in prison?

How is the community supposed to protect these children if the Catholic Church and the College of Psychologists refuses to inform the public of Father/Dr. Lucien Larre's criminal background?

Would you allow this man near your children?

SASKATCHEWAN “SAINT” SENTENCED.Rev. Lucien Larre, 59, dubbed a saint for his work with troubled youth, was sentenced to one symbolic day in jail and a $2,500 fine for slapping and choking one youth and forcing another to take pills. He was acquitted on 9 other counts, including a charge of sexual assault. His jail sentence was waived.”Source: _Toronto Star_ 4/25/92.

In the name of God believe Tom Robinson

2006-11-06T13:23:00.000-08:00

A lot of ugly things in this world...
I'm simply defending Tom Robinson....
Some people are born to do unpleasant jobs for us...your father is one of them...
No need to be afraid son...he is all bluff...
All men are created equal..
"You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view... until you climb inside his skin and walk around in it."

A lof of ugly things in Canada...
I'm simply defending Nathalie Gettliffe...
Some people are born to do unpleasant jobs for us....your mother is one of them....
No need to be afraid Nathalie..... the leg chains and handcuffs while you were in labour....they were just your imagination....
All Canadians are created equal..... except for the natives and Nathalie Gettliffe and her children.
You never really understand a MOTHER until you consider things from her point of view..... until you climb inside her skin and walk around in it...

CANADA YOU NEED AN ATTICUS FINCH badly!

Nathalie Gettliffe - "DIEU ET MON DROIT" and the Canadian Legal System

2006-11-04T20:59:00.000-08:00

(We use the name of Nathalie's children in our publications because the Canadian media has set the example by publishing their names and photographs since April 2006. )

The above image represents the Royal Coat of Arms in the Supreme Court of Canada - Beneath the Lion and the Unicorn, it clearly reads in French: "Dieu et mon droit". (God and my right).

When you walk into one of the court rooms at the Supreme Court of British Columbia, on Smithe Street in Vancouver, one of the first things to catch your eye is the Royal Coat of Arms on the wall behind the Judge's bench, which reads: 'DIEU ET MON DROIT" (God and my right).

One wonders, considering what is written in the Preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law: "

Why the absence of the Supremacy of God and the rule of law appear to be so detached from the case of Nathalie Gettliffe and the children, Maximilien, Josephine, Martin and Jean-Philippe?
Those of us with a conscience and a heart continue to wonder why this Mother is being treated so abominably in Canada?

THE STORY BEHIND THE ROYAL COAT OF ARMS IN THE CANADIAN COURTS -
It is used as a representation of the British monarch, presently Queen Elizabeth II, to whom the land of Canada belongs.
These arms are used by the Queen in her official capcity and are officially known as her Arms of Dominion, demonstrating her supposed "divine right to rule".

A write-up on wikipedia says:
"Dieu et mon droit (French for God and my right, referring to the monarch's divine right to govern) has generally been used as the motto of the British monarch since it was adopted by Henry V (1413-1422). Originally it was spelled Dieut et mon droict, the early Modern French spelling, but later the 'c' in "droict" was taken out in accordance with present French orthography. To this day, this motto is emblazoned on the Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.
A French motto rather than English was chosen because the English language had only recently replaced French as the language of the English ruling classes. Henry spoke French and had been crowned King of France as well as of England. The motto of the Order of the Garter Honi soit qui mal y pense is also in French.
The phrase was allegedly first used as a password by King Richard I in 1198 at the Battle of Gisors, when he defeated the forces of Philip II of France. Its meaning was that Richard owed his royalty to no power other than God and his own heredity, and was therefore subject to no earthly power or other monarch. This can be taken as a direct reference to the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings."

Dieu et mon droit (en anglais God and my [birth] right) est la devise de la monarchie britannique, depuis l'époque de Henri V (1413, 1422).
Cette devise est en français car c'était la langue des souverains du royaume depuis Guillaume le Conquérant (les mots et expressions d'origine française et normande se retrouvent d'ailleurs beaucoup dans la langue anglaise). Henri V parlait français et anglais, et pourtant l'usage de l'anglais par l'élite reprit son essor durant son règne.
Certaines devises d'ordres de chevalerie anglais sont aussi en français, c'est par exemple le cas du Honi soit qui mal y pense pour l'Ordre de la Jarretière.

HONESTY is what I really need!

2006-11-03T07:19:00.000-08:00

Honesty is such a lonely word. Everyone is so untrue. Honesty is hardly ever heard. And mostly what I need from you. I can always find someone to say they sympathize. All I want is someone to believe. Honesty is such a lonely word. Everyone is so untrue. Honesty is hardly ever heard. And mostly what I need from you.

I believe these are the words that Nathalie is thinking about at this time!
All she wanted was one Canadian authority to be honest with her.
But I don’t think any were….

Nobody wanted the TRUTH!
This case was about SAVING FACE, never honesty!

This is a very sad moment for Canada…….. the Nathalie Gettliffe case will be recorded as one of the saddest cover-ups discriminating against mothers and children!
An innocent woman…..sleep-deprived, suffering from post partum blues, harassed by violent inmates, woken up every hour of the night by jail guards poking a flashlight in her eyes…..made to plead guilty….. because neither the French government nor the Canadian government wanted their errors to go on trial!

Maman........

2006-10-26T11:19:00.000-07:00

A little bit of compassion please!
This little boy is very sad.
His mom has been away for far too long.
He does not know how to write a letter ...nor does he know how to express his anxiety... his worry... so that Wally Oppal can understand.
So that is why mature adults, such as you and I, must do it for him.
Let Mommy come home!
I need Mommy!

Love Jean-Philippe

Communique de Presse

2006-10-24T12:00:00.000-07:00

Communiqué de Presse

Le drame Nathalie Gettliffe parasité par les fausses informations des renseignements généraux de Privas

Depuis plusieurs mois, les autorités préfectorales et ministérielles, qui s'intéressent au drame vécu par Nathalie Gettliffe et ses enfants, aujourd'hui maltraités au Canada par la secte l'Eglise Internationale du Christ, sont parasitées par des notes émanant des renseignements généraux de l'Ardèche. Ces notes contiennent beaucoup de fausses informations, depuis le 10 avril, dans le seul but de nuire à Nathalie Gettliffe et à ses enfants.

Pourquoi ? Début 2004, le capitaine des renseignements généraux de Privas, Frédéric Marie, a sollicité, par écrit et par mail, auprès de Nathalie Gettliffe, « des relations amoureuses, en contre -partie de l'aide qu'il pouvait obtenir dans ce dossier et de l'influence qu'il pouvait avoir auprès du procureur de la république de Privas, afin que les décisions de justice ordonnant le renvoi des enfants au Canada ne soient pas exécutées... ». Les nombreux papiers en notre possession attestent des propositions malhonnêtes du capitaine Frédéric Marie.

Femme d'honneur, Nathalie Gettliffe a refusé cet odieux chantage, indigne de l'éthique que doit s'imposer un officier de police. Le même Frédéric Marie a été exclu du bureau de l'association « S'unir pour protéger Maximilien et Joséphine », présidée par le colonel Jean-Louis Baert (port 06 60 45 47 05) le 11 septembre 2004, en raison de son comportement.

Il serait urgent que la direction centrale des renseignements généraux et son ministre de tutelle Nicolas Sarkozy fassent le ménage au sein des RG de l'Ardèche, le chef de service des RG, M. Catris, ayant été mis au courant, en son temps, des dérives de son adjoint par plusieurs élus Ardéchois.

Lettres de prison - Nathalie Gettliffe

2006-10-15T09:21:00.000-07:00

Document
Résumé : Les autorités de la Colombie-Britannique lui avaient interdit de quitter le territoire avec ses deux enfants. Seulement ces enfants étaient en danger, prisonniers d'une secte dont son ex-mari canadien fait partie depuis plusieurs années. Alors Nathalie Gettliffe, une jeune Française de 35 ans, s'est enfuie avec eux dans son pays natal. Donc elle a bafoué la loi. Mais est-ce une raison pour la traiter comme une dangereuse criminelle ? Au fil des lettres qu'elle a envoyées à ses proches et que présente ici son nouveau compagnon, on découvre peu à peu le traquenard dans lequel elle est tombée. Arrestation dès qu'elle pose le pied à Vancouver où elle était censée venir signer un protocole d'accord. Incarcération dans des conditions abominables, sans égards pour la santé du bébé qu'elle attend. Omniprésence de la secte dans les coulisses des prétoires et de la presse, refus de mise en liberté provisoire. Au terme d'un procès prévu en novembre 2006, Nathalie Gettliffe risque… dix ans de prison. Mais elle continue de lutter, et de demander qu'on lui vienne en aide. Ces lettres sont aussi publiées dans ce but.

18 €

Envoyer la référence à un contact

Fiche technique
Date de parution : 21 sSeptembre 2006
Pagination : 212 pages
Format : 140 X 225cm
ISBN : 2-7499-0570-2

Communique de Presse sur L'Affaire Gettliffe et Les Enfants

2006-10-15T09:11:00.000-07:00

Communiqué de presse

Affaire Gettliffe : les enfants Maximilien et Joséphine dans un état lamentable

Les témoignages fiables et concordants qui nous parviennent du Canada (en annexe) prouvent les mauvais traitements subis par Maximilien (12 ans et demi) et Joséphine Gettliffe-Grant (10 ans et demi) dans la secte de leur père. Ces enfants sont aujourd’hui victimes de séquelles physiques et psychologiques, comme l’attestent les témoins présents dimanche dernier à la prison de Maple-Ridge, lorsque Maximilien et Joséphine ont pu rencontrer leur petit frère Martin et leur maman Nathalie (ils ne l’avaient pas revu depuis sept semaines).

La petite Joséphine a clairement exprimé ses souffrances, son désespoir, son isolement, et surtout le fait que son père lui interdit toute communication avec sa famille en France (lire ci-dessous). Ces deux enfants Français ne bénéficient pas du soutien consulaire qui leur est dû, des mesures d’accompagnement promises par Pascal Clément le 6 juillet dernier, après qu’ils aient été capturés par 120 gendarmes en Savoie et livrés à l’infâme Dr Larré, considéré par un criminel par l’archevêché de Vancouver. L’état lamentable dans lerquel ils se trouve nécessite leur rapatriement immédiat en France, avec leur maman et leur petit-frère Martin, victime innocente injustement incarcérée.

Les mauvais traitements carcéraux (décrits dans le livre Lettres de prison, éditions Michel Lafon, 18 €) continuent pour Nathalie Gettliffe, très épuisée après une grossesse et un accouchement difficiles.

Chaque nuit, elle est réveillée toutes les heures par des gardiennes perverses, qui veulent s’assurer qu’elle ne s’est pas suicidée. Elle ne peut donc pas récupérer et se trouve chaque jour un peu plus épuisée.

Tout cela se déroule sans que l’Etat Français (qui l’a livré à la gendarmerie royale Canadienne le 11 avril alors qu’elle s’était réfugiée au Consulat de France à Vancouver) bouge le petit doigt, pour obtenir son rapatriement sanitaire en France, alors qu’elle est innocente et n’a commis aucun crime ou délit. Le même état Français a fait rapatrier de Gantanamo des islamistes soupçonnés d’appartenir à Al Quaïda,le mouvement terroriste. Ce qui témoigne d’un état à la dérive, au moment où Sarkozy, qui a signé l’emploi de la force publique pour capturer les enfants Français Maximilien et Joséphine et les livrer à une secte au Canada, tente de nous proposer une société liberticide.

Francis GRUZELLE

Make a Complaint According to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

2006-10-14T22:07:00.000-07:00

Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI)of 16 December 1966
entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 9

The States Parties to the present Protocol,

Considering that in order further to achieve the purposes of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter referred to as the Covenant) and the implemenation of its provisions it would be appropriate to enable the Human Rights Committee set up in part IV of the Covenant (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) to receive and consider, as provided in the present Protocol, communications from individuals claiming to be victims of violations of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant.
Have agreed as follows:

Article 1
A State Party to the Covenant that becomes a Party to the present Protocol recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by that State Party of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant. No communication shall be received by the Committee if it concerns a State Party to the Covenant which is not a Party to the present Protocol.

Article 2
Subject to the provisions of article 1, individuals who claim that any of their rights enumerated in the Covenant have been violated and who have exhausted all available domestic remedies may submit a written communication to the Committee for consideration.
Article 3 The Committee shall consider inadmissible any communciation under the present Protocol which is anonymous, or which it considers to be an abuse of the right of submission of such communications or to be incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant.

Article 4
1. Subject to the provisions of article 3, the Committee shall bring any communications submitted to it under the present Protocol to the attention of the State Party to the present Protocol alleged to be violating any provision of the Covenant.
2. Within six months, the receiving State shall submit to the Committee written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and the remedy, if any, that may have been taken by that State.

Article 5
1. The Committee shall consider communications received under the present Protocol in the light of all written information made available to it by the individual and by the State Party concerned.
2. The Committee shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that:
(a) The same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement;
(b) The individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. This shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged. 3. The Committee shall hold closed meetings when examining communications under the present Protocol.
4. The Committee shall forward its views to the State Party concerned and to the individual.

Article 6
The Committee shall include in its annual report under article 45 of the Covenant a summary of its activities under the present Protocol.

Article 7
Pending the achievement of the objectives of resolution 1514(XV) adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 14 December 1960 concerning the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, the provisions of the present Protocol shall in no way limit the right of petition granted to these peoples by the Charter of the United Nations and other international conventions and instruments under the United Nations and its specialized agencies.

Article 8
1. The present Protocol is open for signature by any State which has signed the Covenant.
2. The present Protocol is subject to ratification by any State which has ratified or acceded to the Covenant. Instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
3. The present Protocol shall be open to accession by any State which has ratified or acceded to the Covenant.
4. Accession shall be effected by the deposit of an instrument of accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
5. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall inform all States which have signed the present Protocol or acceded to it of the deposit of each instrument of ratification or accession.

Article 9
1. Subject to the entry into force of the Covenant, the present Protocol shall enter into force three months after the date of the deposit with the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the tenth instrument of ratification or instrument of accession.
2. For each State ratifying the present Protocol or acceding to it after the deposit of the tenth instrument of ratification or instrument of accession, the present Protocol shall enter into force three months after the date of the deposit of its own instrument of ratification or instrument of accession.

Article 10
The provisions of the present Protocol shall extend to all parts of federal States without any limitations or exceptions.

Article 11
1. Any State Party to the present Protocol may propose an amendment and file it with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The Secretary-General shall thereupon communicate any proposed amendments to the States Parties to the present Protocol with a request that they notify him whether they favour a conference of States Parties for the purpose of considering and voting upon the proposal. In the event that at least one third of the States Parties favours such a conference, the Secretary-General shall convene the conference under the auspices of the United Nations. Any amendment adopted by a majority of the States Parties present and voting at the conference shall be submitted to the General Assembly of the United Nations for approval.
2. Amendments shall come into force when they have been approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations and accepted by a two-thirds majority of the States Parties to the present Protocol in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.
3. When amendments come into force, they shall be binding on those States Parties which have accepted them, other States Parties still being bound by the provisions of the present Protocol and any earlier amendment which they have accepted.

Article 12
1. Any State Party may denounce the present Protocol at any time by written notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Denunciation shall take effect three months after the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General.
2. Denunciation shall be without prejudice to the continued application of the provisions of the present Protocol to any communication submitted under article 2 before the effective date of denunciation.

Article 13
Irrespective of the notifications made under article 8, paragraph 5, of the present Protocol, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall inform all States referred to in article 48, paragraph I, of the Covenant of the following particulars:
(a) Signatures, ratifications and accessions under article 8;
(b) The date of the entry into force of the present Protocol under article 9 and the date of the entry into force of any amendments under article 11;
(c) Denunciations under article 12.

Article 14
1. The present Protocol, of which the Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the United Nations.
2. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall transmit certified copies of the present Protocol to all States referred to in article 48 of the Covenant.

Send to:

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

UNOG-OHCHR

1211 Geneva 10

Switzerland

The High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms. Louise Arbour

2006-10-14T21:44:00.000-07:00

Louise Arbour was appointed High Commissioner for Human Rights by the Secretary-General and approved by the General Assembly, effective 1 July 2004.

Ms. Arbour, a Canadian national, began a distinguished academic career in 1970, culminating in the positions of Associate Professor and Associate Dean at the Osgood Hall Law School of York University in Toronto, Canada, in 1987.

In December of 1987, she was appointed to the Supreme Court of Ontario (High Court of Justice) and in 1990 she was appointed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. In 1995, Ms. Arbour was appointed by Order-in-Council as single Commissioner to conduct an inquiry into certain events at the Prisons for Women in Kingston, Ontario.

In 1996, she was appointed by the Security Council of the United Nations as Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda. After three years as Prosecutor, she resigned to take up an appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Ms. Arbour graduated from College Regina Assumpta, Montreal in 1967 and completed an LL.L (with distinction) from the Faculty of Law, University of Montreal in 1970. Following the Quebec Bar Admission Course, she was called to the Quebec Bar in 1971 and the Ontario Bar in 1977.

Ms. Arbour has received honorary doctorates from twenty-seven Universities and numerous medals and awards. She is a member of many distinguished professional societies and organizations and has served on the boards of many others. She has published extensively on criminal law and given innumerable addresses on both national and international criminal law.
Ms. Arbour was born on 10 February 1947 in Montreal, Quebec and has three children. She is fluent in French and English.

The High Commissioner for Human rights, who has the rank of Under Secretary-General of the United Nations, heads the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).

The resolution specifies that the High Commissioner is the principal United Nations official responsible for United Nations human rights activities, and that the High Commissioner performs his/her duties under the direction and authority of the Secretary-General. The resolution gives the High Commissioner the broad mandate to promote and protect all human rights: civil, political, economic, social and cultural.

Ms. Louise Arbour was appointed High Commissioner in July 2004.

You may write to Ms. Arbour to ask that the High Commissioner for Human Rights intervenes to liberate Nathalie Gettliffe, her baby Martin and her children Josephine and Maximillien.

Main telephone: +41 22 917 9000

Ms. Louise Arbour
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
UNOG-OHCHR
1211 Geneva 10
Switzerland

Louise Arbour Speaks Out Against Child Abuse

2006-10-14T21:29:00.000-07:00

UN study reveals 'shocking' global child abuse
Updated Fri. Oct. 13 2006 8:34 AM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
A United Nations report has revealed a "shocking" picture of physical, sexual and psychological violence against children across the globe.

The report, released by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's office on Thursday, concludes that violence against children is widely accepted as normal and occurs in every country, every society and every social group.

"We knew children were victims of violence, but even so it was very surprising and shocking that it was so widespread," Mehr Khan Williams, the UN Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, told reporters Thursday.

"It cuts across cultures, income levels, education levels. No country is immune from it."
The study, which says such abuse is often socially approved or even legal, is the result of four years of research.
At least 106 countries still allow physical punishment in schools and up to 275 million children witness domestic violence annually, the report says.

"Violence against children in the family may frequently take place in the context of discipline and takes the form of physical, cruel or humiliating punishment," the report adds.
"Harsh treatment and punishment in the family are common in both industrialized and developing countries."

In a statement released with the report, Louise Arbour, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, said "legalized violence against children in one context risks tolerance of violence against children generally."

"Violence against children is a violation of their human rights, a disturbing reality of our societies," she added.

Sexual abuse
The report said World Health Organization data estimated that in 2002 some 150 million girls and 73 million boys were subjected to forced sexual intercourse and other forms of violence, while 53,000 were killed.
"Many people, even children, accept violence as an inevitable part of life," said independent expert Paulo Sergio Pinheiro in the report.
Data showed there were 218 million child labourers in 2004, of whom 126 million did hazardous work, the report said.
There are also as many as 250,000 child soldiers around the world. In Congo, more than 11,000 children are missing and believed to be either forced into armies and militias or used as sex slaves.

It estimates that up to 140 million women and girls have undergone genital mutilation.
"I urge states to prohibit all forms of violence against children, in all settings, including all corporal punishment, harmful traditional practices -- such as early and forced marriages, female genital mutilation and so-called honor crimes -- sexual violence and torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment," Pinheiro said.

Such violence can leave serious long-term psychological scars which result in increased risky sexual behaviour, substance abuse and violence towards others in adulthood, the report says.

One of the biggest hurdles to exposing such violence is reluctance to shed light on what is going on inside the home, said Amaya Gillespie, director of the secretariat of the UN secretary-general's study on violence against children.

"Probably the biggest barrier to that is the lack of leadership and not least in the political circles. There's really a reluctance to look at home and family, as if there's some kind of privacy barrier there," Gillespie said, appearing on CTV's Canada AM.
The UN is calling on every country to have a national strategy to outlaw violence against children and ensure their rights are protected.

Nathalie Gettliffe's Infant Son, Martin is Growing Up in a Canadian Prison!

2006-10-14T09:17:00.000-07:00

Today "Le Journal du Dimanche" published large photographs of Nathalie and her infant son, Martin, in prison at the Alouette Centre in Maple Ridge, British Columbia, Canada.

Francis Gruzelle, Nathalie's husband and Martin's father is not permitted to visit his wife and child. He says that Nathalie is woken up every two hours and a guard shines a torch in her eyes. She cannot sleep. Her baby is unsettled.

He compares Alouette Correctional Centre to a concentration camp - and looking at the photographs, Auschwitz does come to mind.
So what is this - a holocaust against women and children?

What are her lawyers doing about this? Good question. One would think that iflawyers can get pedophiles out on bail, Queen's counsel could get a nursing mother out on bail.

And why don't young Josephine and Maximillien have a lawyer yet?
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child provides:

Article 3
1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

We say that the best interests of Josephine and Maximillien are not being given primary consideration. Scott Grant is being given primary consideration.

Article 5
States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.

Article 8
1. States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.
2. Where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity, States Parties shall provide appropriate assistance and protection, with a view to re-establishing speedily his or her identity.

The identity of Josephine and Maximillien, which is French and has been for the past five years, as agreed by their father, is now being violated. They no longer have free access to their mother, their step-father who has been their de facto father for five years, their grandmother and their friends and schoolmates in France.

Article 9
1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will
2. In any proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1 of the present article, all interested parties shall be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make their views known.

3. States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child's best interests

Max and Josephine have been separated from their mother against their will. The testimony of this? Why not let the children speak for themselves? Why is Scott Grant refusing to allow the children to express their opinions, views and wishes?
We believe this is called OPPRESSION. No wonder Nathalie feared for her children's well-being.

Article 11
1. States Parties shall take measures to combat the illicit transfer and non-return of children abroad.

The Criminal Code of Canada provides a defense for removing children from a harmful environment if the person removing the child feared imminent danger for the child. Section 285 of the C.C.C.
Nathalie feared for her children and kept them in France.
Scott Grant agreed in January this year that the children should remain in the custody of their mother in France.
Therefore, his actions to have her incarcerated, then travel to France with a priest who has a shady past and lie to the children that their mother would be set free if they got on the plane, is illicit coersion and trafficking in our humble opinions.

Article 12
1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.

Why are Josephine and Max being denied their lawful opportunity to be heard?
How is it possible that Canada can violate all of these clauses of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

There's something really smelly about this entire situation. Something rotten.

Nathalie Gettliffe - Is She Being Denied Habeas Corpus in Canada?

2006-10-13T18:11:00.000-07:00

Apparently, Nathalie was brought before the Supreme Court and told why she was denied bail in August this year.
We do not know the reasons, because they are covered by a Publication Ban until the trial on November 20, but the questions remain:

If a Hockey Coach in Ontario, David Frost, who was charged with several counts of sexual abuse against children and teenagers, can be let out on bail, why was a pregnant mother and a mother who has just given birth, denied bail? Why is Nathalie Gettliffe and her infant son, Martin, being forced to endure prison? Her two older children, Josephine and Maximillien are court-ordered to remain in the custody of their father, Scott Grant, Nathalie won't be going anywhere. As long as her children are forced to remain in Canada, she will remain here. That appears to be common sense to the man in the street.

We can only conclude that she is being discriminated against and punished.
Is it because she is Catholic? French? A mother? A Woman?
Who can answer this question?
It is a valid question.

David Frost is an alleged pedophile. Why is he not being treated, or punished? Why is he allowed out on bail, perhaps to molest another child or teenager?
See the difference?
It smells really bad, does it not?

How come a priest with the Catholic Church can be convicted for assault, in 1992, of slapping and choking a child, NOT serve one day in prison, but be given the privilege of pretending to serve that day in prison, pay a fine of $2,500 and be let off 9 other charges, including one for sexual abuse.
How come this priest is being consulted as a psychologist in this case? Rumour has it that he will testify for Scott Grant in the trial.
How? With his background? Are they serious?

Excuse us if we're repetitive on this blog, but it appears that only by constant repetition will we get through to the people who are supposed to be paying attention...like Minister Toews, the Minister of Justice in Canada and our government in France.

Today, this priest, Lucien Larre, has been fully pardoned and his record has been expunged from the national criminal database.
Why? Why is he protected despite having physically assaulted a child, and a mother who truly believes that she removed her children from a harmful environment is punished?

Again, What is wrong with this picture?

You read the Constitution of Canada and you decide.
If the law applies to Nathalie Gettliffe, a mother who claims she acted to protect her children, why doesn't it apply to David Frost, Lucien Larre and others who have been proven to have harmed children?

We look forward to your comments....

Constitution Act of Canada, 1982
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Legal Rights
Life, liberty and security of person

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Search or seizure
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

Detention or imprisonment

9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.
Arrest or detention

10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention

(a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
(b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right;
and
(c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and
to be released if the detention is not lawful.

Proceedings in criminal and penal matters

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right

(a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;
(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;
(c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in
respect of the offence;
(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and
public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
(e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;
(f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military
tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the
offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;
(g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time
of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or
international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law
recognized by the community of nations;
(h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if
finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or
punished for it again; and
(i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been
varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the
benefit of the lesser punishment.

Department of Justice Canada

Habeas corpus:
A writ or order requiring that prisoners be brought before a court to determine if he or she is being held lawfully. The right of habeas corpus is intended to prevent imprisonment without charges. The right habeas corpus has been suspended several times in Canadian history, most notably when German, Ukrainian and other Slavic Canadians were interned in World War I, and when Japanese Canadians were interned during World War II. It was also suspended in Québec in 1970 during the October Crisis.

A Habeas Corpus Writ is not a solution to every defendant's problem. The Habeas Writ is purposed to get the accused before the court to state a defense or claim. The constitution states that the Habeas Writ shall not be suspended. . .

However, many state and local governments have replaced the Habeas Writ with Personal Restraint Petitions. One can only guess, but doing away with Habeas Writs, what personal restraint upon liberty and freedoms will be next?

EXCERPTS FROM OTHER SOURCES:

Habeas Corpus has been called the great writ of personal liberty. Habeas Corpus is a legal term, which, in the original Latin, means you are ordered to have the body.

If a person has been arrested or is held by police, a lawyer or friend can obtain a writ of Habeas corpus. This writ orders the police to produce the arrested person in court. When the prisoner is produced, the court decides whether the police have sufficient reason to hold him in prison.

The writ of Habeas corpus is one of the basic guarantees of personal freedom in English and American law. It prevents unjust or wrongful imprisonment or detention by legal authorities. It has been called: "The Great Writ of Personal Liberty." No person can be denied the writ except in times of "public danger or when "martial law" is in force.

Liberty and habeas corpus (I)
The writ of habeas corpus is an order from a national court to a local entity that has imprisoned a person to (1) produce that person at the national court, and (2) provide that court with a good reason for the imprisonment. Habeas corpus is is an extraordinary writ, and for that reason runs much farther than the normal jurisdiction of the national court. The local entity commanded by the writ can be any entity within the nation, or any within any territory of that nation (including military bases), or on any of the nation's ships at sea: any entity at all that claims the right to detain people. Habeas corpus is almost a millenium old, and in various forms it is probably much older. It has been and remains the main way by which legal rights against the arbitrary detention of a person by any kind of entity are enforced. Habeas corpus well deserves its other traditional name: the Great Writ.

Write Letters of Support and Encouragement To Nathalie

2006-10-13T16:20:00.000-07:00

You may write letters of encouragement and support to Nathalie at the address below.
Please know that all mail will be opened and read by the staff at the centre.

Words are important, they can lift a person up and brighten their heart. Love, hope and encouragement are all that is needed when life seems heavy and bleek.

It is important for Nathalie to know that we have not forgotten her and that we are here.

Nathalie GETTLIFFE
Alouette Correctional Centre for Women
PO Box 1000
Maple Ridge, BC
V2X 7G4
CANADA

Nathalie Gettliffe Joins the Company of Other Mothers In Prison Suffering Human Rights Violations - Like Carline Van den Elsen

2006-10-13T13:35:00.000-07:00

Siege of Shirley Street: Public inquiry needed
By HEATHER LASKEY

May 14, 2005

Well now, let’s get this story right about the Siege of Shirley Street. According to an RCMP officer’s testimony reported in The Chronicle Herald early in the trial, this is what we are to understand took place in Halifax last May: It’s after midnight when police go to the house with a child apprehension order on behalf of the Children’s Aid Society. Inside is a man, his elderly mother, his wife and their five-month-old baby. Members of the RCMP emergency response team position themselves on roofs and inside neighbouring houses in this residential area. They are armed with semi-automatic machine guns. I repeat - semi-automatic machine guns.

The welcome mat isn’t out, so they try to break down the front door of the house, by using a battering ram. Yes, a battering ram. Then there’s a shotgun blast from inside the house. It whistles over the head of one of the police officers through the window of the opposite house.

You may recall what happened next. Shirley Street was cordoned off; neighbours were awakened, told to hide in their basements and not to leave their houses. The area was crawling with all kinds of police in all kind of get-ups, and all kinds of vehicles. It was as though they were trying to raise the level of public hysteria.

Or put on some kind of a show, or movie set - with the character parts being played by the man and woman. The “action” included the woman breast-feeding the baby on the porch roof, and the emergency response team propelling a robot towards the house loaded with baby diapers, milk and medicine for the man’s ailing mother. Her doctor was not allowed to make a house call.

The public, many of whom knew the man who’d grown up locally, remained bemused. There was a general feeling, reflected in the letters column of this newspaper, that the attempt to remove the baby from its parents was simply wrong.

Sixty-seven hours into the drama, the couple emerge from the house. On a makeshift stretcher, they are carrying the body of the man’s mother. She, not surprisingly, appears to have died of a heart attack. It is seen that there is a shotgun strung over the man’s shoulder; the baby is in a carrier on the woman’s breast.

According to the Mountie’s testimony at the trial, as the couple carry the stretcher down the block, a dozen police officers converge on them “carrying drawn weapons.” The policeman says that they forced them to the ground. “She had her arms wrapped around the baby with a tight grip. She would not release the baby.” He said he therefore drove his thumb into the “fleshy area” of the woman’s shoulder until she loosened her grip. As the police struggled with her, she cried, “Don’t take my baby!”

In what the policeman describes as a “chaotic” struggle, another officer, who is wearing body armour, uses a knife (my italics) to cut the Snugli, with baby inside, from the woman’s chest and he carries the baby away. (No description is given of the infant’s vocal response.)

The policeman continued, “At this point, we’re concerned that she hasn’t been properly searched for weapons.” She doesn’t comply with a police demand to release her arms from beneath her body, so, the Mountie said, one officer “shocked” her twice with a Taser gun. “I’ve been Tasered,” says the policeman, “and it’s painful, but it lasts five seconds and it’s over.”

Here’s a question: Had the police gone crazy? For what precise purpose did they intend to use semi-automatic machine guns? Who, for heaven’s sake, OK’d the use of a knife to remove the baby from the mother?

There should never have been an armed confrontation. Reflecting on the mock-siege scene, with the trucks and the intelligence centre and multiples of police wearing masks and battle gear, two points were clear not only to me, but to everybody I heard talking about it.

The first was that the police response had nothing to do with the situation in hand - a Children’s Aid demand for the baby to be handed over to them at birth (apparently because the woman had previously absconded with her triplets from a previous marriage). And yes, the couple clearly were odd-balls, but that was not an adequate justification.

The second point was that the whole performance - and indeed, it was a performance - obviously had another purpose. The most logical explanation I heard, and with which I concur, is this: The situation was being used as an exercise in the deployment of Emergency Response Teams in urban areas in the event of a real threat from terrorists or a gang of violent criminals. In fact, it was a hysterical melodrama in the worst possible taste.

And while we’re at it, will the Children’s Aid Society please tell us, the members of the public, what was their justification for demanding the removal of the baby from its mother from the moment it was born. It had better be good. Really good.

We need a public inquiry. And fast. Cost? Not a fraction of what that ill-conceived and dangerous circus cost us last year.

Halifax author Heather Laskey has written extensively on the abuse of children in institutional care, including a ground-breaking book (Children of the Poor Clares: The Story of an Irish Orphanage) and articles and radio documentaries on Indian residential schools, and the child immigration movement.

See other articles about Carline Van den Elsen here at Canada Children First.com

Source:
www.herald.ns.ca/stories/

Sorry state of affairs of BC prisons for women!

2006-10-13T10:27:00.000-07:00

Good evening all from France.
The following is a transcript of a letter written by Nathalie Gettliffe in prison.
It is dated August 26th but arrived in France I believe the 2nd week of September.
Rather sad the state of affairs for Nathalie.
Please take the time to read it.... I believe it to be an accurate reflection of the state of BC prisons.....
Perhaps others would like to comment as to whether the same happens in other Canadian prisons for women.
If so, I think it is time for decent Canadians to speak out!
In the meantime, I ask all people of goodwill to take the time to pray for Nathalie and her children.
"more miracles are wrought by prayer than this world can imagine"
God Bless!

Nathalie GETTLIFFE (GRANT)
ACCW / PO Box 1000
Maple Ridge, BC
V2X 7G4

August 26, 2006

Brenda Tole, Warden
Alouette Correctional Center for Women
Maple Ridge, BC

Be : Escorted Medical Temporary absence

Madam,

Since I have been incarcerated at ACCW, I
have gone several times on emergency or
scheduled escorted temporary absences. On August
25th, I have talked to Mat Lan, deputy warden
regarding basic human rights concerns that I
have, having witnessed a wide variety of
practices from guards escorting me, a female
over 6 months pregnant.
I would like to reiterate my complaint
Concerning certain practices as well as to seek
clarifications as to the current set of practices
or accommodations in your escorting policy
for females who are pregnant, women in
labour, extended stay at the hospital with a new
born baby and transport of a mother and her
infant for court appearances.
So far, this is what I have witnessed. I
was never given a choice as to the type of
restraint that I could have when escorted.
I was consistently handcuffed when going to
the hospital or the maternity clinic. This might
be the best choice when appearing in public
as I can only imagine how traumatizing it
would be when I appear with foot restraint in the maternity
clinic full of children under 5 years old. At
least, I can hide with a coat my handcuffs
so they don’t have to see a very pregnant mother
under restraint. However, being hand cuffed and
pregnant presents the possibility of falls as
pregnancy and inbalance go together. I
have seldom seen any guards willing to
help me walk (even when I had contractions)
or climb stairs.
When I go to the bathroom, sometimes to
Give a urine sample to check for bladder infection,
I was told by Suzanne Tarlier, my case
manager, that I would be left alone with
no handcuffs. On one occasion, a guard
refused to leave the washroom and I had
to give a urine sample in front of her. On
another occasion, the guard forgot her key and
could not take the handcuffs off me. I
had then the pleasure of trying to give a
urine sample with handcuffs on. The
assistant at the maternity clinic told me that
if I could not do it with the handcuffs, it
was not a big deal. Given the various bladder
infections that I have suffered during my
incarcerations, I think that it is of utmost
importance that I be able to give a urine
sample every time I go to the clinic. This would
also allow ACCW to maintain its current
health standard as better than in the
community (sic Amy Slater, health nurse at ACCW).
When going to the maternity clinic, I
have to climb on the examination table with
no help as I am still handcuffed ; I have
to lift my dress while handcuffed ; I have
to lift my dress while handcuffed, lie
down and get up with no help and still
handcuffed. Best of all, during my last
visit when I had an internal exam, I
had to take my underwear off and try
to lie down with my shirt up and put
a cloth to hide my private part. Being
unsuccessful for the latter part of the
request, I was left half-naked in full
view of the guard while the doctor conducted
her internal exam. Even the doctor did not
help me get off the table. I felt violated
by the guard and I strongly think that there
should be a curtain of somme sort (as in
the hospital) to prevent the guard from
watching me while being examined. I don’t
even think any guard should be in the
examination room as I can not talk
privately to the doctor about my concerns.
I have gone three times to the hospital
for emergency reasons. On two occasions,
I was shackled with one leg attached
to the bed while the guard was in the
room. I was admitted once overnight
and had to sleep with my leg shackled to
the bed without having the possibility to turn
from one side to the other to make
myself comfortable and with having to ask
everytime I went to the washroom to be
unshackled.
All the incidents that I have mentioned
occured while I was very pregnant (in my
third semester) unable to walk at a
regular pace, in labour or on a wheel
chair. My medical conditions did not allow
me to be a flight risk and yet I was
repeatedly over-restrained and not offered
help. I have felt at times as if I was
just cattle ( the guard driving too fast, the
windows not being down for air), when I
am a human being carrying a human live
within me. Considerations and help from
guards would go a long way to restore
some of my dignity that I am entitled to
as a pregnant woman.
From what I understand after the
conversation that I had with Mat Lang, pregnant
women are treated the same way as a
250 pound muscle male inmate. I strongly
believe that if ACCW is to accept pregnant women
and mothers with young children, some
considerations should be clearly drawn in
the escorted medical temporary absences policy. We
are a special population that requires
protection and special care not additional
stress. Our dignity should be respected.
I trust that you will be able to draft
some recommendations to modify your current
practices and I look forward to hearing
from you regarding the rest of my concerns
mainly, restraint and transport for women
in labour, mothers with new born in the
hospital and transport of mothers with infant
to court.

Sincerely,

(signé)

Nathalie GETTLIFFE

CC : Francis GRUZELLE, common-law husband and
journalist
Louis RIPAULT, private investigator in charge of
communication with the UN rights commission
regarding the conditions of my incarceration

Canada's Human Rights Commission Blasts Treatment of Women Prisoners

2006-10-12T19:41:00.000-07:00

Rights commission blasts treatment of women prisoners
Last Updated: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 6:11 PM ET
CBC News

Canada's Human Rights Commission has blasted the treatment of women prisoners, saying the correctional system should be "tailored" to the unique needs of women.

In its report Protecting Their Rights, the commission came up with 19 recommendations to address "systemic human rights problems" that remain in the correctional services.
The treatment of "Aboriginal women, racialized women and women with disabilities" is a particular problem, the commission reports.

"Correctional Service Canada must accommodate women's differences, rather than treating inmates identically based on stereotypes and perceptions, or treating women prisoners the same as men," the report says.
Citing statistics, the commission says the "reasons women offend, their life experiences and their needs are unique."

Eighty per cent of women report prior abuse, women have high rates of mental and physical disability, experience significant poverty and have higher unemployment rates than their male counterparts, the report says.

In one of its recommendations, the commission says correctional officials must stop assessing women prisoners and their programming needs the same way they assess male prisoners.
"The same tool is used for both women and men despite a recognition that women commit crimes for different reasons than men."

The commission also criticizes the policy that automatically places a maximum security classification for two years on all prisoners serving a life sentence for murder.
It should be "rescinded immediately" for women because "it fails to reflect the differences between some women and men in why they commit serious crimes."

"More women are sentenced to life for crimes involving violent domestic partners or former partners," the commission writes.
The commission also recommends: a pilot needle exchange program in three or more correctional facilities; alternatives to long-term segregation for women offenders because "the effect of segregation on women can be significant"; and the building of more facilities to house minimum- and medium-security women.

The commission came up with the recommendations following concerns by the Elizabeth Fry Society and other human rights organizations about the human rights situation of federally sentenced women.

In July 2006, this year, Solicitor General of British Columbia, John Les acknowledged that the Alouette Centre where Nathalie Gettliffe is imprisoned with her infant son, Martin, is over crowded.
Although the prison is only supposed to house 112 inmates, it currently houses 120 inmates. He admits the need to expand the prison.

Ridge prison could be expanded
Double bunking at provincial prisons means expansion is afoot for Fraser Regional Correctional Centre and Alouette Correctional Centre.
Solicitor General John Les was in Maple Ridge Monday discussing council's concerns about lack of input into the development of these two facilities - both of which are housed in Maple Ridge.
"We have significant double-bunking in all of our institutions," Les told council, adding that double bunking doesn't present a higher security risk so long as "the inmates are appropriately matched."
FRCC opened in 1990 and was built to house 422 male inmates and, as of last month's count, is holding 468. Alouette is a medium security correctional centre and was opened in April 2004 to house 112 women. Figures show there are currently 120 women housed there.
But a result of the increasing number of provincial inmates, he indicated the province must 'give some thought to expansion.
"It's not my favourite option," he said, but there aren't many alternatives.
The reason the provincial facilities are rapidly filling, he said, is directly related to a slow-moving justice system.
Many of those being housed at FRCC, he added, have been remanded there to await a court date.
According to Les, there has been a seven or eight per cent annual increase in the number of people entering provincial prisons. The reason for that growth, he said, correlates with the length of time people are having to wait for their trial.
"We've got a bit of a problem in our court system," he said.
Les explained that because inmates are granted a "two for one" deal, whereby they receive credit for serving two days for every one that is spent behind bars awaiting trial, more are apt to want to stay longer to avoid spending much time behind bars should they be found guilty.
"There's an incentive there for offenders to spend as much time as they can in remand," he said.
"We need to look at that," he said, cautioning that "the justice system isn't something we can transform overnight."
Plans to increase capacity at Alouette Correctional Centre were made public in the spring and involved placing a couple of portable trailers at the facility to allow for 32 more spaces.
But as far as permanent construction, while Les said it is a possibility, it's not in the current budget, and he doesn't foresee it will be for at least a year.
"If I don't have to build these facilities I'd rather not. There's no return in these buildings."
Should the funds for expansion materialize, however, Les did indicate that it could provide for an opportunity to expand the municipal sewer system through the area. The sewer expansion, he said, sounded like something the province and the municipality could partner on.
published on 07/18/2006
http://www.mrtimes.com/issues06/073106/news/073106nn3.html

A Sordid Tale of Deceit and Lies and Children's Broken Hearts

2006-10-11T23:10:00.000-07:00

It has been 7 months since young Josephine and Maximillien have been forcibly separated from their mother, Nathalie Gettliffe, who is court-ordered to remain in jail since her arrest in April this year.

The children have been living in France with their mother and her husband, Francis and their younger brother, Jean Phillippe, for the past five years. This year in January, Scott Grant, their father, agreed in writing that they should continue to live with their mother in France. He acknowledged that they were settled, happy, immersed in the community at school and with their friends and family there.

Then, suddenly, in April this year, after he had led Nathalie to believe that she and the children were safe and that she could come to Canada to defend her thesis at UBC without fear, he showed his true colours and prompted the RCMP to have her arrested and thrown in prison after she had arrived at Vancouver airport.

Then, once Nathalie, who was four months pregnant at the time was behind bars, he climbed on an airplane with a Catholic priest who once had a criminal record for choking and slapping a little child, and flew to France. Once there, they searched for the children who were being protected by family. They knew Nathalie was in jail. They did their best to protect Josephine and Max. But corruption knows no limits - bribes were paid, favours were exchanged and the next thing, Father Lucien Larre, the priest with the shady past, was telling the children that if they went onto the airplane with him, that their mother would be instantly released from prison.
What a bastard! He also showed his true colours.
They flew the children to Canada under false pretences in July 2006. And then, when they landed, they learned that they would be forced to live with a man who believes that their mother is "sick", see the Vancouver Sun article of July 2006, and who states publically that their mother is "quite happy in jail".
What a sick joke!
Well, here's a News Flash - there are more and more of us working every single day to help Nathalie and her children...in France and in Canada. We will not give up until the corruption behind Scott Grant and Lucien Larre is exposed and until Nathalie and all her children are safe.
Shame on Canada for allowing this to happen to this family!

Carline VandenElsen still not eating; living will puts Finck in charge

2006-10-11T14:14:00.000-07:00

By DAVENE JEFFREY / Staff Reporter

Carline VandenElsen, who's in Day 5 of a hunger strike, has prepared a living will in case she falls into a coma, supporters say.

Ms. VandenElsen, 42, and Larry Finck, 51, are in custody and will be sentenced next month on several convictions after holding police at bay for 67 hours during an armed standoff in Halifax just over a year ago.

The siege began after police went to the couple's home to enforce a child apprehension order.

Ms. VandenElsen has said she expects to die and has vowed not to eat until an inquiry is announced into her case.

In the meantime, she is drinking liquids and has prepared her will, says friend and supporter Marilyn Dey.

Ms. VandenElsen wants medical intervention used to keep her alive and has given her power of attorney to her husband, states an Internet site devoted to Ms. VandenElsen's hunger strike, which she calls Starving for the Children. Updates are posted at http://starvingforthechildren.blogspot.com.

Following jail policy, officials will not confirm whether Ms. VandenElsen is on a hunger strike. It is also policy to refuse media access to prisoners on hunger strikes, jail superintendent Sean Kelly has said.

Ms. VandenElsen's fast began Saturday, the anniversary of the day the standoff ended, the last day she saw her infant daughter and the day her mother-in-law, Mona Finck, died.

The family had barricaded themselves inside 6161 Shirley St. Mrs. Finck died of natural causes during the standoff.

Throughout the couple's many court hearings following the standoff, they had complained the system was out to get them.

In a letter written by Ms. VandenElsen from the Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility in Dartmouth, and released to this newspaper Wednesday, she continued to rail against authorities, including police, child-welfare officials and lawyers.

"It's the lawyers in the driver's seat, profiteering on the backs of babes in a multibillion-dollar family law system," Ms. VandenElsen wrote.

She and her husband have both referred to the child-welfare system as the buying and selling of babies.

"No one is minding the kiddy store," says the letter. "One-third of the population doesn't know what's going on, a third knows but can't do anything about it and the other third either knows but doesn't care or knows but isn't making (a stink) because they're too busy making (it) rich."

Ms. VandenElsen also recounts a tragic tale she claims was told to her by a fellow inmate who lost her baby to authorities.

"She'd been walking down the street, pregnant. The cops pick her up, tell her there's a warrant for her arrest, take her to the hospital, where she's induced and children's aid are there to take her newborn. Police release her and she never sees her baby again."

Her letter ends "My baby was stolen and I want her back" followed by her signature.

Letters from Prison - Carline Vandenelsen, Another Mother Behind Bars in Canada

2006-10-11T14:12:00.000-07:00

WHAT SHE WROTE IN HER LETTER
Excerpts of a five-page letter written by Carline Vanden-
Elsen from the Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility in Dartmouth:

"If only 30 cases involve children being taken into protective custody . . . how is it then that foster care continues in crisis, that the Department of Community Services and the Foster Care Agency for Canada advertises regularly, looking for anyone to warehouse children seized by the authorities?"

"The activity by the police and child-welfare workers, breaking into homes like sneaking thieves in the night, is not unusual. It is increasingly occurring throughout Canada and more particularly in the Atlantic provinces."

"I would suggest closeted fascism from 50 years ago, private ownership overtaken by the state forging ahead with its rendered version of child welfare, is the underlying reason why today Canada's most precious resource - the child - is endangered."

"Other implications are equally disturbing. Take Canada's law on same-sex marriages. The waiting list for babies/children to be adopted/purchased has increased drastically. Imagine, come to Canada. Get married. Adopt/buy a baby. What a holiday!"

"No one is going to tell me Debra Smith, who made the apprehension order to seize my baby, was promoted to associate chief justice because of her judicial integrity."

"My baby was stolen and I want her back."

A Word for the Naysayers - Like Pascale Limarola

2006-10-09T15:46:00.000-07:00

Madame Pascale Limarola:
SOS Enlèvements Internationaux d’Enfants
association régie par la loi du 1er juillet 1901
http://www.seie.org
7, rue des Fougères
95560 MAFFLIERS Tél. & Fax : 05.56.38.97.07
contact@seie.or g

We have read your 12-page "report" on the Gettliffe-Grant matter which is on your website.

It is terribly sad and traumatic that your child was abducted by your ex-husband. It is unacceptable, we agree, and it demands right action.
While it is understandable that you are traumatized regarding the loss of your own child through a parental abduction, it appears that you are transferring your rage towards your ex-husband onto Nathalie Gettliffe, who is a mother who acted to protect her children from harm, not an ex-husband who removed a child to hurt the other parent.

You did not live in the Grant-Gettliffe household, nor do you have any evidence of what the children and Nathalie Gettliffe experienced. So what qualifies you to write such a long document?

Your document is erroneous in fact and in implication and frankly, in legal terms, it comes across as a hysterical woman having a "rant".
This behaviour does not help you, your child or Nathalie's children.

Are you a lawyer, a recognized "court expert witness" ?
What exactly is your professional background that you feel so entitled to misinform the public?

If you do wish to express your opinion in a coherent, intelligant and informative way, then let us suggest that you firstly conduct thorough research:
The "psychologist" who works with Scott Grant and is always near the children is Father Lucien Larre, of the Archdiocese of Vancouver.
Perhaps you will be interested to read the post on this website concerning Larre's background.
I refer you to the article published in the Toronto Star in 1992.

Would you have allowed your child to be near anyone who had been convicted of slapping and choking a little child and who had been charged with 9 other offenses, including one for sexual assault?

Perhaps you might consider channeling your anger into something more productive: like working together with us to expose corruption in the judiciary, the legal system, the Hague, the family law system and in the Catholic Church.
We feel your pain because we are made up of parents who have experienced what you have lived. However, we have learnt that if we wanted to progress, we needed to look behind the scenes and find out who is enabling this international movement to have children removed to or returned to a harmful environment.

Let us agree that there are good and bad parents. There are spiteful parents who will remove a child just to hurt the other, and in so doing, they destroy their children.
And then, there are parents, both mothers and fathers, who feel that they have no choice but to remove their children from a harmful environment because they are not being protected by the Court.
There is a defense in every criminal code that I am aware of regarding this action: it is known as "necessity". In the Canadian Criminal Code it is section 285 and it states very clearly that if it can be proven that a parent removed a child from its habitual environment because the parent was aware of imminent danger to the child, then it cannot be considered a crime.

We will pray for you and for your precious child, as we pray for Nathalie and her children and all parents in this situation. Let us not waste energy and time hating one another. As parents and people with compassion, let us work together for the good of our children.

We wish you peace and I pray that your child is returned to you,
Maxine et Les Enfants France/Quebec

The Prison Where Nathalie is Being Held Hostage

2006-10-09T10:03:00.000-07:00

This is Alouette Centre in Maple Ridge where Nathalie Gettliffe and her two week old son, Martin, are being held. Nathalie has been refused bail.
Funny that - a mother with a little baby is refused bail but child molesters are let out on bail so they can molest more children.
Something is very wrong in your country, Mr. Harper.

Qui est Lucien Larre? Who is Lucien Larre?

2006-10-08T16:58:00.000-07:00

And why is he involved in the Gettliffe-Grant matter with Nathalie's young son, Maximillien?

Why is he the director of the Bosco Centre in Coquitlam when he was charged and convicted of assaulting a child at the Bosco Centre in Regina, Saskatchewan?

SASKATCHEWAN “SAINT” SENTENCED.Rev. Lucien Larre, 59, dubbed a saint for his work with troubled youth, was sentenced to one symbolic day in jail and a $2,500 fine for slapping and choking one youth and forcing another to take pills. He was acquitted on 9 other counts, including a charge of sexual assault. His jail sentence was waived.”Source: _Toronto Star_ 4/25/92.

Why is he allowed to "counsel" and "accompany" Maximillien and Josephine?

Why is a Catholic Priest who belongs to the Archdiocese of Vancouver, Canada, involved with an active member of the International Church of Christ, which is classified as a cult in France, in the United States and other countries?

Why is he allowed to continue being a priest if he has been convicted of a crime against a child - especially slapping and choking the child?????

Why is he allowed to continue practising as a psychologist when he has been convicted of assault against a child and charged with 9 other counts, including one for sexual abuse?

What the hell is going on here?

Perhaps we should ask Archbishop Gervais of the Archdiocese of Ottawa directly...
and perhaps we should make a formal enquiry with the College of Psychologists of British Columbia.

And also, is it a coincidence that the boyfriend of Scott Grant's mother is Michael Luchenko, a well-known criminal lawyer in British Columbia?

Pregnant Mother Denied Bail but Child Molester Released on Bail in Canada!

2006-10-07T17:06:00.000-07:00

In August 2006, Nathalie Gettliffe was 8 months pregnant. She was refused bail and had to remain in prison and give birth in prison. Her alleged crime: seeking to protect her children from imminent harm.

In August 2006, on Wednesday 23rd, to be exact, Former hockey coach and agent Dave Frost was released on $10,000 bail Wednesday after appearing in an Ontario courtroom charged with a dozen sexual offences against minors.

He shouted "innocent, innocent" to reporters after leaving the courthouse with his lawyer. When he had earlier entered the building, someone yelled "I hope you rot."

Frost was arrested Tuesday and charged with 12 counts of sexual exploitation and one count of assault, stemming from allegations involving seven teenagers between the ages of 14 and 16 in eastern Ontario between 1995 and 2001.

The incidents allegedly took place in Deseronto and Napanee where Frost once coached, but police would not say if the allegations are connected to a hockey team.
A publication ban forbids the media from reporting any evidence presented at the bail hearing or the identities of the complainants.

The arrest followed a two-year investigation.
Frost once represented NHLer Mike Danton, currently serving a 7 ½-year prison term in the United States for a $10,000 murder-for hire scheme.
U.S. prosecutors believe the scheme targeted Frost, because Danton thought his former agent was going to reveal career-damaging information about his promiscuity and use of alcohol and drugs.

News of Frost's arrest brought some relief to Danton's parents.
Danton's father Stephen Jefferson characterized the ordeal as "an emotional rollercoaster."
While he was relieved that Frost had been arrested, he said the fact remains that his son is still in jail.

"I believe he is the biggest victim in this whole thing and it'll all be good when Mike's released," Jefferson told reporters on Wednesday,
"I hope that he is going to get back up here, and get the proper help that he needs," he said, adding that his son required medical attention.
Jefferson told CTV's Canada AM on Wednesday that he and his wife waited a "long time" for news of Frost's arrest.
"We're hoping now some justice will be done."

Appearing with his lawyer, Jefferson held back on details of the accusations against Frost. He did, however, say Frost "brainwashed" his son and many others.
"He's a great manipulator, he had me fooled for a long time," Jefferson said.
Jefferson introduced his son to Frost when the boy was 11 years old. Frost became Danton's first coach, and later his agent.

Frost has been accused of turning players he mentored away from their families.
Danton, for example, estranged himself from his parents and changed his name from Mike Jefferson after he was drafted into the NHL.
Danton issued a statement from prison earlier this year saying he doesn't want anything to do with his family.

"The last time I spoke to Mike, he was on a bus going from New Jersey to New York to play the Rangers," said Jefferson. "I called him on a bus and I haven't spoken to him since."
But Danton still talks to Frost from prison almost daily -- a fact Jefferson said "makes me sick."
Jefferson was recently charged with criminal harassment after he repeatedly phoned Frost.
The charge was "egregious," said Jefferson's lawyer, Paul O'Mara, and a Crown withdrew it because it was "not in the public's interest."

A peace bond forbids Jefferson from contacting Frost.

"Jefferson right now is content to let the administration of justice wind its course," O'Mara said.
Frost resigned as an NHL player agent last year. He had previously pleaded guilty to assault charges in a case that involved hitting a player during a game.
He was also banned by the Ontario Hockey Association and suspended by the Metropolitan Toronto Hockey League for other infractions of rules.
Sports journalist Steve Simmons said Canada's hockey parents must be vigilant about the coaches who watch over their children, no matter the outcome of Frost's trial.
"Get to know who is coaching him," Simmons told CTV News. "Do not do just as the Jeffersons did, and trust people to take your kid and make him into an NHL player."
Frost's next court date is Sept. 19.

With a report by CTV's Scott Laurie
So what do you think? Is there justice in Canada? Or only for pedophiles?

French Publisher Releases Book by Nathalie Gettliffe and Francis Gruzelle About Her Incarceration

2006-09-29T22:50:00.000-07:00

By Dan Ferguson Staff Reporter
Sep 29 2006

Former Surrey resident Nathalie Gettliffe gave birth to a son named Martin in a Lower Mainland hospital on Tuesday, according to a press release issued in France by the baby’s father, Francis Gruzelle.
Gruzelle said the child bears the same name as the famed French Holocaust writer Martin Gray and like Gray, the child has survived a “particularly hostile environment.”
Gettliffe has been held in prison since she was arrested on her return to Canada in April, five years after she went to France with two children from her marriage to Surrey resident Scott Grant.

The children, Max and Josephine, were reunited with their father in June after French courts ordered their return.
The case has generated considerable controversy in France, with supporters saying Gettliffe took her children to remove them from the influence of the church her ex-husband belongs to, the International Church of Christ.
Gettliffe supporters have pointed to a 1995 French government report that declared the church a “sect.”

However the report also defined several other religious organization as sects including the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Scientists, Seventh Day Adventists and Transcendental Meditation without calling to have any of them outlawed.

Last week, a French publisher released a book by Gettliffe and Gruzelle about her incarceration.
Originally called “In the hell of the Canadian prisons” it is now titled “Letters from prison” and contains a series of letters from Gettliffe to Gruzelle, many complaining about her treatment while she was being held in jail, first at the Surrey Pre-trial Centre and then the medium-security Alouette Correctional Centre for Women in Maple Ridge
Gettliffe’s trial before a B.C. Supreme Court jury in Vancouver is scheduled to begin Nov. 20.

Francis Gruzelle Speaks Out About Nathalie's Incarceration

2006-09-26T22:28:00.000-07:00

VANCOUVER (CP) - A Frenchwoman detained by Canadian authorities for allegedly kidnapping her two children after a protracted custody battle gave birth to another child Tuesday, her partner said.

Nathalie Gettliffe, 35, gave birth to a baby boy named Martin while in custody at the Alouette Correctional Centre for Women, Francis Gruzelle, the newborn's father, said in a statement.
Getliffe has been detained since April.

Gruzelle has openly criticized Canadian authorities for his partner's ongoing detention and her case has won wide media attention in France.
Last week, he told France-3 television that Gettliffe was "physically exhausted" and blamed her poor health on prison conditions.

Gettliffe faces up to 10 years in jail in Canada if found guilty on two counts of child abduction. She said she took her children to France in 2001 to remove them from the influence of their Canadian father, Scott Grant, because he was increasingly active in the International Church of Christ.

While Canadian authorities recognize the church, French authorities consider it a cult.
French authorities returned the 11-year-old boy and 12-year-old girl to Vancouver in July, reuniting them with their father, who had been granted full custody by a Canadian court.
Grant said Tuesday he was unaware of whether his ex-wife had given birth.
But he said she had changed criminal lawyers in recent days. Her current lawyer, Richard Fowler, did not return phone calls Tuesday.

Her civil lawyer, Vincent Pigeon, said he was unaware whether she had given birth.
B.C. Corrections spokesman Bruce Bannerman cited privacy laws for being unable to confirm or deny the birth.
"I know it's out in the press but I'm not able to give you any information about any offender who's under our care," said Bannerman.
Alouette warden Brenda Tole also cited privacy laws but suggested a call to the nearest hospital to the prison, Ridge Meadows Hospital.
The hospital would not comment and would not confirm Gettliffe was there.
Gettliffe's criminal trial is set to begin in November.

Nathalie Gettliffe Gives Birth to Baby Boy While Being Imprisoned in Canada

2006-09-26T12:06:00.000-07:00

News Release - From Canadian Embassy in France

Paris, September 26, 2006 – Nathalie Gettliffe, a Canadian and French citizen being held in a minimum security detention centre in the province of British Columbia, gave birth to her child today.

The delivery took place in accordance with the rules set out by British Columbia’s correctional services. These make provisions for pregnant inmates about to give birth to be transported by ambulance to the nearest general hospital. Upon being discharged from the hospital, mothers and their newborns can be accommodated in detention centres until the legal proceedings against them have been concluded or until they are conditionally released or transferred to another facility.

The Alouette Centre, where Nathalie Gettliffe is being held, is a minimum security detention centre located on several hectares of land approximately 60 km outside Vancouver. Completely renovated in 2004, it has one- and two-person cells without bars on the windows. The cells open onto a common room where inmates can come and go as they please. There are 128 women being held at the Alouette Centre, six or seven of whom are pregnant. A dietician helps to prepare meals, and inmates’ special dietary needs are taken into consideration. There is a nurse at the centre and a doctor assigned to it.

Ms. Gettliffe is represented by Canadian counsel who can see her at any time. She receives visits from her maternal uncle who permanently resides in Vancouver. Finally, the Consul General of France also has unrestricted access to Ms. Gettliffe. Ms. Gettliffe is awaiting her trial on November 20 for child abduction after she failed to comply with legal decisions regarding the custody of her first two children. The children, who had been taken to France illegally, have been returned to their father, Scott Grant, in Canada. As mentioned last Friday in a news release from the French Foreign Affairs and Justice ministries, this was upheld by the French courts, in accordance with the Hague Convention of 1980.

Ms. Gettliffe contends she left Canada to get her children away from the influence of the International Church of Christ, to which the father belongs. However, decisions made and upheld by the Canadian and French courts giving the father custody of the children took into account all considerations brought to their attention.

Despite interruption of mediation begun by MAMIF (the French Justice Ministry’s international family mediation service), Ms. Gettliffe, who was several months pregnant, decided on her own initiative to travel to Canada on April 10, 2006, to defend a thesis at the University of British Columbia. She was arrested on April 11, 2006. The Canadian courts turned down her request to be released on bail.

The general reputation of the Canadian correctional system is good enough for it to have been cited as a model numerous times in recent years, including by a Parliamentary Commission of the French National Assembly which, in 2000, saw Canada’s system as the model they should follow in their country to achieve a more efficient penitentiary system. Following a visit to Canada (including British Columbia) in 2005, a United Nations committee drafted a report on the norms governing detention. The report was favourable towards Canada and in particular stressed that “Canada is a country governed by the rule of law, in which a strong and independent judiciary strives to ensure that trials are fair and exercises a generally vigorous control over the lawfulness of all forms of deprivation of liberty.”

For more information, please contact: Ralph Jansen, Communications and Public Affairs Unit Canadian Embassy Tel.: 01-44-43-22-90

Correctional Service Canada
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/

Alouette Correctional Centre for Women
http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/corrections/centres/medium/location/alouette.htm

Nathalie Gettliffe Alleges Mistreatment in Prison

2006-09-22T22:44:00.000-07:00

Pregnant prisoner alleges mistreatment

Nathalie Gettliffe is due to give birth any day not far from the place she calls a "safari" and in which her partner suggests she's been beaten and denied medical treatment.
Gettliffe has been housed at Maple Ridge's Alouette Correctional Centre for Women since May. She was arrested in April when she returned to B.C. to defend her PhD dissertation on allegations that she kidnapped her own children and spirited them away to France.

Her trial has been delayed until after the birth of her child.

Francis Gruzelle, Gettliffe's partner and the father of their unborn child informed a French television station that while in the Maple Ridge jail, Gettliffe had been beaten by other inmates and denied medical help.

In June, Gettliffe herself wrote a letter to Gruzelle that was later translated into English and posted on a website dedicated to lobbying for her release. Within the letter, she condemns Surrey Pre-Trial Centre, calls Alouette a "safari," and suggests that even though pregnant, she's been denied adequate food and medical attention.

Gettliffe goes on to write that she's "not the first victim of the 'legal' terrorism in the British Columbian justice system."

Corrections spokesman Bruce Bannerman, however, says that every inmate has the opportunity to launch a formal complaint.
Once the complaint is lodged, he says, "we would be able to deal with it at either the local level," or, he says, if need be, through the office of the ombudsman.
"We like to pride ourselves that we treat our inmates with respect and we provide a full range of services to all offenders."

Gettliffe faces up to 10 years on charges of child abduction. It is alleged that she stole her children away from their Canadian father during a custody dispute.
Gettliffe's reason for removing her children to France surrounded her ex-husband's involvement in the International Church of Christ, which, while recognized in Canada, is considered a cult in France.

Bannerman says that while in prison, inmates are treated to the same level of medical care as is offered in the community.
When Gettliffe goes into active labour, he explained, she'll be transferred out to an appropriate medical facility.

Once the baby is born, he added, the decision surrounding whether or not to keep the mother and child together in the prison "will be made in consultation with the offender and the other agencies...any decision on that is always done in the best interest of the child."

Edward Kruk Associate Professor UBC Speaks Out Against Injustice in Nathalie's Case

2006-08-18T17:50:00.000-07:00

Feuding parents tear their children apart
Letter to the Editor – Vancouver Sun

Published: Friday, August 18, 2006

Although I normally support fathers in their efforts to reconnect with their children following separation and divorce, I cannot support the forced estrangement of Nathalie Gettliffe from her children's lives and her current incarceration. Although removing her children from Canada without their father's knowledge is a form of kidnapping with particularly devastating consequences for children, the forced removal of either parent from the lives of children via a judicially imposed sole custody order, absent a finding that the children are in need of protection from the parent, is tantamount to a legal form of kidnapping with similarly devastating results. A viable alternative exists in the form of joint custody or shared parenting.

Although there is no guarantee that a vindictive parent would not take a child away under a joint custody order, research clearly shows that when neither parent feels threatened by the potential loss of his or her child via the prevailing "winner take all" formula of sole custody, this kind of desperate act is rare -- and children are spared the legal abuse they are currently subjected to under the present system. Children need both parents -- as parents, not "visitors" -- which is possible only under joint physical custody after parental separation.

Edward Kruk

Associate Professor,

Leader, Separated and Divorced Fathers Project; Fatherhood Involvement Research Alliance,

School of Social Work and Family Studies, University of B.C.

© The Vancouver Sun 2006

Colin Randall from the UK Reports on Nathalie's Case

2006-08-17T23:37:00.000-07:00

Posted by Colin Randall at 17 Aug 06 17:26
Tags: Crime, Family, Religion, Relationships, Nathalie Gettliffe

Outside France or Canada, few but net-surfing news junkies will have heard of Nathalie Gettliffe, a 35-year-old languages lecturer from Lyons at the centre of a bitter tug-of-love battle.

Should Nathalie Gettliffe be behind bars?

It is a sad but intriguing case involving a hopelessly torn family and allegations of kidnapping and religious extremism. Tomorrow, Nathalie, heavily pregnant with her fourth child, will learn whether she is to give birth as a prisoner or a free woman.

It is easier to explain if we start in less troubled times. At the end of the 1980s, Nathalie, still a teenager, met and married Scott Grant, a Canadian a few years older than her. They had a boy and a girl now aged 12 and 11.
Relations between the couple deteriorated. According to Nathalie (I use Christian names for convenience), the principal cause was her husband’s growing attachment to the Vancouver Church of Christ, which is linked to the US-based International Church of Christ (ICC).
The ICC has attracted fierce criticism over the years and is considered a sect in France, but not in Canada. Scott insists that he attends an ordinary place of worship that “acts like a Protestant church.”
“We don’t put our hands up and talk in tongues and stuff like that, he told the Vancouver Sun newspaper.
Sitting in Paris, I clearly cannot say what Scott's "attachment" involved or whether it is reasonable to criticise him or his church.

Nathalie Gettliffe
In any event, Nathalie decided to seek a divorce. According to Francis Gruzelle, her present French partner and the father of both her third child and the unborn baby, life had become impossible for her.
She was not permitted to leave British Columbia with the children without the court's blessing. She claims, however, to have been troubled by the effect Scott had on their children when he saw them after their separation.

Nathalie resolved to take the children back to France. Scott resisted, and the court supported him. She went anyway, in September 2001, making her liable to abduction charges.
Custody was granted to Scott, a ruling upheld in France, where the courts felt bound by the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
Francis, supported by a highly vocal campaign in France, says this makes a mockery of justice because it ignores the details of the dispute, the children's views and what drove Nathalie to act as she did.

For nearly five years, the children continued to live in France. As the arm of Canadian law stretched out to reclaim them for Scott, the Gettliffe clan did its best to keep them out of its reach.
In April this year, already four months into her pregnancy, Nathalie did something that, for a woman wanted on kidnapping charges, seemed utterly stupid. She flew to Vancouver, and was promptly arrested and thrown into jail.

Most news reports I have seen say the visit concerned her PhD thesis at the University of British Columbia. Francis tells me the main purpose was to sign, with Scott, an interim agreement negotiated over the preceding months on the future care of their children.
She therefore believed, says Francis, that the matter was now being treated as a family case, not a criminal one.

Nathalie has remained in jail since. Tomorrow’s bail application is not her first and it would be generous to describe Canadian justice as seeming in any hurry to deal with it.
Her earliest bid to be freed pending trial was not decided until May, and was rejected on the grounds that she might abscond. The judge noted that the children were still in France and said she seemed to think she was entitled to defy court orders with which she disagreed.
Nathalie says the implication of this, and previous hints from Canadian officials, was that she might be freed if the children were voluntarily returned to Canada. Just like "an exchange of hostages", one supporter told me.

The latest bail attempt has been adjourned three times, to the exasperation of her Canadian lawyer and French supporters.
Whatever other considerations arise, it does appear that “doing a runner” is beyond a woman who has been confined to bed for long periods, has received visitors in a wheelchair and is likely, according to Francis, to go into labour within days.

Meanwhile, the two children are with Scott, having been picked up by gendarmes from a relative’s home in the French Alps in July and flown back to Canada.
Accounts of what they make of it differ. The Gettliffe camp says that on the two occasions she has been allowed to see them in jail, they cried their eyes out and said they would rather be dead than separated from her.

Scott told the Vancouver Sun, in a revealing interview published this week, that both children were pictures of happiness when they explored boxes of Christmas presents he had kept for them. He talked of them adjusting well to their new lives and said that it was now his duty to stop them coming to “hate their mom”.

There is a tendency, during highly publicised disputes between people of different nationalities, for the press of each country to adopt partisan positions.
Canadian reports tend to present Scott in a favourable light; the tone of some French coverage would make you think Canada was a corrupt tinpot state where human rights are routinely trounced.

I have tried to outline contentious events without judging the issues.
But I do have humanitarian misgivings about the treatment of Nathalie. It seems beyond belief that suitable arrangements, maybe involving French consular officials, could not have been found to avoid her spending a difficult pregnancy in jail.
I also think this tangled and heartbreaking affair should receive wider attention. It is not my job to choose between the respective parenting skills of Nathalie and Scott, or to decide on her guilt (however powerfully mitigated) or innocence.

If convicted, she theoretically faces up to 10 years. But this is British Columbia not Texas and surely no sane judge would contemplate a sentence of anything like that length, if indeed any custodial sentence at all would somehow make the world a better or safer place.

So we are left with Nathalie preparing as best she can for a trial in November and an aggrieved father trying to forge a loving relationship with the children they both brought into the world.
And Nathalie, who likens the difference between the two jails where she has been held to that between a zoo and a safari, is writing a book on the “Hell of Canadian Prisons”. Both she and Francis plan election battles - he against the French justice minister, she for the presidency.
I will note the outcome of the bail hearing as soon as I can, as a comment to this posting. Bearing in mind that this is a blog, not a news agency, anyone who cannot wait should search French internet news sources.

Footnote
* Late on Friday night (but daytime over there), a judge refused Nathalie's bid for bail. She will now give birth in custody unless an appeal succeeds. I will return to the subject soon.

Posted by Colin Randall at 17 Aug 06 17:26

Some of the Comments posted on the blog: (we have taken the liberty of deleting the ones donated by oxygen pirates.)

shane at 18 Aug 2006 12:24
Quelle honte!The whole situation seems to have been very dubiously dealt with by the French and Canadian authorities, with those poor children stuck in the middle and whisked away by a battalion of helicopters, armed guards, telesurveillance etc. And why not tanks and anti-aircraft weapons. They are obviously dangerous criminels...
I can understand why Nathalie wanted to protect her kids from such nefarious influences. Pity the French government didn't support their national citoyenne.

Sarah Hague at 18 Aug 2006 13:37
Gratuitous offense Mr. Randal, you could not let it go without getting a dig in about Texas, a state about which you are very probably ignorant, other then what you believe you know. Pity …
Sohail Kayani at 18 Aug 2006 16:17
Worse than a Brazilian TV Series 2
Could it be that there is petrol involved, or an oleoduque?

richard of orléans at 19 Aug 2006 07:31
amazingI see in today's Figaro that Nathalie will remain in prison. It astounds me that she risks 10 years for 'abducting' her children...probably if she had shot her ex, and pleaded guilty she would be out on bail and perhaps risk a couple of years of prison.I don't know who is the innocent party in this battle - what horrifies me is the effect on the two children being torn apart and probably brainwashed in the process...

Louise at 19 Aug 2006 07:39
No bail
Bail was refused (see footnote).

Colin Randall at 19 Aug 2006 09:14
Re: Gettliffe thesis
I have to believe Monsieur Gruzelle is being disingenuous, at the very least, when he claims Madame Gettliffe was travelling to Vancouver to sign a mediation agreement. Her imminent Ph.D. thesis defence date was posted on the University of British Columbia's website at the time she was arrested. Although it has since been removed from the website when she failed to appear at the examination due to her arrest, I saw the initial posting, as did many other people. That makes me wonder how much of what Monsieur Gruzelle claims to be the truth of this matter should be believed. There is a publication ban on information related to this case at the moment, and I suspect things will become clearer when the trial begins.

James Hamilton at 20 Aug 2006 14:48
illegal arrest(s) and detention...Arrest(s)and detention of Nathalie Gettliffe are so illegal that High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour asked her services in Geneva to react to the 15 pages memorandum I sent her, end of July.So Canadian government has now less than 3 months to answer questions from OHCHR, about many violations of Canadian laws, Chart of rights, International Pact, etc...There is some flavour of "Vancouvergate" behind this story...

Louis Ripault at 21 Aug 2006 06:49
Non coupable
Despite a suggestion from my former colleague Kim Fletcher (on the Guardian website) that I am too mild-mannered in my responses to belligerent readers, I find myself wondering why some people find it so hard to read. Anyone familiar with the English language would see that I have sided with Nathalie Gettliffe on the issue of bail, and on nothing else.

Colin Randall at 21 Aug 2006 11:27
International Church of ChristThe ICC is indeed a very controversial organisation, even in the United States. It has been banned from a large number of US College Campuses for its aggressive targetting of young students. Although religious "cult" is a term used in the United States, their activites are difficult to restrict (as in most democracies.) But it is not unreasonable to think that someone might be concerned at their impressionable children having contact with this organisation.
For a anti-ICC view readers might want to look at the web-site http://www.reveal.org/ which is run by former members.
More objective seem the decisions of Harvard, Georgia State University, Boston University, Tufts, Northeastern, Princeton, NYU and dozens of other universities to ban the organisation. This is a pretty big step for a US college, in what is a quite religous country, especially with an avowedly "Christian" group, and must be seen a raising many red flags.
I am a bit puzzzled by the reference to Texas -- the ICC is/was based in Boston, and its efforts at Texas colleges were very controversial in Texas.

MacK at 21 Aug 2006 12:10
Partner's with Dual Passports
There is an element of hypocrisy to UK coverage on this issue. After all, the wife of Christopher Meyer, Lady Catherine Meyer, famously spent years trying to get her children back from her ex-german husband who had abducted them to Germany, with the vocal support of the British press for their return under the Hague Convention.
You cannot pick and choose when to obey the convention, but many signatories appear to do so; France in this case appears to have been very dilatory in complying with its obligations -- On the other hand Canada seems to have downplayed concerns on religious freedom grounds, which illustrates one problem with the convention is that some countries will tend to ignore issues that other will regard as very important in issues of custody.

MacK at 21 Aug 2006 12:17
English may be my second language but, Colin Randall's mild-mannered protestation to the contrary, his retailing of this sad story does read as more sympathetic to Nathalie Gettliffe.

James Hamilton at 21 Aug 2006 13:44
lAW/JUSTICE.....or humanité & common sense .Who's right or wrong is not really the issue here. Of course I have my own opinion which I expressed and was 100% censored for - every word except the silly second word which was a puny joke.
The real issue is what is and is not legal. Law should = Justice, but of course none of us imagine this is so.
The Commission for Human Rights and Louise Arbour thereof have serious doubts...and so do I!
There's something smelly about the way things were done - even if you do not give your personal opinion.....and from a humaine point of view the conditions of Nathalie's detention seem somewhat rough.
No more to be said because of the terrible blue pencil (worse tha Damocles)!

Diane Rauscher-Kennedy at 21 Aug 2006 14:00
Dad vs Mum
Anyone one know why custody was granted to the dad in the first place? More stable job, etc?
If you read up on the cult, oops, I mean ICC, I think anyone outside would not want their kids to have anything to do with anyone inside it.

Nathalie Gettliffe: Jailed Mother Writing a Book About Prison near Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

2006-08-11T21:17:00.000-07:00

Friday August 11, 2006
The woman who defied a court order to take her two children from Surrey to France is writing a book about her arrest and imprisonment when she returned to B.C. in April.

Nathalie Gettliffe plans to call the French-language edition "In the hell of the Canadian prisons."
She's reportedly writing it with the assistance of her boyfriend, French writer Francis Gruzelle, who has told supporters of Gettliffe that the book will be published in September.
Plans are for an initial press run of 300,000 editions, 100,00 in English.

According to Internet postings by Gettliffe supporters, the book will allege Gettliffe was mistreated during her six-week stay at the Surrey Pre-trial Centre before she was transferred to the medium-security Alouette Correctional Centre for Women in Maple Ridge to await trial on child abduction charges.

The book is expected to repeat complaints by Gettliffe supporters in France that an "influential" relative of ex-husband Scott Grant, (Michael Luchenko, B.C. Crown Counsel prosecutor), was involved in arranging the necessary legal paperwork to have Gettliffe arrested when she returned to B.C. in April to complete her PhD by defending her thesis before a panel of professors at UBC.

The name cited by the supporters is in fact a Crown prosecutor who has no direct involvement with the case, but is romantically involved with Grant's mother.
"L'affaire Gettliffe," as it is known, has generated headlines in France, most focusing on Gettliffe's claim that she took the couple's children, Max and Josephine, and fled Canada in 2001 because Grant belongs to a church defined as a religious sect in France.
ICOC: a cult of Christianity
Theologically, the International Churches of Christ is a cult of Christianity.
Sociologially, the movement has many cultic elements as well.
The cult is experiencing a deep crisis, with its founder - who at first resigned, but soon became ‘lead evangelist’ for one of the movement’s churches - trying to fly a new flag over the mess he created.
Founder Kip McKean and other leaders in the ICOC movement refuse to be held accountable for their beliefs and actions.
The ICOC continues to be unbalanced and dangerous.
Research resources on the International Churches of Christ

Grant, a Surrey man who is a member of the fundamentalist International Church of Christ, says the claim is smokescreen to divert attention away from Gettliffe?s refusal to obey the law.
Some French news accounts have described Grant as the chief financial officer of the church in Canada, when he is in fact employed as a financial planner with a private Vancouver-based firm.
In July, French authorities turned Max and Josephine over to Grant, and they returned to Surrey with their father.
Since then, the children have been making regular supervised visits to their mother at the Maple Ridge jail.

In a letter posted online, Gettliffe said the difference between the Surrey and Maple Ridge facilities was the difference between a "zoo" and a "safari".
She complained about a May 8 lock-down of inmates that kept her sequestered in her cell while she was being held in Surrey.
One Internet posting by a Gettliffe supporter indicates it was to protect her from other inmates, who had come to believe she was "ratting them out" to the guards.

Gettliffe, who is pregnant with Gruzelle's child, said the Alouette centre was an improvement over Surrey, but still "pretty bad".
"Guards have total power, rules are not written anywhere, and therefore they are free to do whatever they want," Gettliffe writes.
She complained that she was not allowed to take food back to her cell from dinner one night and was not allowed to eat when she arrived late for dinner a different night.
Gettliffe is scheduled to have another bail hearing on Friday.
At a previous hearing, she was declared a flight risk and ordered held until her trial on child abduction charges.

Nathalie Gettliffe: Jamais sans mes enfants!

2006-07-17T21:03:00.000-07:00

lundi 17 juillet 2006
Nathalie Gettliffe : jamais sans mes enfants !

Il y a un mois environ, l’attention des lecteurs d’AgoraVox était attirée sur le sort de Nathalie Gettliffe, emprisonnée au Canada, pour avoir un comportement maternel qui n’est pas sans rappeler celui de Betty Mahmoody, qui a fait connaître son histoire avec son livre Jamais sans ma fille, pour l’amour d’un enfant. Mieux vaut ne pas à avoir à écrire ce genre de bouquin.Des médiateurs sont intervenus, avec quelle compétence ? Médiation mal ficelée ? Probable. Les systèmes judiciaires se sont entendus... Les gendarmes sont venus, les enfants de Nathalie Gettliffe ont été remis à leur père, financier d’une secte peu recommandable (si l’on en croit nos députés). Nathalie Gettliffe, en attendant, se sacrifie pour ce en quoi elle croit. Elle est restée en prison pour ses enfants...

Le 6 juillet dernier, des gendarmes, sur mandat de la Justice française qui s’est alignée sur les décisions canadiennes, se sont rendus au domicile de la soeur de Nathalie Gettliffe, en Savoie, où les deux enfants kidnappés étaient cachés. Les deux enfants ont ensuite été remis à leur père, Scott Grand, responsable financier de la secte Eglise internationale du Christ, destination, peut-être, le Canada. Malgré la prison, Nathalie Gettliffe s’est sacrifiée. Elle n’a pas voulu céder... ni s’aider, car cela serait revenu, pour elle, à abandonner ses enfants...

Nathalie Gettliffe, jamais sans ses enfants, est toujours en prison
Deux jours avant, le compagnon de Nathalie Gettliffe, le journaliste Francis Gruzelle, était placé en garde à vue pour outrage à gendarme puis présenté au parquet pour soustraction par un tiers de mineurs cachés par la famille et, enfin, enlèvement et séquestration de mineurs. Après avoir été entendu par le Juge d’instruction, il a été remis en liberté, sans être mis en examen.

Josephine et Maximillien: La récupération des enfants s'est faite dans l'inhumanité la plus complète

2006-07-07T22:54:00.000-07:00

Les deux enfants dont la garde est disputée par leurs parents ont été rendus à leur père canadien, tandis que leur beau-père échappe finalement à la mise en examen.

L'AFFAIRE Gettliffe vient de prendre un nouveau tournant. Alors que la tension semblait avant-hier monter d'un cran, avec la restitution des enfants par les forces de l'ordre à leur père canadien, des signes d'apaisement sont apparus hier, avec la libération de Francis Gruzelle, le compagnon de Nathalie Gettliffe.

Après 48 heures de garde à vue à la brigade de recherches de Tournon (Ardèche), ce dernier est ressorti libre, échappant contre toute attente à la mise en examen requise contre lui par le procureur de la République de Privas, Christophe Raffin.

Après une perquisition à son domicile mardi matin, Francis Gruzelle avait été placé en garde à vue, sur la base de deux plaintes déposées contre lui pour outrages aux gendarmes et menaces à l'encontre de l'ex-mari de Nathalie Gettliffe, Scott Grant. Ces motifs avaient ensuite été étendus aux chefs de «complicité d'enlèvement d'enfant de moins de 15 ans et séquestration», Francis Gruzelle ayant organisé la fuite des enfants pour éviter l'application d'une décision de justice ordonnant leur retour au Canada. Cachés dans la banlieue d'Albertville, en Savoie, chez des cousins éloignés de leur mère, Joséphine et Maximilien, âgés de 11 et 12 ans, ont passé la journée de mercredi aux côtés de gendarmes et d'intervenants médico-sociaux.

Une secte en France mais pas au Canada
«Totalement abusives et fallacieuses !», s'exclamait hier Me Dominique Chambon, faisant référence aux 48 heures de garde à vue de son client Francis Gruzelle. «Le vrai motif, c'est qu'il fallait le neutraliser le temps de récupérer les enfants.»

De son côté, Francis Gruzelle se dit «très amer». «La récupération des enfants s'est faite dans l'inhumanité la plus complète, accuse-t-il. Ils ont été emmenés sans pouvoir récupérer aucune de leurs affaires, et sans pouvoir nous embrasser, leur grand-mère, leur petit frère et moi.»

Tenus dans un endroit secret avec leur père, les enfants devaient immédiatement repartir pour le Canada. «Là où ils retomberont complètement sous son emprise», peste Francis Gru zelle qui, comme Nathalie Gettliffe, accuse Scott Grant d'appartenir à l'Eglise internationale du Christ, organisation considérée comme une secte en France mais légale au Canada.

C'est pour cette raison que Nathalie Gettliffe dit avoir fui ce pays, en 2001, avec ses enfants. Ce qui, au regard de la convention de La Haye, est considéré comme un enlèvement. C'est lors d'un voyage au Canada, le 11 avril dernier, qu'elle a été interpellée et placée en détention provisoire. Son jugement est prévu le 16 octobre prochain devant la Cour suprême de Colombie-Britannique, où elle encourt dix ans de prison.

Enceinte de sept mois, elle devait comparaître hier devant le tribunal de New Westminster, dans la banlieue de Vancouver, pour obtenir une éventuelle remise en liberté conditionnelle.

Une Lettre de Nathalie

2006-06-01T21:43:00.000-07:00

Maple Ridge, le 1er juin 2006
Cher Francis,
Cela fait maintenant une semaine que j’ai été transférée du zoo au safari. Je suis toujours en cage mais j’ai un peu plus d’espace pour me retourner. J’avoue qu’après avoir passé six semaines dans l’enfer du centre correctionnel de Surrey, j’ai eu quelques difficultés à m’habituer à mon nouvel environnement.

J’avais l’impression d’être un animal tapi dans ma cellule les premiers jours : il m’était difficile d’occuper l’espace autour de moi et d’organiser ma journée. Mon espace ayant été restreint pendant six semaines et le rythme quotidien ayant été scandé par les enfermements répétés en cellule, j’avoue que je n’avais même plus le goût de sortir dehors.

Les premiers jours, j’avais l’impression d’être une somnambule marchant sans pouvoir traiter l’information autour de moi. Petit à petit, les sensations reviennent, les réflexes de survie se remettent en place. Je comprends mieux maintenant la peur de prisonnières avant leur sortie de prison. Il leur faut réapprendre à fonctionner dans la société et ce et ce n’est pas évident quand toutes les libertés nous ont été enlevées et quand nos droits les plus élémentaires sont bafoués.

Je m’habitue donc petit à petit à mon espace mais les imprévus sont une constance dans cet environnement. Quand je pense avoir compris certaines choses, d’autres évènements surviennent et remettent en cause la grille d’interprétation que j’essaie de mettre en place.

Par exemple, hier, après avoir téléphoné à l’avocate que je n’arrivais pas à joindre depuis deux jours, je suis arrivée à 5h07 à la cuisine pour le dîner du soir. Apparemment les portes de la cafétéria ont été ouvertes plus tôt (d’habitude on mange à 17h) et à l’heure où je suis arrivée la plupart des femmes avaient fini de manger. Résultat : la garde à la porte d’entrée m’a refusé l’entrée à la cafétéria et je n’ai pus avoir à manger. Je lui ai expliqué que j’étais enceinte, rien à faire.

Aujourd’hui, midi, nous avions des hamburgers. Je n’ai pu manger que la moitié du mien car si je mange trop à la fois, j’ai des remontées gastriques étant donné que le bébé est assez haut. Je suis donc sortie de la cantine avec la moitié de mon hamburger. Peine perdue : la garde de sortie m’a demandé de mettre mon hamburger à la poubelle car je n’avais pas le droit de sortir avec une partie de mon repas. Je lui ai expliqué pourquoi (enceinte, remontées gastriques). J’t’en fou, elle m’a dit de faire une demande aux services santé pour que je puisse amener une partie de mon repas à l’appartement. J’ai donc dû mettre la moitié de mon burger à la poubelle.
Voilà, les gardes ont tout pouvoir, les règles ne sont inscrites nulle part et donc chacune s’amuse de nous. Réjouissant !

J’ai vu le consul et Cécile Walk lundi dernier. Ils étaient surpris d’apprendre que j’avais été transférée. J’ai pu leur expliquer que la première surprise était moi-même quand le mardi j’ai demandé à quelle heure l’audience avait lieu le lendemain et que j’ai appris mon transfert à 9 heures du soir. J’avais très peur d’être transférée pour ne pas que je sois à l’audience (manigances courantes qui m’ont été rapportées par différentes prisonnières). J’ai appris le mercredi par l’avocate que l’audience avait été annulée.

J’ai aussi appris par une garde que mon transfert n’a été approuvé qu’a la dernière minute. Apparemment, version officielle, la direction de la prison ne voulait pas m’envoyer au centre Alouette parce que mon dossier est médiatisé. Dans ces cas-là, les prisonniers sont isolés (souvent au trou) de manière à ce qu’aucune information ne circule. Cela confirme donc que la direction a essayé de réduire au minimum mes communications vers l’extérieur.

Par rapport à l’incident du 8 mai, quand toutes les personnes de notre appartement ont été enfermées ; en résumé, j’avais le choix entre des violences physiques que j’aurais subies si je déménageais dans un autre appartement et les violences de l’institution. Comme j’ai « choisi » de rester dans ma cellule d’origine, j’ai dû être enfermée. Point final … Je pense que la bonne « réponse » aurait été de me laisser la liberté de sortir de ma cellule et d’expliquer aux autres filles que je n’avais rien à faire avec l’histoire de harcèlement.

J’ai pu finalement voir le médecin cette semaine. Résultat des courses, en 8 semaines j’ai pris un kilo. J’ai des contractions régulièrement et je suis très fatiguée. Le docteur m’a donc ordonné de me reposer et de rester allongée toutes les après-midi. Je ne vais donc pas travailler mais surtout je ne peux pus aller en cours de justice car je ne supporterai plus les voyages. Comme le procès doit durer une dizaine de jours il va falloir attendre la naissance du bébé pour le procès.

J’ai aussi une infection urinaire. J’attends la confirmation du labo mais à ce jour je n’ai pas de médicaments et je suis vraiment épuisée. Aujourd’hui, je pleurais comme une madeleine sans raison simplement de sur-fatigue. Je n’arrive pas à récupérer et je m’affaiblis donc de jour en jours.

Si je n’avais pas été enceinte, je pense que j’aurais passé tous les jours avant mon procès au trou. C’est du harcèlement et de la torture, je ne vois pas d’autres mots.

Ces techniques pour faire « craquer » les prisonniers sont des procédures communes en Colombie Britannique, province par excellence du Far West (Opposé de Phare-Ouest). J’ai eu connaissance de manière détaillée de ces techniques par une prisonnière et en racontant son histoire, tu auras une idée jusqu’où les choses peuvent aller.
Cette femme a un oncle qu’elle apprécie beaucoup. Régulièrement, elle va pêcher avec lui et elle est invitée à manger chez lui et sa tante. Cet oncle possède une double vie et est impliqué dans le trafique de drogues. Il y a de ça quelques mois, la police canadienne a son bateau qui transportait 2 tonnes de drogue.

Son oncle a pu se défendre et faire annuler le procès sur un détail technique. Depuis, la police est sur les dents pour essayer de le reprendre en flagrant délit de trafique. Sachant que cette prisonnière apprécie son oncle, la police s’est employée à torturer cette prisonnière pour qu’elle leur transmette des informations qu’elle ignore et pour faire craquer son oncle.
Tout d’abord, la police l’a arrêtée de nombreuses fois en plein milieu de la nuit chez elle alors qu’elle vit seule avec sa fille qui a maintenant 14 ans. La police la mettait en garde à vue pendant quelques heures et la relâchait car il n’avait pas de mandat d’arrêt.
Ensuite, la police est allée voir son patron lui disant qu’il devait renvoyer cette femme parce qu’elle était impliquée dans un trafique de drogue. La police a raconté que s’il ne la mettait pas à la porte, lui-même (le patron) serait soupçonné de trafique de drogue. Il l’a donc renvoyé mais, apparemment, il pleurait.
Plus tard, la police a commencé à suivre tous les déplacements de cette jeune femme. Elle croyait qu’elle devenait folle. Sa meilleure amie a aussi été suivie par la police. Finalement, la police arrêtée cette jeune femme avec un mandat d’arrêt et 30 accusations auxquelles elle devait répondre.

Au même moment, sa voiture a été confisquée pour voir si elle contenait de la drogue. La couronne lui a refusé de pouvoir sortir de prison avant son procès et sa fille a été placée sous la « protection » des services sociaux. Pendant son incarcération dans les cellules de garde à vue, la police est venue régulièrement lui offrir de l’argent si elle voulait parler des activités de son oncle, ce qu’elle a refusé ignorant sa double vie.
En cellule, les gardes ont refusé de la nourrir. Ils ont aussi refusé de lui donner une couverture et un matelas pour les nuits. Régulièrement, elle a demandé du papier toilette pour aller aux W.C. Ceci lui a été refusé aussi. Elle est restée plusieurs mois en prison en attendant que la couronne pose une date pour le procès. A court d’argent, elle a perdu sa maison. A 38 ans, elle n’a plus rien !
Finalement, elle a craqué et elle a décidé de plaider coupable pour 4 des 30 accusations bien qu’elle soit innocente pour toutes les accusations. Son raisonnement : il faut absolument qu’elle récupère sa fille qui ne va pas bien. En plaidant coupable, elle n’a pas besoin d’attendre le procès et la peine qu’elle encoure sera plus courte que son attente.
Elle a été condamnée à 7 mois de prison mais elle peut sortir dans quatre mois. Pour cela, elle doit suivre des programmes pour les drogués (bien qu’elle n’en soit pas une). On pourrait croire que c’est une mauvaise farce, mais c’est la réalité. Le pire c’est qu’elle sait qu’en sortant elle sera de nouveau torturée et harcelée jusqu'à ce qu’elle parle.

C’est à en être malade. Donc comme tu vois, je ne suis pas la première victime du terrorisme « légal » de la justice britanno-colombienne.

Mon système immunitaire est à bout et je redoute le pire. En effet, j’ai appris dimanche dernier qu’il y a une épidémie d’une infection de la peau appelée MRSA. Cette infection est très contagieuse et même les anti-biotiques les plus violents ne fonctionnent pas toujours. J’ai appris l’origine de l’épidémie par hasard lorsque le service santé m’a appelée pour faire un test sur ma peau et m’a demandée de donner un échantillon de ma salive.

J’ai refusé ces deux tests car la procédure paraissait louche. En fait, c’était une étudiante en médecine qui faisait des recherches et qui avait « oublié » de dire aux prisonnières que ces deux tests étaient facultatifs.

J’étais vraiment en colère d’apprendre que cette étudiante pouvait récolter des informations sur l’ADN des prisonnières sans leur accord. De nouveau, j’ai risqué le trou car les instructions venaient des gardes de la prison. Ceci confirme que le système de détention est complice des chercheurs qui prennent les prisonnières pour des rats.

Voilà, les affaires continuent et je survis. Je sais que tu te bas comme un diable, que beaucoup de personnes te suivent. C’est vraiment encourageant. Fais plein de bisous aux enfants et plein de tendresse à Jean-Philippe.
Je t’aime très fort
Nathalie.

Letter from Nathalie from Prison

2006-06-01T14:47:00.000-07:00

Maple Ridge, June 1, 2006

Dear Francis,

It has been one week now since I was transferred from zoo to safari. I am still in a cage, but I now have a little more space to move around. I must admit that, after having spent six weeks in the horrible correctional center in Surrey, I had some difficulty adjusting to my new environment.

During the first few days, I felt like an animal crouching in my cell: it was difficult for me to occupy the space around me and to organize my day. Since my space had been so limited for six weeks, and the daily routine disturbed by repeated confinements in my cell, I must admit I didn’t even feel like going outside anymore.
I felt like I was sleep-walking without being able to process the information coming to me. Little by little, sensations return, survival instinct comes back. I now understand the fear of leaving the prison that inmates often experience. They must learn again to function in society; this is very difficult when all liberties have been taken away and when our most basic rights are scorned.

So, I am becoming accustomed, little by little, to my space. However, unexpected events occur constantly. When I think I have learned something, other events occur and disturb the perception frame I am trying to establish.

As an example, yesterday, after having called my lawyer whom I had not been able to reach in two days, I arrived in the kitchen at 5:07 PM for dinner. Apparently, the cafeteria doors were opened early (we usually eat at 5:00) and when I arrived, most women had finished eating. As a result, the guard at the door refused to let me in and I did not eat dinner. I explained that I am pregnant and need to eat, but to no avail.

Today, we had hamburgers for lunch. I could only eat half of mine, because I have gastric reflux if I eat too much at a time, since the baby is high. Therefore, I left the cafeteria with half of my hamburger. No chance: the guard made me throw it in the trash since we are not allowed to leave with food. I explained the reason why I needed to keep it, but she said I needed to make a request to the health services to be allowed to take food into my cell. So, I had to throw my half hamburger into the trash.

Guards have total power, rules are not written anywhere, and therefore they are free to do whatever they want. Pretty bad.

I saw the Consul and Cecile Walk last Monday. They were surprised to learn that I had been transferred. I was able to explain that I was the first to be surprised: on Tuesday, I asked the scheduled time of the hearing for the next day, and I learned at 9:00 pm that I would be transferred. I was worried that they would transfer me so that I would not be able to attend my hearing (this is common practice, according to several inmates. On Wednesday, I learned from the lawyer that the hearing had been cancelled.I also learned from a guard that my transfer was only approved at the last minute. The official version is that the prison management did not want to send me to the Alouette center because my case is being covered in the media. In these instances, inmates are isolated (often in solitary confinement) to prevent information from being spread. This confirms the fact that the management tried to reduce my communication with the outside to a minimum.

Regarding the incident on May 8th, when all the people in our section were confined; in short, I had the choice between physical violence suffered if I had moved to a different section and the violence from the institution. Since I “elected” to remain in my original cell, I had to be confined. I think the right “answer” would have been to allow me to come out of my cell and to explain to the other inmates that I had nothing to do with the harassment claim.
I finally got to see the doctor this week. In 8 weeks, I gained one kilo. I have contractions periodically and I feel very tired. The doctor told me to rest and to lie down every afternoon. Therefore, I do not go to work, but, which is worse, I cannot go to court because I will not be able to tolerate the trips. Since the trial should last about 10 days, I will have to wait until the baby is born before going to trial.

I also have a urinary infection. I am waiting for confirmation from the lab, but to this day I have not received any medication, and I am exhausted. Today, I was crying continuously for no apparent reason, just from exhaustion. I can’t recover and am becoming weaker every day.
If I had not been pregnant, I believe I would have spent all the days until my trial in solitary confinement. This is harassment and torture; I don’t know any other word to define it.
These techniques to break down prisoners are common in British Columbia, the typical “Far West” province. I learned a detailed example of these practices from an inmate and when I tell her story, you will have an idea of how far abuse can go.

This woman has an uncle whom she likes very much. She used to go fishing with him and would eat with him and her aunt. The uncle leads a double life and is a drug dealer. A few months ago, Canadian police seized his boat with 2 tons of drugs.

The uncle was able to defend himself and have the lawsuit dropped because of a technical detail. Since then, the police are trying to catch him again. Since they know that this lady likes her uncle, they began to harass her to obtain information – which she does not have – and to catch her uncle.

First, police arrested her several times in the middle of the night. She lives alone with her 14-year old daughter. Police would keep her in custody for a few hours and release her, since there was no warrant.

Then, police went to see her boss and told him that he should fire her because she was involved in drug traffic. They told him that if he didn’t fire her, he would be suspected of complicity to drug traffic. Therefore, he fired her, but she says he was crying.
Later, police began to follow this lady everywhere. She thought she was going crazy. Her best friend was also followed by police. Finally, police arrested the lady with a warrant citing 30 indictments.

At the same time, her car was confiscated and searched for drugs. The crown refused to release her from prison before her trial and her daughter was placed under the “protection” of social services. During her incarceration in custody cells, police came regularly to offer her money if she would talk about her uncle’s activities. She refused, since she knew nothing of his illegal activities.

In the cell, guards refused to feed her. They also refused to give her a blanket and a mattress. She did not have toilet paper. She remained in prison for several months, waiting for the Crown to schedule the trial. She was financially ruined and lost her house. At 38, she has nothing left.
Finally, she broke down and decided to plead guilty for 4 of the 30 indictments, even though she is innocent on all counts. Her reasoning is that she must get her daughter back because her daughter is not well. By pleading guilty, she does not have to wait for the trial and the sentence may be shorter than the waiting time.

She was sentenced to 7 months but will be released in 4 months. She is required to attend drug rehab programs even though she has never taken drugs. You could think this is a bad joke, but it is reality. The worse is that she knows that when she gets out, she will be again tortured and harassed until she talks.

It makes me sick. As you can see, I am not the first victim of the “legal” terrorism in the British Columbian justice system.

My immune system is weak and I am scared. In fact, I learned last Sunday that there a skin infection epidemic called MRSA. This infection is very contagious and even the strongest antibiotics can’t always cure it. I learned of this epidemic by accident when the health services called me to perform a test on my skin and asked me to give a saliva sample.I refused both tests because it looked suspicious. Actually, a medical student was doing research and had “forgotten” to tell inmates that these tests were optional.I was really angry to learn that this student could collect DNA samples from inmates without their authorization. Again, I risked solitary confinement because the instructions came from the prison guards. This confirms that the prison system is an accomplice to researchers who use inmates as lab rats.

Here you are. Life goes on and I am surviving. I know you are fighting as hard as you can, and I know that many people are helping. This is encouraging. Please give the children lots of kisses for me and give my love to Jean-Philippe.

I love you very much,Nathalie

Nathalie Gettliffe Spends Mother's Day Behind Bars

2006-05-14T22:38:00.000-07:00

Mother’s Day spent behind bars
The Leader, Canada
By Dan Ferguson Staff Reporter May 14 2006

A pregnant woman arrested for abducting her own children from Surrey to France will spend Mother’s Day in a B.C. jail, a Richmond Provincial Court judge ruled Thursday.

In denying Nathalie Gettliffe’s bail application, Judge Margaret Rae said Gettliffe has refused to return her son and daughter to the custody of their father, Surrey resident Scott Grant, despite repeated orders by courts in Canada and France. While Gettliffe, who is five months pregnant, offered to post bail and even wear an electronic monitor, the judge said the woman has nothing to keep her in Canada and every reason to return to France.

Ex-husband Grant was pleased. "I’m ecstatic that the court saw through all the lies," Grant said. He was talking about French news coverage of the case, some of it generated by Gettliffe’s French boyfriend, Francis Gruzelle, a journalist who has written several stories accusing Grant of belonging to a cult. Grant, a financial consultant who belongs to a fundamentalist church, has repeatedly denied the claims.

Gruzelle was the reporter who wrote the first stories about the international custody fight shortly after Gettliffe left Surrey with her son and daughter for France in 2001. During a 2004 interview with The Leader, Gettliffe denied that she was romantically involved with Gruzelle, saying he was only a friend who was sympathetic because he had lost his wife to a cult.

However, recent French news reports describe Gruzelle as Gettliffe’s companion and father to a nine-month-old son with her as well as her unborn child. Gruzelle’s ex-wife recently came forward to describe Gruzelle as an embittered former spouse who accused her unsuccessfully of cult involvement during a custody fight.

Some French news reports have also referred to complaints by Gruzelle and Gettliffe that a relative of Grant’s was handling her prosecution. Grant said his mother’s common-law husband happens to be a Crown prosecutor who is not involved with the case in any way.

A specially appointed independent prosecutor has been handling the matter. In a French-language television interview following the Richmond ruling, Gruzelle expressed outrage, saying that keeping his pregnant girlfriend in jail could lead to a miscarriage.

He also repeated claims that Getliffe had come to Canada for a mediation meeting with her husband, something Grant says isn’t true. He maintained he only learned that Gettliffe was returning to Canada when he performed a Google search and stumbled across a University of B.C. website that revealed she would be appearing before an examination panel of professors at the university to complete her Canadian Ph.D.

Grant alerted authorities, who arrested Gettliffe on arrival and charged her with abduction in contravention of a custody order. Her next court appearance is set for July.

Surrey Leader.com

2006-04-12T16:09:00.002-07:00

2006-04-12T16:09:00.001-07:00

2006-04-12T16:09:00.000-07:00

Technorati Profile

Look at the Corruption Inside the Judiciary - USA - Case 1

2004-05-13T23:33:00.000-07:00

Feds investigate child porn on P2P networks - 65 arrests, 1,000 cases
announced 5/14/04 AP Washington "A nationwide probe into child
pornography trafficking using Internet file-sharing networks has
resulted in 1,000 investigations and at least 65 arrests, federal
officials announced Friday. The broader investigation centers on the
growing use of "peer-to-peer," or P2P, networks that allow users to
connect computers directly with one another to exchange files
rather than using traditional Internet servers that are easier
to track."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4980441/

this one paragraph fwd from L Moss Sharman More details in
pornography case -

Responding to a motion by Stephen W. Thompson's lawyers, a U.S.
prosecutor defended the seizure of a "monstrous" cache from the
EX-JUDGE'S Shore home. By John Shiffman Inquirer Staff Writer
5/13/04 Camden

"A federal prosecutor said yesterday that a "monstrous collection" of
child pornography kept by a former state Superior Court judge had been
lawfully seized from his Shore home. In a legal filing, the prosecutor
said Stephen W. Thompson's cache of child pornography included
"thousands of images of naked or partially naked children engaged in
sexually explicit conduct." At one point, the judge kept 20 such images
on the laptop computer he used on the bench in Camden County, according
to Assistant U.S. Attorney Diana Carrig. From the desktop in his
chambers, Carrig said, Thompson e-mailed a Web site that sold child
pornography and downloaded information from a "travel sex guide" site.

Thompson is charged with possession of child pornography and traveling
to Russia to videotape himself having sex with a teenage boy."

Men Who Lead Two Lives....Another Look At the Corruption

2004-04-18T23:35:00.000-07:00

Submitted by Lynne Moss-Sharman:
Los Angeles Times, Gayle Pollard Terry
April 18, 2004

Secrets in Bakersfield - Rumors of a powerful cabal were whispered for years. Then the local newspaper investigated. By Gayle Pollard-Terry, Times Staff Writer 1/27/03

" "For more than a generation," the story said, "Bakersfield was run by a cadre of men who led double lives. To the public, these men were members of the community's most visible institutions, its justice system and the media. "But in truth ... these men -- a sprinkling of county executives, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, even the newspaper's publisher -- were part of a loose-knit, secretive network. "Some were homosexuals who preyed upon young men and boys, then used their positions of power and influence to protect one another from possible ramifications.

Occasionally, however, the preyed-upon lashed out, leading to a string of murders involving young gay men and their prominent older male suitors." In the late 1970s and '80s, the victims included two millionaires, one of whom was on a county crime commission; the Kern County personnel director; the owner of a fashionable hair salon; and a 14-year-old girl who attended parties thrown by Bakersfield's one-time police commissioner, who committed suicide after being charged with providing marijuana to minors. With the exception of the girl, whose case was never solved, the murders were committed by teenage or young adult men who said they had had sexual relationships with the victims."

http://www.calendarlive.com/cl-et-gayle27jan27.story
latimes.com

AND ANOTHER ARTICLE:

Judge won't let convicted Bakersfield child molester post bail
by Brian Skoloff, AP Writer 3/15/04

"In Bakersfield alone, 46 people were arrested in eight alleged child molestation rings. Thirty were convicted, eight had their charges dropped and eight struck plea deals that kept them from prison. Twenty two of the 30 convictions were later reversed for reasons including legal technicalities, prosecutorial misconduct or faulty jury instructions."

Link (copy and paste):
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/
2004/03/15/state1714EST0111.DTL

AND MORE:

two fwds from L Moss Sharman - Child Porn Hearing Opens - South County husband and wife are accused of 90 felony counts each, including videotaping and molesting a 5-year-old girl. By Mai Tran 4/9/04 "The videotape gave authorities a roadmap that led to a locked chest stored in a bedroom closet of the couple's home containing 216 videotapes and CDs, many of them depicting the couple having sex with children, investigators said. Investigators said they did not know who sent them the tape or who had the access or time to record snippets from so many movies. Thursday's testimony offered a first glimpse into the case against David Hwang, 31, and his wife, Sheila Sikat, 23. The hearing, which was continued until April 20, will determine whether the couple should stand trial. Orange County sheriff's investigators contend the tapes and CDs reveal six children being molested."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-molest9apr09,1,3749389.story?c oll=la-headlines-california

Man accused of killing family members had mass suicide plan Brian Skoloff, 4/8/04 AP "Marcus Wesson devised a plan nearly a decade ago for his children to kill themselves if authorities came to retrieve the clan, according to a police detective testifying at a preliminary hearing on charges Wesson murdered nine of his kids. Wesson maintained strict control over his many children and would inflict "weeklong spankings" if they broke his rules, which included *NOT* talking to men outside of the family, Fresno homicide detective Carlos Leal testified that one of Wesson's adult daughters told him. The 20-year-old girl said the family was forced to study the King James Bible twice a day and listen to Wesson preach, Leal said, adding that she claimed Wesson began molesting her and her sisters when they were as young as 5."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/04/0 8/state1703EDT0122.DTL

>From American Journal of Public Health - The Economic Burden of Hospitalization Associated With Child Abuse and Neglect Posted 04/02/2004 Sue Rovi, PhD; Ping-Hsin Chen, PhD; Mark S. Johnson, MD, MPH Abstract and Introduction Abstract Objectives: This study assessed the economic burden of child abuse-related hospitalizations. Methods: We compared inpatient stays coded with a diagnosis of child abuse or neglect with stays of other hospitalized children using the 1999 National Inpatient Sample of the Healthcare Costs and Utilization Project. Results: Children whose hospital stays were coded with a diagnosis of abuse or neglect were significantly more likely to have died during hospitalization (4.0% vs 0.5%), have longer stays (8.2 vs 4.0 days), twice the number of diagnoses (6.3 vs 2.8), and double the total charges ($19266 vs $9513) than were other hospitalized children. Furthermore, the primary payer was typically Medicaid (66.5% vs 37.0%)." http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/472527

ABUSERS KEEP CUSTODY OF THEIR VICTIMS 70% OF THE TIME:

When Children Tell And No One Listens - October 1997 - By Sherry A. Quirk, Esq. "...some of the worst cases are those where authorities were notified of abuse and had determined that the child was at risk, but nevertheless left the child in the care of the abuser....Studies show that batterers have been able to convince authorities that the victim is unfit or undeserving of sole custody in approximately 70% of challenged cases." http://www.yesican.org/articles/childrentell.html