Information leak!

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

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

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

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??

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

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

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

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

"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

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

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

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

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 :

- 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

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

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

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

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

----- 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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