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

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

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

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!

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?

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

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

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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?