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

9 novembre 2006

Bonjour à tous,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Govt. is making Nathalie a political prisoner.

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

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

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

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

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

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

T.

Priorité : faire sortir Nathalie Gettliffe des geôles canadiennes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Affaire Nathalie Gettliffe

Monsieur l’Ambassadeur,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Louis Ripault

LETTRE OUVERTE A MONSIEUR L'AMBASSADEUR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proof that An Ordinary Citizen Can Run for President in France

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rachid Nekkaz website....

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

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

We have the following questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would you allow this man near your children?

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

In the name of God believe Tom Robinson

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

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


CANADA YOU NEED AN ATTICUS FINCH badly!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HONESTY is what I really need!

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

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

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

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

Maman........

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

Love Jean-Philippe

Communique de Presse

Communiqué de Presse

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


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

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

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

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

Lettres de prison - Nathalie Gettliffe

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

18 €

Envoyer la référence à un contact



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

Communique de Presse sur L'Affaire Gettliffe et Les Enfants

Communiqué de presse

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

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

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

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

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

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

Francis GRUZELLE

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

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