Feminists put words in my mouth
A week ago, I posted an item about a long-running child custody battle that ended up in an Ontario court. Ten years after the parents split, Justice Faye McWatt ordered their three daughters taken from the mother and given into the sole custody of the father because of the mother’s relentless campaign to alienate them from him. I congratulated Judge McWatt for her decision, expressed the wish that the relationship between the father and his girls would be healed, and stated that the facts contained in the court ruling supported the conclusion that the mother was unfit.
Later that same day, a blog called “Battered Moms Lose Children to Abusers” (hereafter BMLCTA) linked to my post, quoted the complete text, and added sentences claiming the judge’s decision was baseless, implying that the mother and children have been victimised. Anyone reading that post would think I had contradicted myself from one paragraph to the next.
Here are the final four paragraphs of my post and the two extra paragraphs added by BMLCTA:
K.D. ignored several court orders, shut the door in A.L.’s face when he came to collect the children, and refused to answer the phone when he called to say good night. She would send police to his home when he had a child for an overnight visit. Ultimately, she cut off all contact between A.L. and his children.
Justice McWatt heard that, as long as eight years ago, an expert had predicted that the girls would become alienated from their father unless the mother stopped brainwashing them.
Kudos to the judge for ordering this bold, if belated, change in custody. One hopes that the relationship between the daughters and their father will be restored.
The full text of the court ruling is posted here. The campaign to alienate the children from A.L. began while they were still married. It seems clear to me that K.D.’s child-rearing behaviour was, shall we say, inappropriate from the get-go.
And the decision, written to make the facts fit the theory – nevermind [sic] that the theory is not accepted by any ethical scientific organization, it is not in the DSM and is the sick philosophy of Pro-Pedophilia Dr. Richard Gardner.
Click on the lick below to read this bogus decision that one can only hope will be overturned on appeal for being based on a fictitious syndrome.
The “link below” is the same link to the court decision that I included above.
To compound the prevarication, the full text of BMLCTA’s post was copied in its entirety by two other bloggers who believe mothers can do no wrong:
Those bloggers purport to champion justice and fair play, but they put words in my mouth.
Barbara Kay has written a column on the custody dispute, criticising the authorities for taking far too long to intervene.
Nothing about this court decision is fair to these three girls. Did the father give the mother reason to keep them away…I don’t know…I’m sure that was well discussed. But in any event, two wrongs don’t make a right. To rip these little girls away from their mother and force them to go to another country to be “deprogrammed” in Nazi-like fashion is horrifying. The psychological terror that these children face should be criminal…they are forced to “divorce” themselves from the only loving parent they’ve known and told to start loving the absent parent, often an abusive one, or else. Do the owners of these “deprogramming” centers have a financial deal with the judges involved in these decisions. It seems to be common…two U.S. judges just got caught in Pennsylvania doing just this…sending children to a center in which they had a financial stake.
You must have missed my post: The Criminal/Presenters at the Canadian Symposium for Parental Alienation Conference; many other bloggers writing about this horrible decision…along with other scientific papers on use of the so-called “Parental Alienation Syndrome,” a syndrome not recognized by ANY professional body.
http://justice4mothers.wordpress.com/2009/01/29/the-criminalpresenters-at-the-canadian-parental-alienation-conference/
The misrepresentation of your position is worse in the two blogs that copied BMLCA’s post. In hers at least, if one squints really, really hard, one can see that the text copied from you is in a different coloured font from her two paragraphs of editorial comment.
So I wouldn’t necessarily chalk the confusion up chutzpah per se but probably to her just not knowing how to use blockquote properly. Which of course she ought to know if she’s going to go copying other people’s content.
[...] BLOGGING Feminists put words in my mouth …. [...]
Sheepcat, Thanks for your comment. I just looked at BMLCTA’s post again and she’s inserted “–end of article–” between her quotation of my post and her extra two paragraphs, making a clear distinction between what I wrote and what she added. I hope she’ll be more careful in future when quoting external sources. No such clarification has been made by the two bloggers who copied her post, however.