Fornits

Fornits Home for Wayward Web Fora
An open discussion about the troubled parent industry

In his feeble way, DJ has touched on something that I thought about when I first heard about this astonishing flight out of the United States.

What are the current laws concerning communication media, including the internet, like in Canada?  Certainly, "free speech" is in some ways more restricted than in the United States, in terms of what you can say publicly about minority groups or gays for example (a quick search should verify that this is so).

So what does Canadian law say about internet communication of insutling, obscene, libellous, harassing or threatening material, anonymously or otherwise?

And what Canadian agency should be alerted to such material in order to crack down on it?  Something to look into when I have the time.

What's happened here kind of reminds me of what the judge said when he sentenced "Doctor Death" Jack Kevorkian to several years in prison after his last, most publicized doctor-assisted suicide-event.

It was something to the effect of:  "It wasn't enough that you were doing what you felt you wanted to do, you had to keep outdoing yourself, keep being more "in your face", more publicly outrageous.  You kept pushing things further and further, demanding, daring anyone to stop you.  Well, consider yourself stopped".

"Looks as if this site finaly got the message. You and yours are not welcome in America. If you would simply play by the rules maybe you could come back. Now, if the rest of you would just follow the site to your new Free Country we will all be better off. Now let's all sing, "O'Canada, land of medical and decriminalized marijuana, refuge to draft dodgers and other Unamerican Americans." So long dipshits, its been real."

Johnny Ringo:  Obviously I don't know you, but if you're reading this site, can you please elaborate on your post as quoted above?  

I am very rarely here these days, and there may well be a history somewhere in this place that clarifies your remarks, but I haven't the stomach to look for that history---these days, I only check in here when I have my own reasons to do so.

By way of self-disclosure, I will say that as a person much more naive than I am now (that is, now I do recognize that there is evil in the world, evil that is beyond compromise), I used to post at fornits, with the result that I was castigated and threatened---my posts were misrepresented in a character-assasination schtick that has happened many times at this site.  

My own situation was perhaps somewhat unique in that the low-lifes here actually tried to post my address (and even a map of my neighborhood) and phone number here, presumably for the use of whatever type of disturbed individual might see it here.  Believe me, I took the appropriate action when that happened, a record exists.

Interestingly enough, I'm also a Canadian by birth, with political contacts in Canada through my family, so you can imagine that I'm sickened by the idea, as suggested in your post, that fornits has roamed into that country.  

Canada has a long history of tolerance and repulsion at threats or violence, if this crew has migrated up there, maybe the communication people in that country need to know what this cess pool is really about.

If you can clarify your post, Johnny, I'd appreciate it.

Ottawa5

That is, in response to the post you addressed to me 9/17/04, 15:31:00.  You had asked me to consider whether I thought that a number of scenarios that you described were illegal; in term of some of the scenarios you also asked if I thought that there was an issue of ethicality.

Now let me repeat that I am not a lawyer, so what I say is based on what I've read or on what lawyers have told me.  

Some of the things you describe appear to me, on the basis of what I understand, to be in violation of the law.  For example, I think that in all states now, counsellors would be required to report child abuse.  I don't know when the scenario that you described occurred, or whether there were other factors (such as that the abuse report had already been investigated and found to be without merit). But in general, I believe that there is an ethical and a legal responsibility to report if you are in charge of a minor child and there is reason to suspect abuse.

Similarly, of course it would be illegal to purposely break a child's arm when the child was leaving without permission.  However, it would not, I don't think be illegal to restrain the child and if the arm was broken as part of this restraint, then it would come down to a question of fact as to whether this was an accident or a excessive use of restraint.

Now your reference to the Wilderness Challenge or to staying up all night for Propheets is puzzling.  When my son was there, this wasn't a problem and there was certainly food and water provided during that time.  As I understand it, kids wanted to go on the Wilderness Challenge, and if they were not allowed to, it was because they were being punished.  Same with the Propheets, I've heard them described as the best part of the program.  

I never heard of anyone being forced to participate in either but I'll ask my son about it, maybe it was done differently when he was there as opposed to when you were there. But whether it would be illegal or not,  I can't see how much therapeutic good could come from making a child participate until he or she was at the point of looking forward to these kinds of rituals--it sounds to me like the anticipation is part of the positive change that can occur.

I wouldn't think that it would be illegal to require other activities such as wood-chopping as part of the program--as long as basic academic education tasks are included in the curriculuum, the school would, I should think, meet state requirements.  You've got to remember that a lot of in-your-seat learning time in the pulbic schools is busy work, for example, a woman I know who home-schools finds that her kids spend a fraction of the time in terms of school hours on school work and still easily pass all required testing.

And I don't know why you couldn't read books for a period of time, I would guess that they thought that you were retreating into them in order to avoid participating in the program.  

I imagine that you could ban a child from reading under the law and if there was a cogent therapeutic reason, I wouldn't think that it would be unethical. In a CEDU school, whether you like it or not, a lot of this is about modifying behaviors (Deborah will have a conniption about that but it's true) and so it isn't just about academics, it's about changing patterns that the child is using to avoid facing things that must be faced in terms of normal functioning.

Can a private school discriminate on the basis of religion?  I don't know but I think they may be able to, certainly Catholic schools sometimes let in non-Catholic students and do not provide non-Catholic services. I wouldn't think it would be a good idea though, we never had that during my son's time at RMA.  I think that the school could require you to speak a certain language, again I'm not clear on the reason for it, maybe they thought that you were using the different language to isolate yourself from the program.
Were your parents OK with speaking to you in English on visits, and what explanation did they give you for it?

And in terms of using racial slurs, or self-disclosing examples that you give, I imagine that these things would be legal, as a part of the raps, but I would have to know more about the context to say whether I thought that it sounded helpful. Same with the counsellor who claimed to have molested a 13 yeear old--more information would be necessary to know if hiring was legal: what was his age at the time, how much time had passed.  Whether it was wise for the school to employ him would depend on these and other factors such as what he has done since, in terms of becoming a different person.

I don't know if I have addressed all your scenarios, and I realize that you weren't really asking for my opinion in particularly good faith, but considering these different situations was interesting.  It does illustrated the complexities of mixing educational-therapeutic elements in setting like a CEDU school.  There is certainly a need to consider the least coercive way to move a self-destructive child in a better direction, while being aware that some coercion is always going to be needed, given the nature of the population being addressed.

Look, you sound like a clown to me, maybe you are a clinician--if so, I can see why CEDU booted you out--the lack of ethics is incredible.

And talk about boundaries--what makes you think that you have any right to demand anything at all of me??  I think I've made pretty clear that if you are really trained to do anything in the helping sciences, I have absolutely no confidence in your abilities or judgment (neither did the school apparently--that's why they canned you and you've been whining about it here, and I suppose elsewhere, ever since).

So seeing as I think this way about you, why would I take your advice or your whiney little "challenge" on anything??

And, as a practical matter, if I had decided to do anything that you suggested, I would certainly not report it here.  As you would know if you could read for content to any great degree, I am not here in any clinical role myself, thinking that to be ethically shady, and I will discuss neither my work or my education on these pages, any further than in the very general biographical terms by which I've introduced myself.

You, in short, are "full of prunes" as my grandmother used to say, I don't trust your ethics, your judgment, your opinion, you just seem very lame to me.

Contrary to your belief, I really don't spend much time here and I don't have an interest in debating the same repetitiouspoints over and over with you when I am. So run your silly little gambits on someone who takes you seriously, or more correctly someone who hasn't caught on to you yet. Or prepare to keep on being laughed at.  And ignored unless you can do better and be more original than your track record up to now suggests.



[ This Message was edited by: ottawa5 on 2004-09-21 07:19 ][ This Message was edited by: ottawa5 on 2004-09-21 07:26 ][ This Message was edited by: ottawa5 on 2004-09-21 07:27 ]

Of course I would oppose sexual contact between students and staff at any school that caters to minor children.

And fondling a student is wrong--I do not include such normal interactions as touching, hugging within the concept of "fondling"---- really, do we have to de-construct normal, human relations???

I will also get back to you later on, with reference to your longer, detailed quiz on what I think is useful at CEDU, I am only here now because my little daughter brought your recent, rather strange, post to my attention.

But, all in all, you have to get over this preoccupation that my daughter and me are the same people, it was funny at first, but can't you, even in an internet format, see that this is a silly idea?

Concerning this Anon---

I think, by writing style at least, this is the Anon who makes claims of being a clinician.

Still hard to believe since the antics and accusations in this and other posts would likely risk losing licensure---but perhaps this character is unlicensed to start with.

Unemployed too, I bet, if this is the typical presentation or level of thinking. Maybe very in need of a monetary judgment against a CEDU school.

I won't talk personality disorders diagnoses on a web site---it would be pointless as well as unethical. But just on a human basis, this person doesn't strike me as terribly insightful or at all professional--it is more like someone using buzz-words to try to sound professional.


For example, on an observational level, I notice that there is this repetition of the exact same words, the exact same phrases from one of post to another.  There are alternating attempts within a post to appear oh-so-sensitive, followed by some really spiteful comment or outlandish accusation, often using (or misusing) psychological terms. There is this power dynamic: the tone of "rallying the troops", of trying to get everyone to agree to ignore me (on the basis of Anon's "professional" advice) as well as this sense that I personally have some obligation to provide this information or that, as if it is somehow this clown's business to have it.

Well I like a mystery as much as the next person but there is really no way to say if this person is a real psychologist (albeit a pretty poor one), someone playing a game, or anything else with certainty.  The medium of an internet site just doesn't allow it.

And this is the problem with Anon postings, is this Anon really one person, or different people, affecting a similar style? Interesting, but not possible to know for sure, I'm afraid.

So, as I've said before, anyone who wants to ignore me, go ahead, it's really no hardship for me at this point.  But for heaven's sake, do so because you decided, on your own, that it was a good idea, not because of someone like the odd, possibly bogus Anon in the previous post told you that you had to.





[ This Message was edited by: ottawa5 on 2004-09-18 06:05 ][ This Message was edited by: ottawa5 on 2004-09-18 06:07 ]

But thinking that you were a random, gutless poster, I have already responded to your emotocon-decorated piece just previously.

I can't blame you for posting Anon by accident, I've done it myself--I just expected something a little more insightful, or at least more humorous, in the body of your post.

I am off now, perhaps you can redeem yourself with something more original or at least some half-way amusing insults.

I look forward to it.