Whenever there is a public forum discussing problems created by state-sponsored child removal, special interests from the "child protection" industry often maintain a presence to defend the merit of such oppressive regime. For instance, when challenged by an anonymous blogger on the issue of surveillance in the blog created by Mr. Ron Unruh (an advocate for the return of the children of Paul and Zabeth Bayne of Surrey, British Columbia, Canada), a case worker (or community worker) from MCFD's Fraser Region using the pseudonym CW vigorously denied the infamous practice. One of our members brought to our attention that CW remarked specifically that information in this page is totally inaccurate.
We would like to use CW's responses in the aforesaid blog to illustrate how skillful defenders of the industry are in covering up their controversial activities by using reasons that appear seemingly valid and plausible.
On June 7, 2010 1:58 PM, CW wrote:
MCFD does not have the resources to employ such surveillance tactics as suggested. Please provide evidence to support your claims. pa-pa.ca re: surveillance is totally inaccurate. Please provide a different source. "After Hours support services"? Would this not be the province-wide Children's Helpline? Which responds to requests from concerned citizens, professionals, and SW's alike to contact families in evening or weekends. They do not "monitor".
If you could provide some sort of policy or MCFD-directive - maybe a budget report re: surveillance that'd be appreciated.
I will point out - teachers are not MCFD watchdogs. They are given the same Handbook for Child Abuse as can anyone else receive or read. In fact, the Vancouver Sun today speaks about how poorly the schools have done in regards to reporting to RCMP or MCFD in the lower mainland of BC.
On the same day, CW wrote again at 10:52 PM to further strengthen his/her arguments:
CPS services the world over, as are all government funded programs, adept at ill-spending/mismanaging money.
Show a copy of the job advertisement - burden of proof lay with the accuser.
Ray Ferris - documented former SW has already stated clearly on this web page that MCFD does not use "spies." All MCFD front line SW's are called "investigators" to one degree or another. This does not equal "sitting plain clothed in a car" (not sure what the SW uniform is other than plain clothed?) or "hacking into emails."
Ray was also quite right in saying MCFD SW are not competent or adept enough at such surveillance without bungling it up anyway!
On 16 June 2010 9:01 AM, CW wrote:
Anon 12:27 - I think its with you where the burden of proof lays, does it not?
Someone else had already mentioned PAPA on this web site before I had. I don't mind if people go to PAPA, they post a lot of important videos and articles. I referred solely to the surveillance section.
I should note, I only am aware of SW conduct in the Fraser Region - certainly re: surveillance. Showing video of SW's in other provinces, or countries is nothing I can speak to. I guess I can only assume "surveillance" practice is the same in all BC regions as it is in Fraser.
When Mr. Unruh published the rebuttal from the anonymous blogger on August 4, 2010 raising the issue of surveillance, CW wrote at 6:14 PM:
Ron, I must say I am surprised & disappointed with you.
You have just done, exactly what yourself and others who comment on this blog state is the cause for their disdain/distrust of MCFD.
You have condemned a person based on completely unfounded accusations by an anonymous accuser.
I will no longer be "contributing" to the conversations held on this blog, as a result.
We affirm that MCFD does mount surveillance in some, but not all, cases. There are only two possibilities to explain CW's responses.
[This page was added on 28 March 2012.]