W5: Taken published on 22 March 2019

PAPA People Assisting Parents Association © 2007

Home Purposes
& Services		 FAQ Archives
& Links		 e Donation
& Survey		 Contact Us
Members
Only		 MCFD
Tactics		 Forum &
Testimonies		 Parent
Support		 Kid's
Zone		 On-Line
Services
Forced Adoption in the U.K. enabled by state-sponsored child removal.

Canadian Mothers Forced to Surrender Their Babies for Adoption

Introduction

On 22 March 2019, CTV W5 published a documentary titled "Taken". Hundreds of thousands of unwed Canadian mothers were separated from their babies by forced adoption. This practice began shortly after the end of the Second World War and quietly continued for decades without attracting much public attention. In most cases, the mothers were shipped off to so-called maternity homes where they were sequestered from their families until the end of the pregnancies and then their babies would be taken and be adopted without the mother’s consent. It is estimated that 350,000 mothers in Canada were coerced to surrender their babies, and in some extreme cases were lied to and told their babies died at birth.

Retired Senator Art Eggleton chaired a committee studying the issue of forced adoption in Canada. The committee concluded that the federal government should acknowledge the issue and offer an apology in the House of Commons.

History of Forced Adoption

How could such atrocities possibly occur in a so-called free and democratic country that ardently speaks of human rights? It is because government has the statutory power to remove children based on a bureaucratic opinion, with or without any good evidence. Such formidable power, ratified into child protection law, is supported by the deep pocket of taxpayers and the muscle of law enforcement. Besides Canada, forced adoption is also practiced in many English-speaking nations, such as the United Kingdom and Australia, often under the pretext of child protection. Once social workers obtain a court order to remove children, parents lose their young children permanently even when there is no imminent danger. Children are often removed with the assistance of the police and placed in interim foster homes. Families and children are traumatized by forced separation. Citing privacy of the children, rule of law has been abused to silent parents and the media to air corruption in the child protection industry, hence protecting the perpetrators and their hideous business.

Why governments turn a blind eye to such atrocities and protesting parents? In a hierarchical society, success in controlling the weaker and less prestigious class relies on the power to take away something they love and value. State-sponsored child removal is a very powerful weapon used by the ruling class in many English-speaking nations, especially those with a colonial background, for political purposes. To enhance public acceptance and to mitigate resistance from the victims, such oppressive policy is sugar-coated with the notion of child protection. Next to ethnic cleansing, state-sponsored child removal is a cost-efficient means to destroy and control a sovereign people by way of cultural assimilation, which will follow after one or two generations. Under the pretext of child protection, perpetrators turn into philanthropists and use a noble cause for a concealed hideous purpose. Both Canada (residential schools) and Australia (the Stolen Generation) had effectively used such oppressive policy to exploit the Aboriginals and seize land and resources that originally belong to them. As the now denounced cultural assimilation regime migrates to the highly commended modern child protection, various service providers whose job security and financial interests depend on child removal continue to milk taxpayers and maximize their profit by expanding their scope of business to all ethnic groups.

State-sponsored child removal also results in countless atrocities and child abuse. Despite the Australian and Canadian governments
On 13 February 2008, Australian Prime Minister apologized to indigenous Australians.
Canadian Federal Government Apology to First Nations on 11 June 2008
 had formally apologized to the Aboriginals in 2008, state-sponsored child removal continues in both nations, rendering the lip service of the prime ministers completely meaningless and hypocritical. Aboriginal families remain the largest ethnic group victimized by such barbaric practice. It is noteworthy to remark that the apologies of the Australian and Canadian governments were delivered in the same year, only four months apart. It appears that these two English-speaking nations not only copy child removal policy from each other, but also follow suit in political fire fighting ruse.

Social workers forced adoption in England
State-sponsored child removal is a very lucrative business to service providers. Under the pretext of child protection, billions of tax dollars are wasted in child protective service infested nations to finance their lifestyle via government funding. To ensure sufficient cases to justify such funding, racketeering and fabrication of evidence
Former social worker spoke on corruption in the child protection industry, confirming fabrication of evidence, abuse of power and forced child removal to meet adoption targets.
Social worker Geri Murphy found guilty and jailed in Anderson County, Kentucky for filing fake reports on a father about sexual child abuse.
British Social Services whistle-blower Carol Woods speaks to Brian Gerrish about her time at Lancashire Social Services where she came under extreme pressure to falsify documents and perjure herself to justify children being removed from their parents to order.
 become the norm. While foster homes provide an interim solution to warehouse removed children, adoption offers the final solution in their disposal. Adoption also provides the added benefit of portraying an illusion that removed children are being taken care of and will eventually placed in loving permanent homes. This explains why most child protection agencies are also either directly or indirectly involved (for example via adoption agency licensing in British Columbia) in adoption. The same service providers such as social workers, lawyers, psychotherapists are heavily involved in the adoption process. Our views on the intimate relationship between state-sponsored child removal and adoption are shared in "The Adoption Industry in British Columbia".

Conclusions

Government propaganda misleads many Canadians to believe that atrocities created by child protection workers are mainly because of heavy caseload, insufficient training and underfunding. In many jurisdictions, pseudo watchdogs wearing different name tags are created to advocate more fundings and to portray an illusion of accountability. In British Columbia, this watchdog is known as the Representative for Children and Youth (RCY). What else could be better to have control of the only official critics whose funding and mandate are dictated by government?

Make no mistake on this. State-sponsored child removal is oppressive and inhumane. It has been and is still used for political purposes by various regimes. Removing children from families entering the U.S. illegally in 2018 is a recent example of the foregoing. Child protection is merely an excuse. Ironically, child protection agencies are the largest institutional risk to child safety and welfare. It is a systematic attack against a civil population resulting in enforced disappearance of persons. It is indeed an organized crimes against humanity. It hurts not only families losing their children but literally all of us who pay taxes to finance such counter productive and harmful activity. It creates endless social problems and is a potential source of social unrest. Canada's international image of a free and democratic nation is also severely blemished by such barbaric practice.

No reform could rectify the structural corruption in the child protection industry. The only solution to end this serious socio-political problem that jeopardizes all of us is to stop all government funding and financial incentives to child removal, revoke general child removal authority and outlaw state-sponsored child removal unless the life of children is at risk. Since it will inevitably diminish the power and income of the oppressor, freedom is never voluntarily given and must be demanded by the oppressed. Evil prevails when good men fail to act.

[This page was conceptualized on 25 March 2019, added on 26 March 2019, last revised 28 March 2019.]