MCFD Propaganda

Propaganda is a specific message presentation aimed at serving an agenda. Usually directed at a large audience, the message may convey true information, may be partisan or fails to paint a complete picture. It is the art of deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist. Generally, propaganda appeals to emotion, not intellect, as it is most effective in influencing the attitudes, opinions and decisions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes.

Canadian Government Propaganda Video in 1955

MCFD Propaganda Poster

MCFD's propaganda "Positive Parenting" in 2011

Reverend Steve Rudd spoke on how CAS conflicts with Christian principles ...

There are compelling reasons to believe that modern "child protection" originates from the same principle and underlying theory of the infamous Residential Schools. Our views are further elaborated in our "Native Indians & MCFD" page.

Since the beginning of time, propaganda is often used by those in power and those who want to pursue power in garnering support to achieve their objectives. Both democratic and totalitarian states use propaganda extensively. In today's information era, the following propaganda tools are effective means to manipulate public opinions:

• posters;
• the media (TV, radio, newspaper, magazines);
• video (like youtube videos and the one on the right made by the Canadian government in 1955 glamorizing the infamous Residential Schools);
• web sites; and
• on-line social networks (like Facebook and Twitter).
• movies (like the 2009 movie "Case 39" which appears to be based on a modified version of the murder of the 5-year-old Logan Marr by her foster mother, Sally Schofield, a highly respected former caseworker from the Maine's Department of Human Services on January 31, 2001 in Chelsea, Maine; Ms. Schofield had removed Logan Marr and adopted her before killing her by strapping the child to a chair with duct tape and the child died of asphyxiation);

Propaganda is a battlefield fought by opposing parties competing for support. The website of the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) contains video and articles that appears to be informational but are also propagandist in nature aiming at:

A prominent example is a video and a news release published on January 24, 2011 titled "Positive Parenting" and "Parenting Video, Workshops Support New British Columbians" respectively.

MCFD's Edges in Propaganda

Being a ministry in government, MCFD enjoys the following edges in propaganda:

1. near unlimited resources (such as tax dollars, access to information) to produce high quality propaganda materials using expensive external image and public relations consultants;
2. occupies the moral high ground of child protection;
3. public ignorance of the true natural of "child protection";
4. the public is gullible to government propaganda due to blind faith in democratically elected government;
5. the kindness and the compassion of most Canadians to help vulnerable children is being taken advantage of.

In a sharp contrast, the video above made by oppressed parents based on their personal experience is of a much lower qualify. Be mindful that it is the validity and the authenticity of the messages that counts. Should we believe service providers whose livelihood depends on "child protection" or should we believe the recipients of service, ie. parents and children, whom MCFD is supposed to serve?

Why Making "Positive Parenting" Video?

On January 24, 2011, MCFD called a press conference in the Chinatown premise of S.U.C.C.E.S.S. (中僑互助會) (a Vancouver-based Chinese non-profit organization that receives federal and provincial government funding) to announce a newly released video titled "Positive Parenting".

This conference was strategically planned to take advantage of the trust of S.U.C.C.E.S.S. from the local Chinese community. Few people question whether recipients of government funding bite the hand that feed them. Can they say no and jeopardize their income?

With financial support from Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Ministry of Advanced Education, this video is the product of a joint project with the Vancouver, Surrey and Burnaby school districts, S.U.C.C.E.S.S., Mosaic and the South Vancouver Neighbourhood House. It is a high quality video comprises of sophisticated propaganda materials targeting the local Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese communities.

There is a cultural difference among many minority ethnic groups in disciplining children that MCFD may find disagreeable. On the surface, this video appears to be informational to "educate" minority parents to understand the mainstream standard. Indeed, it subtly attempts to convince them to give up their own cultural values and be assimilated into the belief of special interests that monopolize "child protection" policy and legislation. The implied threat of child removal for failing to assimilate is never mentioned in the video. In principle, it is exactly the same underlying theory of the now renounced residential schools, namely cultural assimilation. Be mindful that removal of Aboriginal children to government sponsored residential schools in that dark era was also done under the pretext of protecting them from their unfit parents. Incidentally or not, Aboriginal families draw the attention of MCFD 10 times higher than non-Aboriginal families on a per capita basis (about 50% of children "in care" are Aboriginal).

The following observations are noteworthy:

1. The "Positive Parenting" video contains only English subtitle but no English sound track. This implies the mainstream Canadians are not a concern to the "child protection" industry at this time, either because they do not know or do not believe there is serious corruption or they simply do not care.


2. The excerpt of "Positive Parenting" was posted in YouTube on January 24, 2011 (the same day this propaganda was released). No comment or rating is allowed. This suggests that MCFD does not want to hear any public opinion on this video, above all, comments on its "child protection" activities. In a free and democratic society, one may wonder why the comment and rating functions are disabled.

When service providers with absolute power, relative unlimited resources and statutory authority to compel families in accepting their services make a propaganda video to tell how great they are, it makes people wonder what the motive is. There is a Chinese old saying "此地無銀三百兩" which literally means there are no 300 silver taels hidden here. It is an idiom to describe the stupidity of revealing what one intends to hide by a deliberate act.

Messages in "Positive Parenting" and Our Experience

Positive Parenting" employs the concept of target marketing directed against the Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese communities. To enhance credibility, the video release news conference was held in S.U.C.C.E.S.S., a well respected non-profit Chinese organization that is also a MCFD approved family/psychological counseling service provider, and the presence of several MLAs of Chinese origin. The video contains messages that MCFD and other service providers in the "child protection" industry want the public to believe to strengthen their position of "helping" families and to improve their image of "child protector".

Our experience is derived from the first hand experience of oppressed parents (recipients of MCFD's services who the Ministry calls "clients") who have been dealing with "child protection" workers for a long time, rulings of Child, Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA) case law, credible documents and information from news media worldwide, knowledge in history, research findings of academics, beliefs of politicians, retired judges and lawyers who speak against the "child protection" industry. In our opinion, comments from recipients of MCFD services carry more weight, if not solely credible, than those from service providers who have a vested interest in defending their livelihood.

The Chinese old saying "空穴來風 未必無因", which literally means wind does not come from an empty cave without reason. It carries the same meaning of the English idiom there is no smoke without fire. Why parents from English-speaking nations in which governments have the power to remove children from their families all complain about similar abuse of power and racketeering. If they lie, why do they tell lies that are so absurd and incredible? What are the joint probability that people around the world, who do not know one another, tell the same messages? These are evidence that demands a verdict.

Abraham Lincoln once said: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time." Let facts and conscience speak for themselves.

The table below displays messages delivered in this 13-minute video compared our experience. Despite real examples cited below are exclusively from Canadian origins, mostly from British Columbia, there are many others we could quote worldwide.

"Positive Parenting"	Our Experience
a single-mother Chinese family with 3 children (as implied by the family photo in the living room) is portrayed as a family in need of MCFD's services	visible minority families, especially single-parent families, with several young children are high-value targets of MCFD's social workers as one case work could lead to several children "in care", hence justifying a larger budget in the future and enhancing job security
The Chinese mother Linda is portrayed as demanding, bossy and not compassionate to children, expecting them to stay home, do housework and demanding good marks in school. The following subtle tarnishing messages against Chinese are disturbing: the implied favoritism towards sons and biased against daughters, an attitude that many Westerners perceive towards Chinese parents; chopsticks, a dining utensil used by most Chinese, were used as a common discipline weapon on children.	Reasonable expectations from parents and physical discipline within the parameter of Criminal Code are misconstrued as mental and physical abuse that often results in removal. Rights and authority of parents are seriously undermined. Their dignity is ruthlessly trampled. Unsparing "child protection" workers often corner parents to fight. A collision course between parents and bureaucrats is set at the onset. Any parents who dare to disagree with the position of "child protection" workers, especially those who go public, could attract full scale retaliation using their children as pawns. Paul and Zabeth Bayne of Surrey, British Columbia who maintain that their baby girl was not abused while MCFD alleged shaken baby syndrome is a typical example.
A rebellious, disobedient, disrespectful and dishonest daughter who skipped classes and did not do well in school is portrayed as a victim of physical and mental abuse.	Ironically, some older children also abuse MCFC's child removal authority by using it as a weapon to beat their parents into submission or to retaliate when parents do not give them what they want. Immature young children are being indoctrinated to overly exercise their rights against their parents who often run into a collision course with them for good reasons. Reena Virk of Victoria, B.C. (murdered in 1997 while receiving the "services" of MCFD) is an example.
Child protection" worker Monica Xu is portrayed as kind, cheerful, well meaning, non-intimidating, respectful and well received by her clients. She is supposed to be a social work professional. However, our search in the member registry of the British Columbia College of Social Workers found no registered social worker with the same name at the point of writing. Her non-registration with the College is omitted in the video. The photo on the right was taken when "child protection" workers (in plainclothes) and the police demanding entry of a residence without warrant in July 2011. In reality, many of them appear to be Gestapo-like anal retentive when dealing with their "clients". Where is their smell? This provides a sharp contrary to the cheerful image MCFD wants to portrayed.	Under the Social Workers Regulation (the yellow highlight in the link), social workers employed by MCFD are exempt persons and are not required to register with the British Columbia College of Social Workers (BCCSW) and therefore are not abide by the Code of Ethics established by the BCCSW. Many parents under MCFD scrutiny come across "child protection" workers who are often disrespectful, rude, intimidating, manipulative, calculating, abusive, insensitive to the needs of children, devious, incompetent in doing real child protection work and are more interested to pursue their agenda of punishing parents who dare to disagree with their positions or to dispute their allegations of child abuse. The foregoing are some general comments we received from parents. None of them is directed against Ms. Monica Xu. We do not know her and are not stating, suggesting or implying that Ms. Xu behaves in the aforesaid manner when carrying out her duties. Nor are we generalizing that all "child protection" workers behave like that.
School teacher is portrayed as caring and righteous whistle-blower in reporting to MCFD. Mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse sets parents on a collision course with whistle blowers and prevent direct communication that may clarify misunderstanding of signs of abuse like rash, accidents, ... etc. The video does not mention interview of children by social workers in school. Record of ministry worker visits are seldom kept. Typically, two social workers (so that they can collaborate each other's testimony if necessary) attend to interrogate isolated child in a room, at times in the presence of school principal or teacher, to "verify" the report of abuse. Without a parent's knowledge, there may be audio or video recording if incriminating information from children against their parents could be obtained. Children are not told that their disclosures could result in immediate removal from the home at the sole discretion of social workers.	Section 14(1) of CFCSA requires that any person who has reason to believe that a child needs protection must promptly report the matter to the MCFD. This low threshold of reporting creates a witch-hunt network that opens the "child protection" apparatus to abuse. Many whistle-blowers of child abuse are school teachers, malicious neighbours or acquaintance, estranged spouses and hostile in-laws for reasons other than "child abuse". We have come across cases in which: teachers reported child abuse when their parents were late to pick up their kids from schools (hence preventing teachers from going home on time) or when parents are critical of poor teaching skills; vengeful estranged spouses who failed to get child custody making abuse complaints on the ex-spouses; hostile in-laws who use the child removal power of MCFD to punish the spouses of their children.
MCFD's involvement in adoption is not mentioned in services rendered.	Adoption is the sister industry of the "child protection" industry and is also a major MCFD mandate. Omission of mentioning adoption service avoids the risk of being perceived as racketeering. Our views on this issue can be found at our "Adoption & Child Removal" page.
Mechanically reading from a well-prepared script, Monica Xu alleged that parents form their opinions on MCFD based on hearsay. Many are scared due to the lack of understanding of their "services".	In our opinion, parents feel secured and safe due to the lack of understand of the real nature of MCFD's activities. "Child protection" workers with no accountability have near absolute power to remove children from their families at will. They have unlimited public resources to launch legal actions against parents to compete for custody of their children and fear no repercussion at the personal level. They could re-remove children, with or without fresh evidence, after judges order them to be returned to parents. CFCSA is lopsided in favour of the Ministry and allows bureaucrats to define child abuse (hence controlling the demand of their "services"), circumvent due process of law and character right protection. Hearsay evidence is explicitly allowed in CFCSA hearings which could be as informal as a judge sees fit. Indeed, parents have all the reasons to fear if they understand how vulnerable they are.
Physical discipline of children is described as a crime in Canada.	Depending on how discipline is carried out and the extent, certain corrective corporal punishment of children is allowed by Section 43 of the Criminal Code [affirmed the Supreme Court of Canada decision Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76, 2004 SCC 4. However, even if the discipline falls within the acceptable parameter of the Criminal Code, MCFD often persuades Crown prosecutors to lay charge solely for the purpose of lending support to CFCSA applications. Most of these charges are stayed before trial after serving the MCFD's purpose.
MCFD offers services to families and collaborates with parents to improve parenting skills.	Once a plan of "service" is determined, parents have no choice but to accept "services" under the threat of child removal. Supervision orders are often consented under the same duress. At times, access of removed children is used as a weapon to coerce parents to consent to custody order including continuing custody order.
During an investigation, the least disruptive means will be used and will inform parents fully about their concerns and plans.	Most MCFD investigations include unannounced house visits without search warrant escorted by the police, access of medical history of all family members without their knowledge, divulging child protection concerns with school teachers, day care providers, employers of parents, doctors, relatives, ... etc. Child protection concerns and plans are often provided to parents minutes before entering courtroom to seek judicial ruling. This tactic is often used to force parent to seek adjournment to prolong their involvement and lengthen child removal.
Meetings and interviews with parents and children are portrayed as a fair, standard and open procedure in child protection investigations.	Unlike what you see in the movie, most home visits are unannounced and social workers are sometimes escorted by the police. Parents are prohibited to audio or video record meetings with social workers even if the meeting takes place at their own home. Most social workers believe that this is justified by a MCFD memo (Ref 79110 CP 00-01) on recording policy dated August 25, 2000 from Ross Dawson, Director of Child Protection. If parents insist, they will most likely walk and retaliate, often by removing children or seeking extension of supervision order.
Most "child abuse" investigations will not result in removal except when the safety of children is at immediate risk.	An investigation does not always result in an immediate removal. However, an intake report will become a permanent record. To our knowledge, such record is not erasable. Despite whether the allegations have any merit or how long ago the intake report was filed, it could always be used against parents in the future. We have come across cases in which decade-old intake records that resulted in no MCFD action at the time of investigation are used against parents. We have also seen parents with children eventually removed when they insist to record meetings with social workers, when their children went to school looking sad, when they live in a flea-infested condo, when their child has a rash on the face. Director v. M.P., 2005 BCPC 651 supporting child removal and granting of temporary custody order in favor of MCFD when: there is no complaint from anyone at all; the child is not in immediate danger when in care of parents; MCFD fail to show that removal is in the best interests of the child. This decision supports arbitrary removal.
MCFD encourages parents to contact them if they need help or if they have any questions.	Many parents deeply regret seeking help from MCFD. The help sought could be very different from the "help" social workers may offer. Parents have no control and no choice. In extreme cases, it could get their children killed. Samantha Martin (1993 - 2006) of Edmonton, Alberta is a good example.

Remarks

Positive Parenting" is a very successful propaganda piece on its ethnic minority targets. Using sophisticated film production techniques, a charming female character to play the role of a "child protection" worker and soothing background music, the hideous activity of "child removal" has been conveniently omitted and overshadowed by the good of various "services" offered by the Ministry. To enhance exposure and to retain viewer's attention, MCFD put an 2:12-minute excerpt Mandarin version called "Understanding Positive Parenting Excerpt" in YouTube. Atrocities of family destruction and traumatization of children when forcibly removed, corruption of service providers, social problems and negative impacts on children created by state-sponsored child removal are never mentioned. Those who have no experience of modern "child protection" will absorb these one-sided messages well and support the Ministry's sugar-coated activities.

This page discusses propaganda. Are the materials contained herein propaganda as well? Yes, they are indeed. Our objectives are to provide accurate information to the public to make informed decisions, build a safer future for our children, to preserve family ties and to protect parental rights. Our materials comprise of empirical evidence, statistics from various sources including government, opinions and experience from parents who have received "services" imposed under the pretext of "child protection", not self-extolment propaganda from service providers who have a strong financial incentive to promote their services and protect their industry. Should you trust service providers or parents who have first hand experience?

Some readers may find it disrespectful to call those involved in the noble cause of "child protection" an industry. In fact, it is an industry. We are not the only organization who calls them this way. Dr. Mercola, a medical doctor in the United States, published the following article titled "The Child Abuse Laws Which Could Destroy Your Reputation" on February 5, 2011.

Safety and protection are appealing notions for propaganda purposes. Fear, sympathy and man's natural affinity for righteousness are attributes used by special interests for their agenda. Safety can sometimes be used as a cause of war. Like the Second Gulf War that began on March 20, 2003 in which procession of mass destructive weapons in the hands of a tyranny is used as a fear-mongering tactic to start a war. The best interests of vulnerable people, as defined by those who want to use it, are often cited to justify action. Service providers in the "child protection" industry use all the foregoing to aggrandize, primarily at the expense of taxpayers.

State-sponsored child removal is more oppressive than residential schools, more perverted than incest, more harmful than street drugs, more unacceptable than terrorism and more inhumane than slave trading. It seriously jeopardizes public safety and challenges our long cherished human rights, civil liberty and freedom. Modern "child protection" is an industry monopolized and perverted by special interests whose livelihood depends on state-sponsored "child protection". To those who pay attention to this problem, it is as clear as a bell that the mother of all evil is the power to remove children from their parents and the tax dollars allocated to finance child removal. It is systemic, malignant, and global in all English-speaking nations like cancer. It is a social disease that we, citizens of a country, must fight back. Power to remove children is often abused by various parties (most notably estranged spouses and hostile in-laws) and could be used to target a person or any group of people. As evidenced by the infamous Residential Schools, government has a track record of abusing child removal authority under the pretext of child protection. Allowing the general child removal authority per CFCSA is like giving someone a loaded gun and provide financial incentive for that person to shoot at you. It is stupid and irresponsible to our children.

How are we going to leverage that disease back in favor of parents? There is only one practical solution: revoke child removal authority. Visible minorities are particularly vulnerable to such oppressive power. Most of these people are immigrants who came to Canada to pursue a better and safer future for their children. The only way to realize their dream and to protect their families is by revoking general child removal authority. Revoking this authority will not compromise genuine child protection because there are other statutes that give authorities the power to separate abusive parents and vulnerable children based on due process of law and good evidence.

For the love of our children and our great nation, do the right thing now before your loved ones fall prey.

[This page was conceptualized on 25 January 2011, published on 19 February 2011, last revised 24 March 2015.]