Browser's Responses

Permission to post the articles or comments on this page has been obtained either directly from the authors or via browser's submission per our On-Line Privacy Policy. We avoid postings seeking redress of individual cases and comments complimenting us except when these comments support achieving our goals below:

1. share views from our browsers that serve to unveil the true nature of the child protection industry;
2. provide opportunities to exchange different opinions;
3. to raise public awareness;
4. to furnish decisive information and knowledge on the child protection industry.

Responses are arranged in chronological order. Please click the blue titles below to view these responses.

1. "Enough is Not Enough" by Lawrence Wong (26 March 2009)

   Mr. Lawrence Wong being in his Richmond office in early 2009.

   Mr. Lawrence Wong is a well known lawyer in Vancouver, Canada. He represented the Li parents in the child removal case in early 2009 and was successful in bringing the older daughter back to her parents within a fairly short time.

   He is a guest blogger of "Chinese in Vancouver" and frequently submits articles on various legal and social issues. In his article titled "Enough is Not Enough" posted on 26 March 2009, Mr. Wong expressed his concerns on the abuse of authority on both the police and MCFD (including forced confession using children as pawns). Such abuse is quite well known to lawyers as they have the opportunity to witness this first hand while assisting their clients. However, few lawyers have the courage and the social conscience to privately speak against the notorious activities of MCFD, the lopsided law and the biased attitude of the judiciary, let alone publicly unveiling such injustice and corruption.



2. e-mail from Duncan: negative feedback is welcome too (22 March 2010)

   Quw'utsun' Cultural Centre, Duncan, B.C., Canada

   Although most responses from our browsers are affirmative, we occasionally get negative feedback with respect to the contents in our website. We welcome all feedback, both positive and negative, if it helps to improve our focus, scope of view and objective nature of our website. We reiterate that our goal is not to cast insult or embarrass any groups or individuals but to publish information that we believe is true, of public interest and will advance the understanding of state-sponsored child removal and improvement of government. We understand the inevitable resentful feelings from special interests and those who have little knowledge on various issues in question.

   A sender from Duncan, B.C. used our survey form to deliver his message. Since no personal identifiable information has been provided, we published his entire message. He obviously believes we are not doing our job very well. For the ease of understanding, we have corrected grammatical and punctuational errors in the original message. Browsers are cautioned that his message contains profanity that some may find disturbing. Viewer's discretion is advised. The original unedited version of his message can be found in our rebuttal and followed by an anecdote of a real child removal case in Duncan.

   Our rebuttal and anecdote are linked herein.

   The Edited Message Sent on March 22, 2010

   “This website is the most bullshit thing I have ever read. Your views and videos are slanderous and your website should be shut down. There is no fact in this website, about anything that happens within the MCFD. Surveillance on parents is against the law, but you wouldn't know that, you don't practice law or medicine. Have you ever worked with children outside of medicine? Probably not. So I don’t believe you are the right person to be "helping people." I hope you post this on your shithole website, so that other people can have a good laugh.

   Indeed, people who read this message should have a good laugh. Thanks for the feedback, our dear Duncan reader, and come back often as we update our web site regularly.

   
   [archived on 3 April 2010]


3. e-mail from a concerned advocate who believed that information in our site is unreliable (26 Feb 2012)