Prez kin in dowry trouble
Prachi Singh Patil, who was in the news recently for bringing to book a rude auto driver, turns out to be the wife of President Pratibha Patil’s nephew. She has sued his family for dowry harassment
Bangalore Mirror Bureau
Posted On Friday, January 08, 2010 at 02:08:43 AM
President Pratibha Patil’s nephew Rahul G Patil is under investigation by the Bangalore Police in a dowry harassment case. Hailing from Uttar Pradesh and a resident of Navi Mumbai, Prachi Singh Patil has filed a 498 (A) case against her husband Rahul G Patil and his family in Byappanahalli police station under the jurisdiction of which she stays now with her brother.
Prachi came to limelight recently when she got an auto driver arrested for misbehaving with her (see box).
Prachi Singh Patil
According to police, Prachi has not made any reference of her relationship with the President anywhere in her dowry complaint. “It is true that Prachi is a relative of the President. But she has not mentioned the President’s name at any stage. She lodged the complaint months ago and an investigation is on,” said Byappanahalli Police Inspector K V Srinivas.
Prachi married Rahul in 2007. She said in her complaint that their married life was fine till mid 2008 after which problems started cropping up between the two. She alleged that even Rahul’s parents harassed her, forcing her to lodge a complaint against them in Mumbai before she came to Bangalore to stay with her brother, a software engineer who stays in C V Raman Nagar.
The problems continued even after she shifted to Bangalore. Prachi said in her complaint that Rahul and his family even came to Bangalore and harassed her for dowry following with she filed the case of dowry harassment at Byappanahalli police station.
NEPHEW MISSING
Acting on the complaint filed by Prachi, a team of Bangalore police visited Mumbai and Jalgaon where Rahul and family were staying, but had to return empty handed, as the entire family was missing. Sources said Rahul is in South Korea while his family has also left India.
When Bangalore Mirror contacted Prachi, she refused to comment.
A daring woman
Around 11 am on Jan 2, Prachi hired an auto for going to Mayo Hall. After a short distance, she noticed that the metre on the auto was faulty and brought it to the driver’s notice. When she refused to travel further in the auto, its driver Rajendra Prasad insisted that she pay him Rs 50.
Shocked at his insolence, Patil tried to get out of the auto, but Prasad blocked her way and started abusing her. When she tried to evade him, he pulled at her dress, tearing it at the shoulder. Finding that nobody came forward to help her, Prachi took out her cell phone and and started recording the scene. When the matter started getting out of control, she called the police.
Though Prasad fled the scene by the time the police team arrived, he was arrested on Monday from a temple at K R Puram. He has confessed to misbehaving with Prachi. He is now facing charges of molestation, criminal intimidation, assault, robbery and charging extra fare from a passenger.
During the entire episode, neither the police, nor anybody else had any clue that they were dealing with a relative of the president of India.
http://www.bangaloremirror.com/index.aspx?Page=article§name=News - City§id=10&contentid=2010010820100108020843535a23b77c4
Mr.Rebates
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Singapore couple's case baffles Bombay High Court
PTI 6 January 2010, 09:51pm IST
MUMBAI: Is Indian government required to take care of foreign nationals who are stuck in India because of pending criminal cases? This is a question which has baffled Bombay High Court.
Foreign nationals don't have all the fundamental rights which Indian citizens enjoy, but they do have right to life, given by Article 21 of Indian constitution.
The High Court is dealing with a petition filed by a Singaporean couple -- Zainab Yousuf and her husband Tetsyo Hiryama -- for maintenance, as they are not permitted to go back to their country pending an appeal.
They faced a narcotics case, but were absolved of charges by High Court. However, since customs department has filed an appeal in Supreme Court, the apex court has directed them not to leave the country.
The couple is facing dire situation here, as Zainab is a cancer patient and they have no source of livelihood, said their lawyer, Ayaz Khan.
He alleged that ordinarily they could have left the country after they were acquitted by High Court, but they were not given exit visa, and after much delay, appeal was filed.
Either they should be allowed to go, or government should pay them maintenance and medical expenses, he said.
Terming it a "unique situation", Division led by Justices P B Majumdar asked additional solicitor general Darius Khambata to examine what rights foreign nationals enjoy under Article 21.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Singapore-couples-case-baffles-Bombay-High-Court/articleshow/5417668.cms
PTI 6 January 2010, 09:51pm IST
MUMBAI: Is Indian government required to take care of foreign nationals who are stuck in India because of pending criminal cases? This is a question which has baffled Bombay High Court.
Foreign nationals don't have all the fundamental rights which Indian citizens enjoy, but they do have right to life, given by Article 21 of Indian constitution.
The High Court is dealing with a petition filed by a Singaporean couple -- Zainab Yousuf and her husband Tetsyo Hiryama -- for maintenance, as they are not permitted to go back to their country pending an appeal.
They faced a narcotics case, but were absolved of charges by High Court. However, since customs department has filed an appeal in Supreme Court, the apex court has directed them not to leave the country.
The couple is facing dire situation here, as Zainab is a cancer patient and they have no source of livelihood, said their lawyer, Ayaz Khan.
He alleged that ordinarily they could have left the country after they were acquitted by High Court, but they were not given exit visa, and after much delay, appeal was filed.
Either they should be allowed to go, or government should pay them maintenance and medical expenses, he said.
Terming it a "unique situation", Division led by Justices P B Majumdar asked additional solicitor general Darius Khambata to examine what rights foreign nationals enjoy under Article 21.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Singapore-couples-case-baffles-Bombay-High-Court/articleshow/5417668.cms
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Indian American fails to get son's custody
2010-01-02
An Indian American man is making desperate efforts to get custody of his seven-year-old son, who remains untraced even after the Supreme Court ruled that the boy and his mother should go back to the US.
V. Ravichandran, who is currently residing here, fears for the safety of Aditya as his ex-wife Vijayasree Voora is taking him from one city to another.
Ravichandran said at a news conference here that Vijayasree was not only flouting the court order but was even using police in Chennai to threaten him.
It was in October last year that on the directions of the Supreme Court, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) traced Aditya to Chennai and produced him before the court.
The apex court Nov 17 ordered Vijayasree, a Green Card holder, to take Aditya back to the US so that his father gets equal access to him.
Ravichandran, who had been fighting a legal battle in India for 30 months to get custody of his son, said the two Chennai addresses which his ex-wife had given to the CBI proved fictitious.
He alleged that Vijayasree's father Narayana Voora threatened him at a police station in Chennai in the presence of an assistant commissioner of police and asked him to stop pursuing the custody of Aditya.
Ravichandran, a pharmaceutical scientist, intends to again move the Supreme Court.
He also appealed to the people to help him trace his son and launched a website www.rescueaditya.org.
Ravichandran, also hailing from Chennai, married Vijayasree, a double masters in IT and French, in 2000.
The couple was staying in Dallas. Aditya was born in New York in 2002. However, the couple divorced in 2005 and a US court in April 2007 ruled equal custody of the child. Two months later Vijayasree came to India with Aditya.
Bangalore-based Children's Rights Initiative For Shared Parenting (CRISP) is backing Ravichandran.
'Vijayasree is taking undue advantage of being a woman and a mother. We are not anti-woman. We are fighting for the rights of children, who should have equal access to their fathers,' said CRISP president Kumar V. Jahgirdar.
'At a time when divorce rate is increasing and 30 percent marriages in cities are breaking up it is time the society realise the importance of father. The father is not only for giving maintenance. He should also have a right to equal custody of the children,? said Kumar, who himself fought a long legal battle to get equal access to his daughter from his wife Chetana, who is now married to former Indian cricket captain Anil Kumble.
An Indian American man is making desperate efforts to get custody of his seven-year-old son, who remains untraced even after the Supreme Court ruled that the boy and his mother should go back to the US.
V. Ravichandran, who is currently residing here, fears for the safety of Aditya as his ex-wife Vijayasree Voora is taking him from one city to another.
Ravichandran said at a news conference here that Vijayasree was not only flouting the court order but was even using police in Chennai to threaten him.
It was in October last year that on the directions of the Supreme Court, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) traced Aditya to Chennai and produced him before the court.
The apex court Nov 17 ordered Vijayasree, a Green Card holder, to take Aditya back to the US so that his father gets equal access to him.
Ravichandran, who had been fighting a legal battle in India for 30 months to get custody of his son, said the two Chennai addresses which his ex-wife had given to the CBI proved fictitious.
He alleged that Vijayasree's father Narayana Voora threatened him at a police station in Chennai in the presence of an assistant commissioner of police and asked him to stop pursuing the custody of Aditya.
Ravichandran, a pharmaceutical scientist, intends to again move the Supreme Court.
He also appealed to the people to help him trace his son and launched a website www.rescueaditya.org.
Ravichandran, also hailing from Chennai, married Vijayasree, a double masters in IT and French, in 2000.
The couple was staying in Dallas. Aditya was born in New York in 2002. However, the couple divorced in 2005 and a US court in April 2007 ruled equal custody of the child. Two months later Vijayasree came to India with Aditya.
Bangalore-based Children's Rights Initiative For Shared Parenting (CRISP) is backing Ravichandran.
'Vijayasree is taking undue advantage of being a woman and a mother. We are not anti-woman. We are fighting for the rights of children, who should have equal access to their fathers,' said CRISP president Kumar V. Jahgirdar.
'At a time when divorce rate is increasing and 30 percent marriages in cities are breaking up it is time the society realise the importance of father. The father is not only for giving maintenance. He should also have a right to equal custody of the children,? said Kumar, who himself fought a long legal battle to get equal access to his daughter from his wife Chetana, who is now married to former Indian cricket captain Anil Kumble.
Friday, January 1, 2010
THE STATUS OF WOMEN MUST BE ABANDONED
http://www.realwomenca.com/page/newslnd0901.html
THE STATUS OF WOMEN MUST BE ABANDONED
AN EGREGIOUS ABUSE OF TAXPAYER’S MONEY
The Royal Commission on the Status of Women (RCSW) tabled its report in 1970 and recommended that the federal government establish a special agency to further the advancement and equality of women.
As a result, the Status of Women was established in 1973. Since that time, it has handed out over one hundred million dollars to so-called women’s groups. In fact, only feminist groups have been the major beneficiaries of this largesse. Acting as agents of change, the latter have used taxpayers’ monies to further the feminist ideology in Canada. This is the reason feminists have been more influential in Canada than anywhere else in the world. With large amounts of government grants, they have infiltrated the schools, universities and government, as well as the courts.
In the last ten years, annual grants given directly to feminist groups from the Status of Women (Women’s Program) have almost doubled, from $8 million in 1998 to $15 million for 2007-2008. Total funding for the Status of Women agency for 2007-2008 (last available data) was $25 million, which covers administrative costs, salaries, grants, etc. The total allocation to the Status of Women for the last ten years (1998-2008) is $225 million.
The RCSW took place over forty years ago. Much has changed since then. For example, today, women are perfectly capable of making their own decisions with regard to their lives and do not require a government agency to support them because of supposed discrimination by a mythical “patriarchal” society. Women today comprise 66% of university students, 59% of medical graduates and 55% of law graduates. It is significant that the current unemployment statistics indicate that men, rather than women, are experiencing the most unemployment difficulties.
It seems that it is now men who are lagging behind women. Yet, the Status of Women, with its entrenched feminist bureaucrats, is still pushing the feminist agenda, undeterred by the remarkable changes that have taken place in Canada in the past few generations. Why then is this absurd agency still allowed to exist?
The Conservative government did try to come to grips with the problems of Status of Women in September 2006, when it stopped the direct core funding of prominent feminist groups, such as the National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC) and LEAF (Women’s Legal Education Action Fund), the latter being the legal arm of the feminist movement. The Conservative government also stopped feminist “research.” Instead, the government specified that only projects which would directly assist women were to be funded.
Feminist Research Projects
The “research” previously funded by the Status of Women was advocacy research, since its purpose was to advocate and promote the feminist ideology only.
For example, one of these so-called research projects, funded by the Status of Women, was carried out by a feminist professor, Pierette Bouchard, in the Faculty of Education at Laval University in Quebec, along with her two research assistants, Isabelle Boily and Marie-Claude Proulx. Their “study” was released in 2003, which, apparently, helped reveal a “reactionary ideology attacking the gains by women and to discredit feminism.”
This report, posted on the Status of Women’s website, reported that a “masculinist” lobby threatens to overturn policies that protect women’s rights. The research included an analysis of Internet sites operated by these so-called “masculinist” groups. One of these groups has a website called B.C. Fathers, created by Ken Wiebe of Victoria. Mr. Wiebe brought an action of defamation in the B.C. Supreme Court against the researcher, her assistants and the Status of Women based on the researchers’ claim that these men’s groups were engaged in “hateful, violent and unrestrained discourse against feminism” and were a vehicle for “hate mongering.”
The B.C. Supreme Court concluded, in January 2008, that Mr. Wiebe was indeed defamed by the researcher, her assistants and the Status of Women, but that the comments “however exaggerated, obstinate or prejudiced” were permitted under the law because of the legal defence of “fair comment”. The latter refers to matters of opinion which is not capable of proof, but is allowed to be expressed, although others disagree, provided the opinion is considered an honest belief.
That is, although the researchers and the Status of Women were found to have made defamatory remarks against Mr. Wiebe and his organization, since it was an “honestly held opinion”, the court claim by Mr. Wiebe was dismissed.
Nonetheless, this case does reveal the nonsense spilled out at the Status of Women by its funded researchers. What an obscene waste of the taxpayers’ money!
Notwithstanding the setbacks caused by government policy on funding and the detrimental court decision, the militant feminist bureaucrats in the Status of Women are still hard at it, spending the taxpayers’ money, circumventing government policy by generously funding some additional, newly organized feminist groups. These latter have received thousands of dollars in huge grants since 2006, when the new funding policies were supposedly put in place. The two most prominent groups now receiving funding are the Feminist Alliance For International Action (FAFIA) and Equal Voice.
Feminist Alliance for International Action (FAFIA),
(FAFIA) has received huge sums from the Status of Women since it was formed in 2002. It received $330,000 from the Status of Women in 2006-2007, and $180,470 in 2007-2008 and in the fiscal year 2008 – 2009, it received the enormous grant of $480,000, supposedly to organize a series of training events for 105 women across Canada to “become familiar with the tools related to the UN Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)”, i.e., how to agitate for feminist goals. This money will keep FAFIA operational to continue its feminist work for a year or so, at which time it will, undoubtedly, receive another large grant from the Status of Women – as regular as clockwork. This most recent grant is supposed to enable FAFIA to hold four regional workshops. However, no matter how lavish the workshops, they don’t cost $480,000! These feminist applications for grants are “padded” in order to allow the feminist groups to receive funds to cover their operational expenses, such as offices, equipment and staff, while they carry out their “project”. For example, granting funds to FAFIA provided it with funding to carry out other feminist activities, such as researching and drafting a paper to attack MP Maurice Vellacott’s bill on shared parenting (see article “Family Under the Spotlight”, p. 4).
Another of FAFIA’s major activities is to appear before select UN monitoring committees, which are feminist dominated, to report on the Canadian government’s many alleged failures to support “women,” which failure contravenes UN treaties. For example, when the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women Monitoring Committee issued a report on Canada, which included FAFIA’s criticisms of the Conservative Government, the opposition parties used this report to attack the Conservative government, (Hansard, November 25, 2008, page 242, 249, and 250. Also, see Hansard November 28, 2008, page 278). The Conservative government, therefore, is allowing taxpayers’ funds to be used to facilitate attacks on itself and to undermine its policies. Sheer madness!
Equal Voice
Equal Voice is a feminist organization promoting policies to encourage more women to enter politics. It has regularly received $70,000 annually from the Status of Women, but in 2009, it hit the jackpot receiving an additional $1.2 million over 38 months from the Status of Women to develop a special mentor’s program to train young women to attain political office. Although Equal Voice is supposedly non-partisan, it is, in fact, a feminist organization with feminist supporters from all the political parties, such as former Prime Minister (for a brief few months) Kim Campbell, Judy Erola (former Liberal Minister for the Status of Women), Audrey McLaughlin, (former federal NDP leader) and Pat Carney, a feminist Progressive Conservative Senator, now retired.
Equal Voice claims that, with this generous funding from the Status of Women, it is “poised to become the most active voice for Canadian women” – what women? Since when do feminist organizations represent anyone but themselves?
It is significant that the grants to Equal Voice and FAFIA are both supposed to be used for the “training” of women. We know that the “training” will be in the feminist ideology and the trainees, young women, immigrant and aboriginal women, will be trained to serve as the next generation of feminist agitators – all at the taxpayers’ expense.
Professional Feminists
Mention should be made here about the efforts of the professional feminists who spend their entire lives living on comfortable salaries provided by the taxpayer, while spending their careers solely pushing feminism in Canada.
Feminist organizations have few members, and, therefore, rely on these well-educated professional feminists to promote their platform. These professional feminists have no other occupation than that of operating these organizations. They move sideways from one feminist organization to the other – never stopping in their quest to revolutionalize society on the taxpayers’ dollar. Some of these women are:
Shelagh Day
A self-acknowledged lesbian, she was one of the founders of the legal arm of the feminist movement LEAF (Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund). She then became vice president of the feminist umbrella group the National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC) in which capacity she attended the Charlottetown Constitutional Conferences in 1992, supposedly representing “women” at the taxpayers’ expense. Next, she chaired the equality panel of the Court Challenges Program, generously handing out funds to feminist and homosexual groups to support their legal challenges. Ms Day was also a member of the Canadian delegation at the UN Conference for Women held in Beijing in 1995. She represented the homosexual organization EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) at that conference – of course, with all expenses paid by the taxpayers. Ms Day’s most recent reincarnation was in the recently formed (1999) umbrella feminist group Feminist Alliance for International Action (FAFIA), referred to above, where she chairs its human rights committee.
Andrée Coté
She is former president of the government funded NAWL (National Association for Women and the Law), and is currently Director of Legislation and Law Reform for the public service union PSAC (Public Service Alliance of Canada). She has also been a spokesperson for the Pay Equity Network, comprised of Status of Women funded NAWL, the Court Challenges Program, and LEAF (Legal Education and Action Fund), NOIVMW (National Organization of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women in Canada) and FAFIA (Feminist Action for International Action), and various labour organizations. Coté was Human Rights Officer for PSAC during their Call to Action against Bill C-484, a bill to make violence against the unborn child a separate crime in cases of violence against the mother. She was Research Associate at the Centre for Feminist Research, York University and also represented the pro-abortion, same-sex marriage World March for Women (REALity, May June 2000). Her feminist publications have been funded by Status of Women, NAWL, and the Quebec and Ontario governments through feminist organizations. She has also co-authored a brief for the Ontario Women’s Network on Custody and Access (2001).
Nancy Peckford
At present, she is executive director of Equal Voice, which, as stated above, recently received $1,200,000 from the Status of Women. She has published “Women and electoral reform: Pursuing a feminist policy agenda in Canada”. She is former Director of Programs for FAFIA. Peckford has been a researcher with NAWL (2001), Lobby Coordinator for the 2000 March for Women (2000), Provincial Coordinator of the Ontario Women’s Network on Child Custody and Access (2002), and a program officer with the Canadian Labour Congress’ Women’s and Human Rights Department (2003). In 2007-2008, while executive director of FAFIA, she served as one of the three experts for the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women’s study on gender budgeting. Such a well-paid career – funded almost entirely by the taxpayer.
Where is the Conservative Minister Responsible for the Status of Women?
Where is the Conservative Minister responsible for the Status of Women in all this, since she must approve these questionable grants before they are finalized? The current Minister, the Hon. Helena Guergis (Simcoe Grey) must either be lacking in common sense to believe the nonsense plied her by the bureaucrats in her department, or she is sympathetic to the duplicity being carried out by her department and is delighted to push these funds into feminist hands. Either way, she is an ineffective, toothless representative of the Conservative government and should be removed.
Conclusion
The Status of Women organization and its vast empire, including its tentacles which are present in every federal government department, by way of the policy of so-called “gender mainstreaming,” should be abolished. Funds used for this anachronistic agency should be used to meet the real needs of men, women and children who genuinely require assistance: such funds should not be funneled off to the well-educated, professional feminists, whose power and influence over the years have stemmed solely from funding by this government agency.
Please write to the following to request the disbanding of the Status of Women:
The Right Hon. Stephen Harper
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A2
Fax: 613-941-6900
The Hon. James Moore
Minister of Canadian Heritage
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Fax: (613) 992-9868
Your MP
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
THE STATUS OF WOMEN MUST BE ABANDONED
AN EGREGIOUS ABUSE OF TAXPAYER’S MONEY
The Royal Commission on the Status of Women (RCSW) tabled its report in 1970 and recommended that the federal government establish a special agency to further the advancement and equality of women.
As a result, the Status of Women was established in 1973. Since that time, it has handed out over one hundred million dollars to so-called women’s groups. In fact, only feminist groups have been the major beneficiaries of this largesse. Acting as agents of change, the latter have used taxpayers’ monies to further the feminist ideology in Canada. This is the reason feminists have been more influential in Canada than anywhere else in the world. With large amounts of government grants, they have infiltrated the schools, universities and government, as well as the courts.
In the last ten years, annual grants given directly to feminist groups from the Status of Women (Women’s Program) have almost doubled, from $8 million in 1998 to $15 million for 2007-2008. Total funding for the Status of Women agency for 2007-2008 (last available data) was $25 million, which covers administrative costs, salaries, grants, etc. The total allocation to the Status of Women for the last ten years (1998-2008) is $225 million.
The RCSW took place over forty years ago. Much has changed since then. For example, today, women are perfectly capable of making their own decisions with regard to their lives and do not require a government agency to support them because of supposed discrimination by a mythical “patriarchal” society. Women today comprise 66% of university students, 59% of medical graduates and 55% of law graduates. It is significant that the current unemployment statistics indicate that men, rather than women, are experiencing the most unemployment difficulties.
It seems that it is now men who are lagging behind women. Yet, the Status of Women, with its entrenched feminist bureaucrats, is still pushing the feminist agenda, undeterred by the remarkable changes that have taken place in Canada in the past few generations. Why then is this absurd agency still allowed to exist?
The Conservative government did try to come to grips with the problems of Status of Women in September 2006, when it stopped the direct core funding of prominent feminist groups, such as the National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC) and LEAF (Women’s Legal Education Action Fund), the latter being the legal arm of the feminist movement. The Conservative government also stopped feminist “research.” Instead, the government specified that only projects which would directly assist women were to be funded.
Feminist Research Projects
The “research” previously funded by the Status of Women was advocacy research, since its purpose was to advocate and promote the feminist ideology only.
For example, one of these so-called research projects, funded by the Status of Women, was carried out by a feminist professor, Pierette Bouchard, in the Faculty of Education at Laval University in Quebec, along with her two research assistants, Isabelle Boily and Marie-Claude Proulx. Their “study” was released in 2003, which, apparently, helped reveal a “reactionary ideology attacking the gains by women and to discredit feminism.”
This report, posted on the Status of Women’s website, reported that a “masculinist” lobby threatens to overturn policies that protect women’s rights. The research included an analysis of Internet sites operated by these so-called “masculinist” groups. One of these groups has a website called B.C. Fathers, created by Ken Wiebe of Victoria. Mr. Wiebe brought an action of defamation in the B.C. Supreme Court against the researcher, her assistants and the Status of Women based on the researchers’ claim that these men’s groups were engaged in “hateful, violent and unrestrained discourse against feminism” and were a vehicle for “hate mongering.”
The B.C. Supreme Court concluded, in January 2008, that Mr. Wiebe was indeed defamed by the researcher, her assistants and the Status of Women, but that the comments “however exaggerated, obstinate or prejudiced” were permitted under the law because of the legal defence of “fair comment”. The latter refers to matters of opinion which is not capable of proof, but is allowed to be expressed, although others disagree, provided the opinion is considered an honest belief.
That is, although the researchers and the Status of Women were found to have made defamatory remarks against Mr. Wiebe and his organization, since it was an “honestly held opinion”, the court claim by Mr. Wiebe was dismissed.
Nonetheless, this case does reveal the nonsense spilled out at the Status of Women by its funded researchers. What an obscene waste of the taxpayers’ money!
Notwithstanding the setbacks caused by government policy on funding and the detrimental court decision, the militant feminist bureaucrats in the Status of Women are still hard at it, spending the taxpayers’ money, circumventing government policy by generously funding some additional, newly organized feminist groups. These latter have received thousands of dollars in huge grants since 2006, when the new funding policies were supposedly put in place. The two most prominent groups now receiving funding are the Feminist Alliance For International Action (FAFIA) and Equal Voice.
Feminist Alliance for International Action (FAFIA),
(FAFIA) has received huge sums from the Status of Women since it was formed in 2002. It received $330,000 from the Status of Women in 2006-2007, and $180,470 in 2007-2008 and in the fiscal year 2008 – 2009, it received the enormous grant of $480,000, supposedly to organize a series of training events for 105 women across Canada to “become familiar with the tools related to the UN Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)”, i.e., how to agitate for feminist goals. This money will keep FAFIA operational to continue its feminist work for a year or so, at which time it will, undoubtedly, receive another large grant from the Status of Women – as regular as clockwork. This most recent grant is supposed to enable FAFIA to hold four regional workshops. However, no matter how lavish the workshops, they don’t cost $480,000! These feminist applications for grants are “padded” in order to allow the feminist groups to receive funds to cover their operational expenses, such as offices, equipment and staff, while they carry out their “project”. For example, granting funds to FAFIA provided it with funding to carry out other feminist activities, such as researching and drafting a paper to attack MP Maurice Vellacott’s bill on shared parenting (see article “Family Under the Spotlight”, p. 4).
Another of FAFIA’s major activities is to appear before select UN monitoring committees, which are feminist dominated, to report on the Canadian government’s many alleged failures to support “women,” which failure contravenes UN treaties. For example, when the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women Monitoring Committee issued a report on Canada, which included FAFIA’s criticisms of the Conservative Government, the opposition parties used this report to attack the Conservative government, (Hansard, November 25, 2008, page 242, 249, and 250. Also, see Hansard November 28, 2008, page 278). The Conservative government, therefore, is allowing taxpayers’ funds to be used to facilitate attacks on itself and to undermine its policies. Sheer madness!
Equal Voice
Equal Voice is a feminist organization promoting policies to encourage more women to enter politics. It has regularly received $70,000 annually from the Status of Women, but in 2009, it hit the jackpot receiving an additional $1.2 million over 38 months from the Status of Women to develop a special mentor’s program to train young women to attain political office. Although Equal Voice is supposedly non-partisan, it is, in fact, a feminist organization with feminist supporters from all the political parties, such as former Prime Minister (for a brief few months) Kim Campbell, Judy Erola (former Liberal Minister for the Status of Women), Audrey McLaughlin, (former federal NDP leader) and Pat Carney, a feminist Progressive Conservative Senator, now retired.
Equal Voice claims that, with this generous funding from the Status of Women, it is “poised to become the most active voice for Canadian women” – what women? Since when do feminist organizations represent anyone but themselves?
It is significant that the grants to Equal Voice and FAFIA are both supposed to be used for the “training” of women. We know that the “training” will be in the feminist ideology and the trainees, young women, immigrant and aboriginal women, will be trained to serve as the next generation of feminist agitators – all at the taxpayers’ expense.
Professional Feminists
Mention should be made here about the efforts of the professional feminists who spend their entire lives living on comfortable salaries provided by the taxpayer, while spending their careers solely pushing feminism in Canada.
Feminist organizations have few members, and, therefore, rely on these well-educated professional feminists to promote their platform. These professional feminists have no other occupation than that of operating these organizations. They move sideways from one feminist organization to the other – never stopping in their quest to revolutionalize society on the taxpayers’ dollar. Some of these women are:
Shelagh Day
A self-acknowledged lesbian, she was one of the founders of the legal arm of the feminist movement LEAF (Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund). She then became vice president of the feminist umbrella group the National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC) in which capacity she attended the Charlottetown Constitutional Conferences in 1992, supposedly representing “women” at the taxpayers’ expense. Next, she chaired the equality panel of the Court Challenges Program, generously handing out funds to feminist and homosexual groups to support their legal challenges. Ms Day was also a member of the Canadian delegation at the UN Conference for Women held in Beijing in 1995. She represented the homosexual organization EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) at that conference – of course, with all expenses paid by the taxpayers. Ms Day’s most recent reincarnation was in the recently formed (1999) umbrella feminist group Feminist Alliance for International Action (FAFIA), referred to above, where she chairs its human rights committee.
Andrée Coté
She is former president of the government funded NAWL (National Association for Women and the Law), and is currently Director of Legislation and Law Reform for the public service union PSAC (Public Service Alliance of Canada). She has also been a spokesperson for the Pay Equity Network, comprised of Status of Women funded NAWL, the Court Challenges Program, and LEAF (Legal Education and Action Fund), NOIVMW (National Organization of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women in Canada) and FAFIA (Feminist Action for International Action), and various labour organizations. Coté was Human Rights Officer for PSAC during their Call to Action against Bill C-484, a bill to make violence against the unborn child a separate crime in cases of violence against the mother. She was Research Associate at the Centre for Feminist Research, York University and also represented the pro-abortion, same-sex marriage World March for Women (REALity, May June 2000). Her feminist publications have been funded by Status of Women, NAWL, and the Quebec and Ontario governments through feminist organizations. She has also co-authored a brief for the Ontario Women’s Network on Custody and Access (2001).
Nancy Peckford
At present, she is executive director of Equal Voice, which, as stated above, recently received $1,200,000 from the Status of Women. She has published “Women and electoral reform: Pursuing a feminist policy agenda in Canada”. She is former Director of Programs for FAFIA. Peckford has been a researcher with NAWL (2001), Lobby Coordinator for the 2000 March for Women (2000), Provincial Coordinator of the Ontario Women’s Network on Child Custody and Access (2002), and a program officer with the Canadian Labour Congress’ Women’s and Human Rights Department (2003). In 2007-2008, while executive director of FAFIA, she served as one of the three experts for the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women’s study on gender budgeting. Such a well-paid career – funded almost entirely by the taxpayer.
Where is the Conservative Minister Responsible for the Status of Women?
Where is the Conservative Minister responsible for the Status of Women in all this, since she must approve these questionable grants before they are finalized? The current Minister, the Hon. Helena Guergis (Simcoe Grey) must either be lacking in common sense to believe the nonsense plied her by the bureaucrats in her department, or she is sympathetic to the duplicity being carried out by her department and is delighted to push these funds into feminist hands. Either way, she is an ineffective, toothless representative of the Conservative government and should be removed.
Conclusion
The Status of Women organization and its vast empire, including its tentacles which are present in every federal government department, by way of the policy of so-called “gender mainstreaming,” should be abolished. Funds used for this anachronistic agency should be used to meet the real needs of men, women and children who genuinely require assistance: such funds should not be funneled off to the well-educated, professional feminists, whose power and influence over the years have stemmed solely from funding by this government agency.
Please write to the following to request the disbanding of the Status of Women:
The Right Hon. Stephen Harper
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A2
Fax: 613-941-6900
The Hon. James Moore
Minister of Canadian Heritage
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Fax: (613) 992-9868
Your MP
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Hindu Marriage Act; Act no 25 of 55 = Maintainance to Husband.
Hindu Marriage Act; Act no 25 of 55
Sec. 24: Maintenance Pendente lite and expenses proceedings. - Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent,
Sec. 24: Maintenance Pendente lite and expenses proceedings. - Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent,
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Ruchika case: Rathore's anticipatory bail plea rejected
Ruchika case: Rathore's anticipatory bail plea rejected
Wed, Dec 30 08:22 PM
Panchkula/New Delhi, Dec 30 (PTI) Apprehending arrest following fresh FIRs against him, a cornered Haryana ex-DGP SPS Rathore today moved a sessions court for anticipatory bail but failed to get any immediate relief, as the Centre explored the options of slapping abetment to suicide charge on him.
Parallely, the Haryana police set up a seven-member Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by an IGP for the two fresh cases registered on the basis of complaints of father and brother of molestation victim Ruchika Girhotra against Rathore and others for allegedly tampering with the post-mortem report and on abetment of suicide charge.
The Centre stepped in with Home Minister P Chidambaram discussing with Ruchika''s family and lawyers in New Delhi the possibility of re-opening the 19-year-old case by adding abetment to suicide charge on Rathore. The 67-year-old former top cop was convicted for molesting the 14-year-old budding tennis player who committed suicide three years after the incident in 1990.
With the noose tightening over Rathore, there was a pronounced change in his demeanour in sharp contrast to the broad grin he sported the day he got away with a lighter sentence of six months imprisonment early this month.
A grim-faced Rathore even had a run-in with the media. He mocked at the media when asked for his comments after his anticipatory bail plea was rejected telling them, "the day you can satisfy me you are a constitutional power on judicial matters, I will speak (to you)".
Abha, the lawyer-wife of Rathore, submitted before District and Sessions Judge S P Singh which heard his anticipatory bail plea that "fabricated, twisted and forged" facts were being presented by Ruchika's family.
The judge also issued a notice to the state for a reply to the anticipatory bail plea on January one..
Wed, Dec 30 08:22 PM
Panchkula/New Delhi, Dec 30 (PTI) Apprehending arrest following fresh FIRs against him, a cornered Haryana ex-DGP SPS Rathore today moved a sessions court for anticipatory bail but failed to get any immediate relief, as the Centre explored the options of slapping abetment to suicide charge on him.
Parallely, the Haryana police set up a seven-member Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by an IGP for the two fresh cases registered on the basis of complaints of father and brother of molestation victim Ruchika Girhotra against Rathore and others for allegedly tampering with the post-mortem report and on abetment of suicide charge.
The Centre stepped in with Home Minister P Chidambaram discussing with Ruchika''s family and lawyers in New Delhi the possibility of re-opening the 19-year-old case by adding abetment to suicide charge on Rathore. The 67-year-old former top cop was convicted for molesting the 14-year-old budding tennis player who committed suicide three years after the incident in 1990.
With the noose tightening over Rathore, there was a pronounced change in his demeanour in sharp contrast to the broad grin he sported the day he got away with a lighter sentence of six months imprisonment early this month.
A grim-faced Rathore even had a run-in with the media. He mocked at the media when asked for his comments after his anticipatory bail plea was rejected telling them, "the day you can satisfy me you are a constitutional power on judicial matters, I will speak (to you)".
Abha, the lawyer-wife of Rathore, submitted before District and Sessions Judge S P Singh which heard his anticipatory bail plea that "fabricated, twisted and forged" facts were being presented by Ruchika's family.
The judge also issued a notice to the state for a reply to the anticipatory bail plea on January one..
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Brazilian family wants to bring boy back from US
By TALES AZZONI, Associated Press Writer Tales Azzoni, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 17 mins ago
SAO PAULO – The Brazilian family of a 9-year-old boy returned by court order to his U.S. father said Tuesday it will fight to regain custody.
Lawyers for the relatives of Sean Goldman said they will push forward with a request from his Brazilian grandmother to allow the boy to make his own wishes known in court.
"Sean's early delivery does not end the legal process," the lawyers said in a statement. "The legal process in Brazil is not over."
The grandmother's request was initially denied, but the Supreme Court has not issued a final ruling on that matter. The court does not convene until February.
Last week, a Supreme Court judge ordered Sean returned to his father, David Goldman, of Tinton Falls, New Jersey.
At a news conference Tuesday in New Jersay, Goldman and his attorney Patricia Apy, said they did not know exactly what sort of claim the Brazilian family would make.
Apy said continued litigation by the Brazilian relatives could affect visitation proceedings in New Jersey.
"Part of what we're going to wait to see is if they're going to exercise good judgment and move forward as normal grandparents," Apy said.
Goldman said his son arrived in New Jersey on Monday and was eager to play outside, even in the cold New Jersey wind. The boy is likely go to public school, though he has not yet been enrolled.
"He hasn't cried, he's just happy," Goldman said. "He just wants to have fun and not have all this pressure on his shoulders."
Just three days before Christmas and following a five-year custody battle, Supreme Court Chief Justice Gilmar Mendes lifted a stay on a federal court's ruling ordering Brazilian relatives to hand over the boy. Sean was reunited with his father on Christmas Eve and returned to the United States the same day.
Before delivering Sean to his father, the Brazilian relatives said they would end a legal battle to keep the boy in Brazil. On Tuesday, however, their attorneys said the family was only obeying the judge's order, not stopping its legal fight.
The lawyers said that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the grandmother, Silvana Bianchi, the decision will be relayed to American authorities so the boy can be heard.
Bianchi has always maintained that Sean wanted to stay in Brazil.
Goldman said in an exclusive interview aired Monday on NBC's "Today" show that the boy was happy in the U.S., but hadn't yet called him "Dad."
Sean had lived in Brazil since 2004, when Goldman's ex-wife, Bruna Bianchi, brought him to her native country for what was supposed to be a two-week vacation. She stayed, divorced Goldman and remarried, and Goldman, now 42, began legal efforts to get Sean back.
After Bianchi died last year in childbirth, her Brazilian husband, Joao Paulo Lins e Silva, a prominent divorce attorney in Rio de Janeiro, won temporary custody. Despite numerous court findings in favor of Goldman, Lins e Silva was able numerous times to delay relinquishing custody.
Also Tuesday, a professional media group criticized NBC for ferrying the Goldmans back to the United States on a chartered plane.
Calling it an example of "checkbook journalism," the Society of Professional Journalists said the arrangement damages the network's credibility.
NBC spokeswoman Lauren Kapp said the network invited them to ride on a plane that had already been booked to carry its own employees home for the holidays, and "Today's" exclusive interview was booked before the invitation was extended.
An attorney for Goldman said Tuesday that there was never a contract with NBC and that the Goldman camp was loyal to the network because it did a thorough report on his situation a year ago, before the story became major news.
"There was no quid pro quo," Apy said, adding that some other media outlets suggested favors in return for access, and that Goldman turned them down.
She said Goldman accepted the flight in part because of fears that multiple camera crews might be onboard if they flew back to the U.S. on a commercial flight.
___
Associated Press Writer Geoff Mulvihill contributed to this report from Red Bank, New Jersey.
By TALES AZZONI, Associated Press Writer Tales Azzoni, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 17 mins ago
SAO PAULO – The Brazilian family of a 9-year-old boy returned by court order to his U.S. father said Tuesday it will fight to regain custody.
Lawyers for the relatives of Sean Goldman said they will push forward with a request from his Brazilian grandmother to allow the boy to make his own wishes known in court.
"Sean's early delivery does not end the legal process," the lawyers said in a statement. "The legal process in Brazil is not over."
The grandmother's request was initially denied, but the Supreme Court has not issued a final ruling on that matter. The court does not convene until February.
Last week, a Supreme Court judge ordered Sean returned to his father, David Goldman, of Tinton Falls, New Jersey.
At a news conference Tuesday in New Jersay, Goldman and his attorney Patricia Apy, said they did not know exactly what sort of claim the Brazilian family would make.
Apy said continued litigation by the Brazilian relatives could affect visitation proceedings in New Jersey.
"Part of what we're going to wait to see is if they're going to exercise good judgment and move forward as normal grandparents," Apy said.
Goldman said his son arrived in New Jersey on Monday and was eager to play outside, even in the cold New Jersey wind. The boy is likely go to public school, though he has not yet been enrolled.
"He hasn't cried, he's just happy," Goldman said. "He just wants to have fun and not have all this pressure on his shoulders."
Just three days before Christmas and following a five-year custody battle, Supreme Court Chief Justice Gilmar Mendes lifted a stay on a federal court's ruling ordering Brazilian relatives to hand over the boy. Sean was reunited with his father on Christmas Eve and returned to the United States the same day.
Before delivering Sean to his father, the Brazilian relatives said they would end a legal battle to keep the boy in Brazil. On Tuesday, however, their attorneys said the family was only obeying the judge's order, not stopping its legal fight.
The lawyers said that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the grandmother, Silvana Bianchi, the decision will be relayed to American authorities so the boy can be heard.
Bianchi has always maintained that Sean wanted to stay in Brazil.
Goldman said in an exclusive interview aired Monday on NBC's "Today" show that the boy was happy in the U.S., but hadn't yet called him "Dad."
Sean had lived in Brazil since 2004, when Goldman's ex-wife, Bruna Bianchi, brought him to her native country for what was supposed to be a two-week vacation. She stayed, divorced Goldman and remarried, and Goldman, now 42, began legal efforts to get Sean back.
After Bianchi died last year in childbirth, her Brazilian husband, Joao Paulo Lins e Silva, a prominent divorce attorney in Rio de Janeiro, won temporary custody. Despite numerous court findings in favor of Goldman, Lins e Silva was able numerous times to delay relinquishing custody.
Also Tuesday, a professional media group criticized NBC for ferrying the Goldmans back to the United States on a chartered plane.
Calling it an example of "checkbook journalism," the Society of Professional Journalists said the arrangement damages the network's credibility.
NBC spokeswoman Lauren Kapp said the network invited them to ride on a plane that had already been booked to carry its own employees home for the holidays, and "Today's" exclusive interview was booked before the invitation was extended.
An attorney for Goldman said Tuesday that there was never a contract with NBC and that the Goldman camp was loyal to the network because it did a thorough report on his situation a year ago, before the story became major news.
"There was no quid pro quo," Apy said, adding that some other media outlets suggested favors in return for access, and that Goldman turned them down.
She said Goldman accepted the flight in part because of fears that multiple camera crews might be onboard if they flew back to the U.S. on a commercial flight.
___
Associated Press Writer Geoff Mulvihill contributed to this report from Red Bank, New Jersey.
Brazil custody battle boy yet to call father "Dad"
Mon Dec 28
NEW YORK The 9-year-old boy reunited with his American father after a five-year custody battle in Brazil has yet to call him "Dad" but the father said on Monday he plans to make up for lost time.
Sean Goldman returned to the United States with his father David Goldman on Christmas Eve after the Brazilian family of the boy's deceased mother lost their fight to keep him.
The dispute tested U.S.-Brazilian relations and briefly threatened to interrupt billions of dollars of U.S. trade benefits to Brazil.
The Brazilian family handed the boy over to the U.S. consulate on Thursday upon orders of the Brazilian courts.
"He hasn't really called me anything," David Goldman told television's "Today" show in an interview. "And I think he's struggling with that. I said, 'You can call me Dad.' And he didn't say anything."
"I missed five years, precious years, of my son's life. That's a big scar. But now we're together. And we'll heal. And we'll enjoy and live and love and share and cry and laugh and learn as father and son," he said.
Media chartered a jet to bring the Goldmans to the United States and has had exclusive access to the reunited father and son, who have been staying in Orlando, Florida.
David Goldman had fought since 2004 to bring his son home to New Jersey after his then-wife and Sean's mother, Bruna Bianchi, took the U.S.-born boy to her native Brazil and then divorced Goldman.
Bianchi died last year while giving birth to a daughter, but her second husband and her family sought to keep custody of Sean. Goldman said he would allow Sean's Brazilian grandmother visitation rights.
The handover at the U.S. consulate was chaotic with the startled-looking boy clutching his stepfather and covering his teary face from cameras as the two pushed their way through a mass of reporters.
"I hope he doesn't have lifelong nightmares of that day," Goldman said. "My heart has been breaking, and has been broken over and over, and over and over through this whole terrible ordeal. I'll never understand them. I will never."
Mon Dec 28
NEW YORK The 9-year-old boy reunited with his American father after a five-year custody battle in Brazil has yet to call him "Dad" but the father said on Monday he plans to make up for lost time.
Sean Goldman returned to the United States with his father David Goldman on Christmas Eve after the Brazilian family of the boy's deceased mother lost their fight to keep him.
The dispute tested U.S.-Brazilian relations and briefly threatened to interrupt billions of dollars of U.S. trade benefits to Brazil.
The Brazilian family handed the boy over to the U.S. consulate on Thursday upon orders of the Brazilian courts.
"He hasn't really called me anything," David Goldman told television's "Today" show in an interview. "And I think he's struggling with that. I said, 'You can call me Dad.' And he didn't say anything."
"I missed five years, precious years, of my son's life. That's a big scar. But now we're together. And we'll heal. And we'll enjoy and live and love and share and cry and laugh and learn as father and son," he said.
Media chartered a jet to bring the Goldmans to the United States and has had exclusive access to the reunited father and son, who have been staying in Orlando, Florida.
David Goldman had fought since 2004 to bring his son home to New Jersey after his then-wife and Sean's mother, Bruna Bianchi, took the U.S.-born boy to her native Brazil and then divorced Goldman.
Bianchi died last year while giving birth to a daughter, but her second husband and her family sought to keep custody of Sean. Goldman said he would allow Sean's Brazilian grandmother visitation rights.
The handover at the U.S. consulate was chaotic with the startled-looking boy clutching his stepfather and covering his teary face from cameras as the two pushed their way through a mass of reporters.
"I hope he doesn't have lifelong nightmares of that day," Goldman said. "My heart has been breaking, and has been broken over and over, and over and over through this whole terrible ordeal. I'll never understand them. I will never."
US dad lands in Florida with son after Brazil custody win
Thu Dec 24
MIAMI An American father and his nine-year-old son arrived on US soil Thursday evening after a bitter five-year custody battle that ended in time for the pair to spend Christmas together.
David Goldman and his son Sean arrived in Florida aboard a plane chartered by US television network, which reported their arrival.
Chris Smith, an American lawmaker who helped the father, told AFP in Brazil that the network had bought exclusive access to the Goldmans' story.
In an interview conducted aboard the plane, David Goldman told Media the experience had been extremely emotional.
"My little boy is five feet away, sound asleep, peaceful. We're on our way. My heart is just melting. I love him."
An NBC reporter on the plane said the father and son appeared close, at times laughing and playing puzzles together, though an exhausted Sean also slept for stretches of time.
The boy, who speaks broken English but is more comfortable speaking Portuguese, was handed over to his father in chaotic circumstances at the US consulate in Rio de Janeiro early Thursday.
Smith said the reunion was "very warm, very emotional," but it was preceded by a media scrum as Sean's Brazilian family delivered the boy to his father's custody.
Media reported that David Goldman was "very angry" about the way Sean was brought the consulate.
The child cried and looked shocked as he ran a gauntlet of 60 reporters, photographers and cameramen. The jostling media crowd had to be held back by police to let him pass.
The reunion and US return were made possible by a Brazilian Supreme Court order delivered this week that capped Goldman's long custody struggle against his late ex-wife's Brazilian family, which assumed care of Sean after his mother died in childbirth last year.
"Please accept my most sincere and humblest gratitude" for the outcome, Goldman said in a statement delivered by Smith, adding he was overjoyed at the reunion with "my beautiful son."
"My love for him knows no boundaries," the statement said.
The pair took off three hours after they met for just the third time since being separated in 2004. Their previous visits were in February and June this year.
In Washington, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she was "thrilled" that father and son were finally together and flying home.
"I offer my warmest wishes for father and son as they celebrate their first holiday season together in five years," Clinton said in a statement.
She had led US government efforts to have Sean returned to Goldman.
The US Congress also added pressure, denouncing what it called the boy's "kidnapping" and holding up passage of a trade measure benefiting Brazil until the handover was secure.
Sean's Brazilian grandmother, Silvana Bianchi, told the Globo news website that the boy "was very sad to go."
"He was very nervous. He had a fever of 38.5 degrees (96.4 degrees Fahrenheit) last night and vomited when we arrived at the consulate. He was really shaken up," she said.
The family's lawyer, Sergio Tostes, told reporters the Brazilian relatives were extremely "upset" by the way the handover was handled by US consular officials.
He also said that Sean's grandmother had been denied a seat on the plane -- which he was told was chartered by the US government -- to accompany him to the United States.
But Smith said Sean's Brazilian family had deliberately paraded him in front of the media instead of accepting arrangements to drive into a discreet consulate entrance to avoid the cameras.
"It was very cruel... a coup de theatre," the US lawmaker said.
A US embassy spokeswoman, Orla Blum, also denied Tostes's charge, saying steps had been taken for a quiet entry into the consulate "so Sean could meet his family, his father, in calm."
Sean was born in the United States in 2000 with dual US-Brazilian nationality to Goldman, a former male model, and Bruna Bianchi, a fashion designer originally from Rio.
In 2004, Bianchi traveled to Brazil with the boy for what she said would be a two-week vacation, but instead stayed there, divorced Goldman and married Joao Paulo Lins e Silva, a prominent lawyer.
She died last year while giving birth to a daughter.
David Goldman told the Media he planned to give Sean's Brazilian grandmother the chance to see her grandson.
"It will take time, but I won't deny" them the right "to know each other," he said.
MIAMI An American father and his nine-year-old son arrived on US soil Thursday evening after a bitter five-year custody battle that ended in time for the pair to spend Christmas together.
David Goldman and his son Sean arrived in Florida aboard a plane chartered by US television network, which reported their arrival.
Chris Smith, an American lawmaker who helped the father, told AFP in Brazil that the network had bought exclusive access to the Goldmans' story.
In an interview conducted aboard the plane, David Goldman told Media the experience had been extremely emotional.
"My little boy is five feet away, sound asleep, peaceful. We're on our way. My heart is just melting. I love him."
An NBC reporter on the plane said the father and son appeared close, at times laughing and playing puzzles together, though an exhausted Sean also slept for stretches of time.
The boy, who speaks broken English but is more comfortable speaking Portuguese, was handed over to his father in chaotic circumstances at the US consulate in Rio de Janeiro early Thursday.
Smith said the reunion was "very warm, very emotional," but it was preceded by a media scrum as Sean's Brazilian family delivered the boy to his father's custody.
Media reported that David Goldman was "very angry" about the way Sean was brought the consulate.
The child cried and looked shocked as he ran a gauntlet of 60 reporters, photographers and cameramen. The jostling media crowd had to be held back by police to let him pass.
The reunion and US return were made possible by a Brazilian Supreme Court order delivered this week that capped Goldman's long custody struggle against his late ex-wife's Brazilian family, which assumed care of Sean after his mother died in childbirth last year.
"Please accept my most sincere and humblest gratitude" for the outcome, Goldman said in a statement delivered by Smith, adding he was overjoyed at the reunion with "my beautiful son."
"My love for him knows no boundaries," the statement said.
The pair took off three hours after they met for just the third time since being separated in 2004. Their previous visits were in February and June this year.
In Washington, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she was "thrilled" that father and son were finally together and flying home.
"I offer my warmest wishes for father and son as they celebrate their first holiday season together in five years," Clinton said in a statement.
She had led US government efforts to have Sean returned to Goldman.
The US Congress also added pressure, denouncing what it called the boy's "kidnapping" and holding up passage of a trade measure benefiting Brazil until the handover was secure.
Sean's Brazilian grandmother, Silvana Bianchi, told the Globo news website that the boy "was very sad to go."
"He was very nervous. He had a fever of 38.5 degrees (96.4 degrees Fahrenheit) last night and vomited when we arrived at the consulate. He was really shaken up," she said.
The family's lawyer, Sergio Tostes, told reporters the Brazilian relatives were extremely "upset" by the way the handover was handled by US consular officials.
He also said that Sean's grandmother had been denied a seat on the plane -- which he was told was chartered by the US government -- to accompany him to the United States.
But Smith said Sean's Brazilian family had deliberately paraded him in front of the media instead of accepting arrangements to drive into a discreet consulate entrance to avoid the cameras.
"It was very cruel... a coup de theatre," the US lawmaker said.
A US embassy spokeswoman, Orla Blum, also denied Tostes's charge, saying steps had been taken for a quiet entry into the consulate "so Sean could meet his family, his father, in calm."
Sean was born in the United States in 2000 with dual US-Brazilian nationality to Goldman, a former male model, and Bruna Bianchi, a fashion designer originally from Rio.
In 2004, Bianchi traveled to Brazil with the boy for what she said would be a two-week vacation, but instead stayed there, divorced Goldman and married Joao Paulo Lins e Silva, a prominent lawyer.
She died last year while giving birth to a daughter.
David Goldman told the Media he planned to give Sean's Brazilian grandmother the chance to see her grandson.
"It will take time, but I won't deny" them the right "to know each other," he said.
Monday, December 21, 2009
AP Interview: US dad would let relatives visit son
AP Interview: US dad would let relatives visit son
By BRADLEY BROOKS (AP) – 6 hours ago
RIO DE JANEIRO — A New Jersey man who has fought for five years to regain custody of his young son in Brazil would allow the boy's Brazilian family visitation if he wins his case, he told The Associated Press on Sunday.
David Goldman, whose battle to return his 9-year-old boy, Sean, to the U.S. lies in the hands of a Brazilian Supreme Court justice, said he wants to spend the holidays with his son — in the United States.
"It's my hope we'll have ... the holidays and New Year's and a very long, happy, healed life as father and son — at home," Goldman told the AP in an exclusive interview. "My whole family and Sean's whole family have been waiting, agonizing for over five years to be reunited with their grandson, with their cousin, with their nephew, with my son."
Late Sunday, the court said in an online statement that Chief Justice Gilmar Mendes would rule Monday on appeals made by Goldman and Brazil's attorney general seeking to lift a stay on a lower court's order that Sean be handed over to his father.
If Mendes lifts the stay, lawyers in both camps said, the Brazilian family could still appeal to the nation's highest appeals court — but it's questionable whether that court would be willing to review the case if the Supreme Court backs a lower federal court ruling giving Goldman custody.
Goldman has pressed his case in U.S. and Brazilian courts since Sean was taken by his mother in 2004 to her native Brazil, where she then divorced Goldman and remarried. She died last year in childbirth, and the boy has lived with his stepfather since.
The lawyer for the boy's Brazilian family has offered to negotiate a settlement, and the family also invited Goldman to spend Christmas with them.
Goldman did not say whether he would accept the invitation if the case is not resolved this week.
Asked if Sean's Brazilian family would be able to visit the boy, Goldman said yes.
"I will not do to them what they've done to Sean and me," he said.
The case has affected diplomatic ties between Brazil and the U.S., reaching talks between President Barack Obama and his Brazilian counterpart, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. A U.S. senator, reacting to the case, blocked the renewal of a $2.75 billion trade deal this week that would lift tariffs on some Brazilian exports.
The U.S. State Department has pressed for the boy to be returned. But a Brazilian Supreme Court justice on Thursday stayed a lower court decision allowing Sean to return to his father.
Goldman — along with Brazil's attorney general — filed appeals Friday asking the Supreme Court to overturn the judge's decision to block Sean's return while the court considers hearing direct testimony from the boy.
Meanwhile, the Brazilian family's lawyer, Sergio Tostes, told the AP he would like to see a negotiated settlement worked out to halt the damage being done to Sean, as well as to U.S.-Brazil relations.
"We're raising the white flag and saying: 'Let's get together, let's talk. We're the adults, we have responsibilities, so let's start to have a constructive conversation,'" Tostes said.
Goldman, however, was in no mood to negotiate.
"This isn't about a shared custody — I'm his dad, I'm his only parent," Goldman said. "This isn't a custody case — it's an abduction case."
That is also how the U.S. and Brazilian governments see it.
Tostes promised a hard battle to the end and threatened that some damaging details — presumably about Goldman — that had yet to be released would become public if needed. He gave no further explanation.
After many disappointments, Goldman said he is taking nothing for granted.
"Until my son and I are on a plane together and those wheels are up, I'll be no less determined and no less hopeful for that day to come," he said.
He said he can't wait to make up for lost time.
"I have five years of love to give him, so he's going to get an extraordinary amount," Goldman said. "With love and patience, we will heal."
AP Television News Producer Flora Charner contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
By BRADLEY BROOKS (AP) – 6 hours ago
RIO DE JANEIRO — A New Jersey man who has fought for five years to regain custody of his young son in Brazil would allow the boy's Brazilian family visitation if he wins his case, he told The Associated Press on Sunday.
David Goldman, whose battle to return his 9-year-old boy, Sean, to the U.S. lies in the hands of a Brazilian Supreme Court justice, said he wants to spend the holidays with his son — in the United States.
"It's my hope we'll have ... the holidays and New Year's and a very long, happy, healed life as father and son — at home," Goldman told the AP in an exclusive interview. "My whole family and Sean's whole family have been waiting, agonizing for over five years to be reunited with their grandson, with their cousin, with their nephew, with my son."
Late Sunday, the court said in an online statement that Chief Justice Gilmar Mendes would rule Monday on appeals made by Goldman and Brazil's attorney general seeking to lift a stay on a lower court's order that Sean be handed over to his father.
If Mendes lifts the stay, lawyers in both camps said, the Brazilian family could still appeal to the nation's highest appeals court — but it's questionable whether that court would be willing to review the case if the Supreme Court backs a lower federal court ruling giving Goldman custody.
Goldman has pressed his case in U.S. and Brazilian courts since Sean was taken by his mother in 2004 to her native Brazil, where she then divorced Goldman and remarried. She died last year in childbirth, and the boy has lived with his stepfather since.
The lawyer for the boy's Brazilian family has offered to negotiate a settlement, and the family also invited Goldman to spend Christmas with them.
Goldman did not say whether he would accept the invitation if the case is not resolved this week.
Asked if Sean's Brazilian family would be able to visit the boy, Goldman said yes.
"I will not do to them what they've done to Sean and me," he said.
The case has affected diplomatic ties between Brazil and the U.S., reaching talks between President Barack Obama and his Brazilian counterpart, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. A U.S. senator, reacting to the case, blocked the renewal of a $2.75 billion trade deal this week that would lift tariffs on some Brazilian exports.
The U.S. State Department has pressed for the boy to be returned. But a Brazilian Supreme Court justice on Thursday stayed a lower court decision allowing Sean to return to his father.
Goldman — along with Brazil's attorney general — filed appeals Friday asking the Supreme Court to overturn the judge's decision to block Sean's return while the court considers hearing direct testimony from the boy.
Meanwhile, the Brazilian family's lawyer, Sergio Tostes, told the AP he would like to see a negotiated settlement worked out to halt the damage being done to Sean, as well as to U.S.-Brazil relations.
"We're raising the white flag and saying: 'Let's get together, let's talk. We're the adults, we have responsibilities, so let's start to have a constructive conversation,'" Tostes said.
Goldman, however, was in no mood to negotiate.
"This isn't about a shared custody — I'm his dad, I'm his only parent," Goldman said. "This isn't a custody case — it's an abduction case."
That is also how the U.S. and Brazilian governments see it.
Tostes promised a hard battle to the end and threatened that some damaging details — presumably about Goldman — that had yet to be released would become public if needed. He gave no further explanation.
After many disappointments, Goldman said he is taking nothing for granted.
"Until my son and I are on a plane together and those wheels are up, I'll be no less determined and no less hopeful for that day to come," he said.
He said he can't wait to make up for lost time.
"I have five years of love to give him, so he's going to get an extraordinary amount," Goldman said. "With love and patience, we will heal."
AP Television News Producer Flora Charner contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)