From: Louise <malenfant@powersurfr.com>
To: donna laframboise <dlaframboise@nationalpost.com>
Subject: Fw: response to shackleton
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:13:10 -0400
[Some
more twisted but revealing accusations by Ms. Malenfant]
----- Original Message -----
From: Louise <mailto:malenfant@powersurfr.com>
To: David Shackleton <mailto:editor@everyman.org>
Cc: leonard zakow <mailto:lzaikow@pangea.ca>
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 1:59 PM
Hello David,
Your recent letter to Donna Laframboise was forwarded to me, and I feel the
[The
forwarded letter here mentioned would represent a seventh known-of-but-missing
email from the reporter to Ms. Malenfant. (With the article already published,
it was unrelated to reporting--hinting again that these two women had a close
relationship.) Of the seven seemingly missing emails, just two have dates
before (shortly before) the reporter
was warned to preserve all such documents; regarding this legal matter see the
third hyperlink hence.] [Back]
need to respond. This entire story concerning the sexual controversies
around ecmas
view, that does not speak well of the family rights movement.
I thought that this movement was about establishing equality and fairness in
family law, and ending the cannabalization of the paternal family in this
country. This goal is large and difficult, but I now understand why it has
been so difficult, if the leaders in this movement see nothing wrong with
the idea of associating controversial views about sex in childhood with this
goal. The entire book written by Christensen is troubling, and very few in
our society would support his intentions there. He argues that all porn and
the desires that underlie them are good and natural, but purports to
eliminate any arguments against the free flow of porn in
our society. Yet
his book nimbly tip toes around the problem of adult sex with children, so
of course, the book fails in its objective, as this is the problem most of
us have with libertarian views on sex. As for his belief that we are
hurting kids by denying them sex, that they should have sex and masturbate
freely without adult interference, that even providing them with porn has
merit in order to counter society's disapproval of sex and nudity, and that
even coercing children into sex is no worse than denying them sex - all of
these views are anethema to most people in our society.
The thought that this story has exposed the fact that several "leaders" in
the family rights movement are not only tolerant of these views, but
actively encourage them, is a sad commentary on the competence of this
movement. It is no wonder this movement has gotten no where, since the
criticism that we are tolerant of early introduction of sex to children is
actually a true criticism. These odd views that are held by only a very
small
minority of the population, is the likely reason why the average
middleclass
victim of the family courts are staying away from the movement
in
droves. We certainly dillute the main
message of fairness in family law
when
we anchor this effort with these controversial minority opinions about
sex
in childhood. [Note
her (correct) insistence elsewhere that neither the public nor the movement
knew about my book's ideas until she acted to expose it; now they are "the
likely reason" the movement has been failing!]
Anyone who believes that advocating the early introduction of sex to
children is a good thing for the movement, has no idea was a public
relations disaster this association is for the movement in the long run.
Childhood is over when sex starts, and children who engage other children in
sex have likely been awakened by an adult who taught them how its done.
Those in the movement who actively support early childhood sex will never
get the time of day from the government, childwelfare, and other system
people, and no one will convince me that the normalization of childhood sex
is the way to go for the movement. Every falsely accused man I have ever
represented was horrified at the very idea that anyone would believe they
would want sexual congress with their own child. Certainly, no falsely
accused would want to be associated with the idea that sex in childhood is a
good thing. While
ecmas
caused by associating with these views, the bigger shock is certain
father's
rights
leaders have come out in support of associating these controversial
ideas with the movement. This is, in my opinion, a dereliction of duty, and
[A
very strange way to describe their objecting to her publicly tarring the movement by raising this controversy.]
it is a big mistake, as media will not give those leaders the time of day
again. We have enough issues to contend with without adding these
controversies to the cart, and I now understand why this movement gets no
where in influencing the people with the power to change things.
Louise Malenfant
Family Advocate
Parents helping Parents