From: Louise <>

To: donna laframboise <>

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 <> 

To: David Shackleton <> 

Cc: leonard zakow <> 

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 edmonton have exposed a rather troubling phenomenon, in my

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 edmonton showed itself to be naive about the harm

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