270 años de resistencia En undía de julio de1990, un enfrentamientopropulsado por cuestionesindígenas enKanehsatakeyel pueblo deOka,
Quebec, estuvo en elpunto de mira
internacional. DirectoraAlanisObomsawinpasó78díasy nochestensas
de filmación del enfrentamiento armadoentrelosMohawks,
la policía deQuebecy el ejércitocanadiense.Este poderosodocumentalte llevadirectamente a la acciónde una luchade los aborígenesvienen manteniendo.El resultado nos
muestra un retrato dela gente detrás delas barricadas.
Gobiernos Canadiensesy elReino deterrorismo Nacional:Nadie
tieneel
derecho deiniciar una guerray
llevar a unaocupación susejércitos
para conquistar a las pueblos, invadiendo a ellos yhaciendolos sufrirtodo tipo detortura, asesinato, expulsandoles, desplazandolos, bombardeo y aterrorisandolos,usando diferentesarmas prohibidasletales,y entonces vuelven yhablan comolossalvadores
de los puebloso dedefensores de
losderechos humanos.Muqtada alSadir NewsToronto & GTA
The Canadian
government in order to expand its domestic terrorism against the underclass,
and to maintain in the impunity the crimes committed by private and state
institutions approved the Bill C-51. This new anti-terrorist law gives broader
powers to the repressive forces of this country to commit crimes of lesa humanity
on children, women, poor families, social activists, and human rights defenders.
¿Quién podría entender los crímenes de estado, la
terrible inhumanidad que nuestros niños experimentan y percibieronen los tristemente célebres campos de
concentración, de las Sociedades de Ayuda a la Niñez? “Solamente aquellos infantes
y chavales, que fueron sometidos a los mismos horrores de tortura psicológica y
física, por los trabajadores de las Suciedades de Protección de la Niñez, centenares
de miles de víctimas que podrían relatar:
“Las políticas criminales dictadas por delincuentes gubernamentales.”Violaciones
a los derechos humanos que políticos canadienses inventaron para perpetuar destrucción y muerte en niños de la clase
marginada!
Motherisk review could have Canada-wide implications Child protection agencies in provinces
outside of Ontario have relied on hair drug tests from the Motherisk lab
at the Hospital for Sick Children.
Steve Russell
/ Toronto Star
Order this photo
Motherisk lab at the Hospital for Sick Children, hair drug and
alcohol tests have been used as evidence in child protection and
criminal cases in at least four provinces and one territory outside
Ontario, a Star investigation has found.
Ontario’s review of the controversial Motherisk Drug Testing Laboratory at the Hospital for Sick Children could have profound implications for child welfare agencies and courts across Canada.
Motherisk’s hair drug and alcohol tests have
been used as evidence in child protection and criminal cases in at least
four provinces and one territory outside Ontario, a Star investigation
has found.
In Nova Scotia, for instance, there are 49
cases “that are currently open before the courts that have used the
services of the Motherisk testing program,” according to Lori Errington,
spokeswoman for the province’s community services department.
With the exception of the Halifax region,
which uses a different lab, Errington said, “all regions in the
provincial system use Motherisk services.”
“The province will use a different forensic testing lab and will monitor the outcome of the review in Ontario,” she said.
Errington said she could not quantify past
cases that may have relied on Motherisk’s analysis, or provide numbers
for cases that were handled by Mi’kmaw Family and Children’s Services,
which is an external agency that operates alongside the provincial
system.
Sick Kids suspended all non-research
operations of Motherisk last week after questions about the lab’s
policies and procedures were raised by an internal audit and an
independent provincial review, which was launched last year following a
Star probe.
The Ontario government has continued to defend
the other work done by Motherisk, which includes counseling pregnant
women on which medications are safe to take.
Shelley Hounsell-Gray, a managing family
lawyer with Nova Scotia Legal Aid in Dartmouth, said the province’s past
reliance on Motherisk is “a big concern.”
“If you can’t rely in the evidence that’s
being presented against your client then you are concerned that the
outcome is unjust,” she said, adding that “there is no easy fix” in
cases where children were removed from a parent.
Sick Kids spokeswoman Gwen Burrows said
Motherisk has provided drug testing services for clients in British
Columbia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Nova Scotia and the Northwest
Territories over the last year.
Burrows did not provide information about previous years.
When Motherisk’s services were halted, 60
clients — nearly one-third of the lab’s total clients — were based
outside of Ontario, Burrows said. All clients who used Motherisk in the
past year were notified by letter of the suspension of services, she
said.
Stephanie Cadieux, B.C.’s children and family
development minister, said in an email, “We have only recently been made
aware of the Ontario government’s review and the suspended operations
of Motherisk.”
“I have not been briefed on this issue and any further comment would be premature,” she said.
Spokeswomen for the governments of Alberta,
Saskatchewan and P.E.I. told the Star that child welfare agencies in
those provinces do not use Motherisk’s hair testing services.
The governments of New Brunswick, Quebec,
Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Yukon, the Northwest Territories
and Nunavut did not respond to a request for comment for this story.
Sick Kids has not provided detail about the
questions that led to the decision to halt lab operations pending the
outcome of the provincial review.
A survey of Canadian legal databases reveals a
handful of past criminal and child protection cases that used
Motherisk’s analysis in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec, but this
may be just “the tip of the iceberg,” said Ontario Justice Marvin Zuker.
Databases such as the Canadian Legal
Information Institute (CanLII) include only those decisions judges
believe will be of interest, which means they capture a small fraction
of total rulings, Zuker said.
“All provinces that used the Motherisk program
. . . could certainly be subject to the same type of review,” said
Zuker, who was a family court judge in Toronto for more than 20 years
before moving to criminal court in 2012. “It could be huge.”
In each of the cases listed in CanLII or
Quicklaw, another legal database, substance abuse was one of many
factors that led to the outcome:
- Citing concerns about their mother’s
“untreated drug addictions,” male companions and prolonged involvement
with child protective services, a New Brunswick judge gave guardianship
of her three children to the province in 2011. Her access to them was
preserved. Motherisk manager Joey Gareri testified that an earlier test
of the mother’s hair showed “a consistent pattern of repeated cocaine
use” over a six-month period, and either cannabis exposure or use during
a later time frame. Another hair test was positive only for codeine, he
said.
- In 2013, a mother was found guilty in a
Quebec criminal court of endangering the health of a child and
possession of the drug GHB after the child drank GHB from a bottle she
had left out. Gareri testified that a hair sample from the child, taken
at a hospital in Ottawa, showed passive exposure to cocaine. The judge
found it “highly plausible” the exposure happened at a neighbour’s home.
It was not a factor in the decision.
- Last year, a judge in Sydney, N.S., sided
with the province, and removed a young boy from his parents permanently,
with no access, citing concerns about violence, substance abuse and a
history of agency involvement with the mother’s other children. Gareri
testified that hair samples from both parents at various periods showed
on-and-off cocaine use and inconclusive results regarding alcohol
consumption.
Children’s aid societies in Ontario relied
heavily on Motherisk’s hair drug and alcohol tests as proof of parental
substance abuse until late last year, when a Court of Appeal decision
cast doubt on evidence the lab presented in the 2009 criminal trial of
Toronto mom Tamara Broomfield, and prompted the Star investigation.
In November, the province appointed a retired
judge to assess the reliability and adequacy of five years worth of hair
drug tests performed by Motherisk from 2005 to 2010.
Toronto lawyer Daniel Brown,
who tried in 2010 to get the trial judge to reopen Broomfield’s case to
re-examine the medical evidence, said Sick Kids has a duty to make
public “the scope of the problem and the issues uncovered” as soon as
possible.
“There may be other people like Tamara
Broomfield across this country, who were convicted on this type of
science, that may not be reliable,” Brown said.
Broomfield was sentenced to seven years in
jail after Motherisk director Gideon Koren testified that hair tests of
her toddler’s hair showed he had regularly ingested large doses of
cocaine for more than a year leading up to a 2005 cocaine overdose that
left him brain-damaged.
Her cocaine convictions were tossed in October
after evidence from an expert witness for the defence criticized
Motherisk’s preparation and analysis of the hair sample. Broomfield
dropped her appeals of other child-abuse convictions related to the boy.
