Breaking the Silence: Did the CPB partially fund this disaster? - MND Blogwonks
BLOGWONKS
Excerpts:
As I viewed the film, the reasons for withdrawing government funding for PBS were affirmed to me for the first time. There hasn't been a program as biased as this since Germany's propaganda machine attacked the Jews. I sat with notebook in hand as the film began, but the lies came too fast for me to write them all down.
Ducote claims that 75% of custody cases involve domestic violence, but did not make clear whether he meant real violence, or merely accusations. I suspect the latter, knowing through personal experience and witness as a court observer that accusations of domestic violence and child abuse are commonly used by attorneys for the women in divorce as a means of gaining an advantage in the proceedings. Moreover, groups such as that sponsoring the program last night, urge women seeking any form of public assistance to file charges whether violence has occurred or not as a prerequisite for receiving services.
The courts were taken to task for allowing PAS to be used by the father to reverse custody decisions. It was claimed that courts "forbid" mothers to protect their children, as children are "most often in danger from the father. At this point, the courts were accused of granting custody to abusive fathers in two thirds of all cases", an increase of one third over the previously used statistic. Atty. Ducote reinforced his false claim by stating that the well known bias favoring mothers in court was a myth. That lie flies in the face of government statistics that show mothers being awarded sole custody in 90(+)% of all contested custody cases.
The most glaring omission in this film was the fact, derived from government and university studies, that mothers are more likely than fathers to abuse their children. Yet all the cases presented in this film centered around the father as abuser. Furthermore, not one paragraph of the film involved the prevention of violence against children.
The entire focus of this film was to prevent PAS from being used to deprive mothers of custody. At the end of the film, it was noted that one father who had been invited to respond, declined to do so. The other fathers were never mentioned, never interviewed on camera, and never offered a chance to rebut the accusations against them. A discerning viewer will be left to wonder, if the other fathers were interviewed, were their answers too damaging to the film's obvious agenda to allow them to be aired?
Excerpts:
As I viewed the film, the reasons for withdrawing government funding for PBS were affirmed to me for the first time. There hasn't been a program as biased as this since Germany's propaganda machine attacked the Jews. I sat with notebook in hand as the film began, but the lies came too fast for me to write them all down.
Ducote claims that 75% of custody cases involve domestic violence, but did not make clear whether he meant real violence, or merely accusations. I suspect the latter, knowing through personal experience and witness as a court observer that accusations of domestic violence and child abuse are commonly used by attorneys for the women in divorce as a means of gaining an advantage in the proceedings. Moreover, groups such as that sponsoring the program last night, urge women seeking any form of public assistance to file charges whether violence has occurred or not as a prerequisite for receiving services.
The courts were taken to task for allowing PAS to be used by the father to reverse custody decisions. It was claimed that courts "forbid" mothers to protect their children, as children are "most often in danger from the father. At this point, the courts were accused of granting custody to abusive fathers in two thirds of all cases", an increase of one third over the previously used statistic. Atty. Ducote reinforced his false claim by stating that the well known bias favoring mothers in court was a myth. That lie flies in the face of government statistics that show mothers being awarded sole custody in 90(+)% of all contested custody cases.
The most glaring omission in this film was the fact, derived from government and university studies, that mothers are more likely than fathers to abuse their children. Yet all the cases presented in this film centered around the father as abuser. Furthermore, not one paragraph of the film involved the prevention of violence against children.
The entire focus of this film was to prevent PAS from being used to deprive mothers of custody. At the end of the film, it was noted that one father who had been invited to respond, declined to do so. The other fathers were never mentioned, never interviewed on camera, and never offered a chance to rebut the accusations against them. A discerning viewer will be left to wonder, if the other fathers were interviewed, were their answers too damaging to the film's obvious agenda to allow them to be aired?
Labels: Breaking the Silence
posted by Meg at 11:05 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home