Question:
Adoptees should not have the right to know who their birth parents are. They should have the right to their medical history. No more! The rights of adoptees stop where the rights of birth parents begin. Jean-Pierre Gauthier
And where would that be? Nevermind, I know. And FYI I am one of those mothers. I do not buy into the c*** that my rights conflict with my son’s. The stupid laws of secrecy posit it that way, not me or my son. Secrecy laws support the shame and blame experienced so heavily by some mothers and it’s time that we get rid of the "problem". If you really care about us, and somehow I doubt it that you really do, do you really think that supporting secrecy (that enables and continues the shame) is helping us? This is hardly even thinking outside of the box. Karen
Response:
Hi Karen, – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Here’s what’s been happening. Bill 183 was introduced on March 29th by the Liberal government. It was a far from perfect bill (contact veto & fine, against our advice & lobbying), but it was the first bill ever introduced by a government. The government has a majority so we knew that it would likely pass – or so we thought. THEN, to everyone’s surprise, the IPC began her vigorous, over-the-top lobbying campaign against the bill. See http://www.ipc.on.ca/scripts/index_.asp?action=31&P_ID=16185&N_ID=1&P…. She even got ten privacy commissioners across the country to support her publically. The media took up her cause and rode on the fear factor that she was her platform. People actually, it seemed, began to fear the bill. The fight took place in the media and we were only able to get very little coverage. We wrote op-eds, articles, and many letters. No one was listening to us, except the government which is very subject to public opinion. The public was fed and accepted the spectre of the fearful, cowering woman who needed "protection" and the IPC was seen as a hero for standing up for her. For months we have been trying to talk to the IPC but she refused to answer our mail or accept a meeting. She just kept spewing out her press releases, relentlessly.
With respect, I’ve seen quite a few press releases from COAR as well. Indeed, I read about the HR complaint on the Ottawa Citizen site yesterday before the IPC issued their response. The COAR press release was at the start of this thread also. BEFORE the IPC put out their press release. The bill passed second reading with only twelve of the opposition saying "nay". Twelve men.
Are you suggesting this is some kind of vast male conspiracy. Are the votes of these twelve MPs somehow worth less because they are men? Sounds like discrimination on the basis of sex to me! Still very little press for us.
Wait – don’t tell me; perhaps it’s a vast male and media conspiracy! Perhaps all these conservative media barons are birth parents who want to hide their past!. This could be true I guess; but it sounds hysterical! 16 adopted people decided that the right to know was their human right, not just a privilege to be meted out to government. The HR case may not make hay in an HR tibunal, but it sure got the media to listen to us. I actually think it is a human right and so does the UN, not that our federal government cares, but it is a case.
Understand – nobody has had their rights taken away. These 16 people didn’t have this right last year, they didn’t have this right last month. Nothing has changed since Ann Cavoukian did her job and provided her counsel to the legislature. That’s why this is wrong. (Well – it’s also wrong on Freedom of expression grounds, as well as probably not creating an inequality on a simple reading of the OHRC as well as a couple of other reasons.) That’s the way it works here. Privacy commissioners are strong and getting stronger. They seem to have a huge influence on laws, yet they are not elected. What’s worse is that this will affect open records across the country, so the fight here is pivotal. There are three provinces with disclosure vetoes and the advocates in those places would love to get rid of them (like Western Australia did just this month).
And a whole bunch of other people see a problem with that. Get over it – or at least learn to disagree without the name caling. (It hurts your argument, which I was beginning to start to understand). PHT
Response:
snip – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Here’s what’s been happening. Bill 183 was introduced on March 29th by the Liberal government. It was a far from perfect bill (contact veto & fine, against our advice & lobbying), but it was the first bill ever introduced by a government. The government has a majority so we knew that it would likely pass – or so we thought. THEN, to everyone’s surprise, the IPC began her vigorous, over-the-top lobbying campaign against the bill. See http://www.ipc.on.ca/scripts/index_.asp?action=31&P_ID=16185&N_ID=1&P…. She even got ten privacy commissioners across the country to support her publically. The media took up her cause and rode on the fear factor that she was her platform. People actually, it seemed, began to fear the bill. The fight took place in the media and we were only able to get very little coverage. We wrote op-eds, articles, and many letters. No one was listening to us, except the government which is very subject to public opinion. The public was fed and accepted the spectre of the fearful, cowering woman who needed "protection" and the IPC was seen as a hero for standing up for her. For months we have been trying to talk to the IPC but she refused to answer our mail or accept a meeting. She just kept spewing out her press releases, relentlessly. The bill passed second reading with only twelve of the opposition saying "nay". Twelve men. The bill went to committee and some of the dirty dozen filibustered until the bill was held over until the fall. Still very little press for us. 16 adopted people decided that the right to know was their human right, not just a privilege to be meted out to government. The HR case may not make hay in an HR tibunal, but it sure got the media to listen to us
I understand the frustration in not being able to get media attention to counteract the IPC. I was disheartened by all the media reports slamming the bill and accepting the IPC’s criticism–especially when I find her analysis to be so utterly facile and, out and out, wrong. Moreover, I am aware of the old adage that any press is good press–it’s just that, in this case, the press that these complaints will generate is going to hurt your cause. Presumably, the goal is to try to sway public opinion in favour of opening records retroactively, without a disclosure (or contact?) veto. How are these complaints going to help do that? Hell, I support your cause, disagree vehemently with the IPC’s comments and, yet, I’m distinctly unimpressed with these complaints. I can only imagine the thoughts of someone who agrees with the IPC. To the extent that this is about selling a message, think about what these complaints have done. The IPC is being lauded for standing up for the "fearful, cowering woman who needs protection" (to use your phrase). Now, she can add to that the spectre that the adoption lobby is trying to coerce her into silence by launching frivolous legal proceedings. I actually think it is a human right and so does the UN, not that our federal government cares, but it is a case.
Perhaps it is a case. It’s just not a very good one. In fact, it’s a pretty bad one. And one that, incidentally, won’t be resolved for years unless a settlement is reached(the OHRC is notoriously slow and has a huge backlog). All of which poses a problem for your cause. If you had a slam dunk case, that would be one thing. As it is, it just looks like sour grapes. That’s the way it works here. Privacy commissioners are strong and getting stronger. They seem to have a huge influence on laws, yet they are not elected.
Lots of people who aren’t elected have a huge influence on laws–that’s not news. What was news was that a provincial government in Canada was prepared to open adoption records retroactively. It was prepared to do so without a disclosure veto (albeit, with a contact veto). It was resisting vocal opposition from an independent officer of the legislature to include a disclosure veto. All of which was newsworthy within the Canadian context. Maybe I’ve misunderstood your motives. If you were out to scuttle the bill in its entirety because of the existence of the contact veto (I think Marley has elsewhere suggested that was her ideal–I could be wrong on that) then you may yet be successful. Who knows? I’m finding the whole process pretty ugly and devoid of common sense on both sides. I guess that’s why I try to avoid partisan politics. Tom
Response:
Personally, I’d not have filed a suit. There are other, more fun ways, to to handle people like her and run her out of business personall.
See, THAT’S how you do it :-) And why in the world do the nanny socialists up there have a "privacy" commissioner to start with?
See my other response to you. Canada has become very Euro-like in their goverance. Nanny socialism is the modus operandi. steve
Response:
I don’t think what you’ve been following what’s going on there.
That’s never stopped me before :-) But I have been following here on alt.a In 30 years of this crap I’ve never seen so much hate spewed against adopted persons as came from her. If’ she’d talked that way about racial or religious minorities she’d have been booted out at once. According to her, adoptees are liars, stalkers, killers, and responsible for honor killings.
She’s a moron. No question there. The bill in question, Bill 183 is a government bill (brought by the government, not any adoptee rights group) which permitted records access to adoptees and bparents, which was a big mistake. Though I personally not only support records access for bparents, but for the general public (records should be open for anybody) this is a huge legislative mistake that has scuttled more than one access bill. BN opposed it due to it’s contact veto and $50,000 fine. Cavoukian has gutted the bill. Nobody wants it now.
That’s what I gathered, and why I say that (in Canada) one goes to one’s parliament and fights. She has also caused extreme harm to records access bill throughout North America, where adopted persons can now be seen as a "suspect class"–not in the legal sense, but the moral sense. Cavoukian has some serious problem with adoption in general and adopted persons in particular. Her long prepared statement is really odd. She hasn’t even read the complaint, yet she (or her flunky press person) issued a public rebuttal. That’s just not done. It’s usually "no comment." So what’s up with that? Maybe she has a little secret back in Armenia.
Like I said, filing a complaint against an HR Commissioner is a bad idea. OF COURSE she’s going to respond right away — no way she can let that sit. And she did, and she’ll circle her wagons. It’s been my observation that one has to be a certain type of person to want the job of "Human Rights Commissioner" in the first place — liberal weenie with a HUGE stick up one’s butt — so it’s no surprise to me that she responds with such vehemence. The point is, now the open records crowd is SOL in trying to get anything done in Ontario. You don’t get legislation passed by antagonizing people. That’s something BN & Co. should have learned by now. See: Alabama for the right way. steve
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi Marley: I don’t disagree with you in some respects. I can tell you I have serious concerns about Patriot Act, CAPPS II, etc. – they are still in my mind privacy violations, at least in their use of retrospective data – albeit with the blessing of statute. For me, I understand the benefits of having open records – indeed, even public records (in Ontario where I am – only a subset of authorized persons can request birth certificates). I am perfectly happy to have open records on a going forward basis. Where I run into a sticky patch is the subject of retroactivity. While I think it’s well settled (I’m not sure how much you know about the circumstances here) in Ontario there was no statutory basis for the promises of anonymity/confidentiality – it certainly seems that these were given (properly or improperly) to many birth parents by social workers and children’s aid workers.
Such promises are never binding. It would be like a worker at the assessors office promising you that your property tax will never increase. What these adoption professionals did was promise something they had no business promising. At heart, statutes are not promises, and statements that imply that a statute is a promise are misrepresentations. You and your colleagues raise some interesting questions (such as whether a birth parent has a right of anonymity from their own child – given the prescence of all (at least one birth parent, possibly two – and the child) at the birth). I’ll be honest and tell you I haven’t completed my thinking on this. It represents a conflict.
I don’t know on what basis birthparents may argue that they have a special right to anonymity. There is nothing inherent in adoption to render birthparenthood a special category or class, too many birthmothers are not anonymous, too many adoptions are successfully rendered without it. Anyone from a neighbor, a relative, a friend or acquaintance may know that Ms. X was pregnant, gave birth, and relinquished. Are all of these third parties bound under the alleged right of the birthmother to anonymity? What I’ve yet to see in the Ontario discussion is the fact that birth is both a private and a public act. While I’m very happy with open records on a going forward basis. I’m not ready to disregard the promises made to birth parents in the past. Quite honestly, I don’t think the public policy benefit to mandatory disclosure for the 3-4% that may file a disclosure veto outweights the public policy benefit of the state (or the state’s representative) keeping their promise.
Since the state couldn’t legitimately make the promise and its representatives could only do so by misrepresenting the statutory nature of adoption, then the state isn’t bound by the promise. Period. One thing that is troubling to me, at least in the Ontario context – is the language and imputation of motive that is being spread around by the activist community. While I can understand the emotion, I suppose – I don’t think its helpful to finding a solution. We may disagree on the interpretation, and even the paramouncy of rights – but we should be able to discuss it without name calling.
Couvakian has acted as an advocate for the most reactionary position against open records. Far from bringing reasoned judgement to the debate, she has used an extremely biased and hysterical rhetoric and graced it with the imprimatuer of her office. At least I know now how to oppose a bill I don’t like, I’ll anonymously threaten to kill myself and no legislator can resist my arguments. Sheesh. Ron – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – PHT Privacy does not exist in the United States where it is construed as keeping the state out of the personal business of it’s citizens. Take a look at Griswold. I know you’re from up north, but ever hear of the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, Real ID, TSA? The state can do anything it wants, can snoop on anybody it wants, doesn’t need search warrants any more in some cases, basically monitors what we do. Oh, and it can see what books you took out of the library, just in case Osama, who you’re hiding in your home, gets a hankering to read Barbara Cartland. Ideally, for me, the state shouldn’t even issue birth certificates, death certificaets, marriages licences, etc. But as long as they do, it’s in the pubic record, at least here. (A lot of people however do confuse secrecy for privacy, so you’re not alone). I’ve been in this racket for 30 years, Hiding somebody’s public birth record means that the over-arching nanny state protects the secrets of individuals. I don’t know how anybody can live in Socialist Canada–except to escape the National Socialist US. My birth father who is 77 and lives in Amherst keeps talking about moving to St. Catherines to get away from Bush. Marley
Response:
Hi Marley: I don’t disagree with you in some respects. I can tell you I have serious concerns about Patriot Act, CAPPS II, etc. – they are still in my mind privacy violations, at least in their use of retrospective data – albeit with the blessing of statute. For me, I understand the benefits of having open records – indeed, even public records (in Ontario where I am – only a subset of authorized persons can request birth certificates). I am perfectly happy to have open records on a going forward basis. Where I run into a sticky patch is the subject of retroactivity. While I think it’s well settled (I’m not sure how much you know about the circumstances here) in Ontario there was no statutory basis for the promises of anonymity/confidentiality – it certainly seems that these were given (properly or improperly) to many birth parents by social workers and children’s aid workers. You and your colleagues raise some interesting questions (such as whether a birth parent has a right of anonymity from their own child – given the prescence of all (at least one birth parent, possibly two – and the child) at the birth). I’ll be honest and tell you I haven’t completed my thinking on this. It represents a conflict. While I’m very happy with open records on a going forward basis. I’m not ready to disregard the promises made to birth parents in the past. Quite honestly, I don’t think the public policy benefit to mandatory disclosure for the 3-4% that may file a disclosure veto outweights the public policy benefit of the state (or the state’s representative) keeping their promise. One thing that is troubling to me, at least in the Ontario context – is the language and imputation of motive that is being spread around by the activist community. While I can understand the emotion, I suppose – I don’t think its helpful to finding a solution. We may disagree on the interpretation, and even the paramouncy of rights – but we should be able to discuss it without name calling. PHT – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Privacy does not exist in the United States where it is construed as keeping the state out of the personal business of it’s citizens. Take a look at Griswold. I know you’re from up north, but ever hear of the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, Real ID, TSA? The state can do anything it wants, can snoop on anybody it wants, doesn’t need search warrants any more in some cases, basically monitors what we do. Oh, and it can see what books you took out of the library, just in case Osama, who you’re hiding in your home, gets a hankering to read Barbara Cartland. Ideally, for me, the state shouldn’t even issue birth certificates, death certificaets, marriages licences, etc. But as long as they do, it’s in the pubic record, at least here. (A lot of people however do confuse secrecy for privacy, so you’re not alone). I’ve been in this racket for 30 years, Hiding somebody’s public birth record means that the over-arching nanny state protects the secrets of individuals. I don’t know how anybody can live in Socialist Canada–except to escape the National Socialist US. My birth father who is 77 and lives in Amherst keeps talking about moving to St. Catherines to get away from Bush. Marley
Response:
Adoptees should not have the right to know who their birth parents are. They should have the right to their medical history. No more! The rights of adoptees stop where the rights of birth parents begin. Jean-Pierre Gauthier
This issue is burdened with enough simple-minded slogans, Jean-Pierre. Care to define for us where these rights begin and end, and why, in your opinion? What exactly are the "rights of birth parents" in your view? The "rights of adoptees"? Does an adoptee have the right to know of the existence of a brother, sister, uncle, aunt, grandparent, or parent who did not consent to adoption or does not want his relationship concealed? How do you reconcile the rights of a birth parent who wants disclosure and one who does not? Will you gag the one to protect the other? J.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Unlike Dr. Kervokain’s description of adoptees as stalkers, liars and murderers. There’s names for people like her, but no doubt if I used them here somebody would forward them to her. This just isn’t true – if you read what’s in the public record she didn’t say this at all! The only name calling and bitterness I’ve seen is from those who don’t seem to like her. I don’t find that particularly helpful at all – it dimishes the open records argument. Personally, I’d not have filed a suit. There are other, more fun ways, to to handle people like her and run her out of business personall. And why in the world do the nanny socialists up there have a "privacy" commissioner to start with? There is no such thing as privacy. Only secrets. it’s unfortunate that your life experiences have jaded your view in this way. Privacy does exist – it’s important as a social good. (A lot of people however do confuse secrecy for privacy, so you’re not alone).
Care to explain the difference to those of us too dim to understand, Peter? A birth parent may reasonably argue that their decision to relinquish a child for adoption not be a matter of public record, available to all. But the birth of that child and the names of those responsible for that birth? Why, when these facts are available to all for all others? Does anyone really think that anyone other than someone with a direct interest in the matter is likely to search the public record to determine whether a person gave birth to a child not in evidence? The only reason for insisting on that, so far as I can see, is to conceal the fact and avoid embarrassment or shame, at the expense of severing the child’s links to not only the parent but every other person to whom that child may be biologically related. Rightly or not, these are considered important links in both our cultures and have been for centuries. It also seems to me that nothing but our thoughts is ever truly private. Once an event is known to a single other person, one cannot legitimately expect that fact to remain forever secret. If one later chooses to conceal the fact of a child’s birth and relinquishment from a spouse or after-born children, that is not a question of privacy but of secrecy, the conscious concealment of information which we know may affect the lives of not only ourselves but of others, if revealed. It is the potential impact on others that distingusihes the private from the secret, IMO. Government may legitimately protect privacy, matters of invidual conscience; it has no leigitimate role in the keeping of personal secrets. J.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sixteen adoptees have filed human rights complaints with the Ontario Human Rights Commission against Ann Cavoukian, Information and Privacy Commissioner in Ontario. They are alleging that the privacy commissioner intended to incite the infringement of the right to equal treatment because of family status – they are adopted. This is contrary to section 13 (1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code. Dumb, dumb, dumb. This is not the way you get open records. I don’t know the legal system in Canada, but I bet it’s highly unlikely a HR Commission will slap a government official who is, after all, exercising one of the duties of his office. And now you’ve pissed him off, and will undoubtedly pissed off a number of MPs. It’s a club, remember? Y’all have a hearing going on about how clubby the Liberals are, in fact, if you need a reminder. This is more of the liberal-weenie nanny-state approach to problem-solving, and it won’t work — not in Canada and not in the U.S. You want open records? Go into your parliament and fight for them. Indeed, I too was astounded when I read the original post. The complaint likely has little merit–and strategically, it makes adoptees look like a bunch of whiners who are trying to intimidate (through the use of bogus legal proceedings) those who oppose the Bill. To put it bluntly, it’s the equivalent of a child throwing a tantrum when he doesn’t get his way–which I wouldn’t have thought is exactly the image you want to convey when trying to open records retroactively. Tom Unlike Dr. Kervokain’s description of adoptees as stalkers, liars and murderers. There’s names for people like her, but no doubt if I used them here somebody would forward them to her. Personally, I’d not have filed a suit. There are other, more fun ways, to to handle people like her and run her out of business personall. And why in the world do the nanny socialists up there have a "privacy" commissioner to start with? There is no such thing as privacy. Only secrets. Marley
Here’s what’s been happening. Bill 183 was introduced on March 29th by the Liberal government. It was a far from perfect bill (contact veto & fine, against our advice & lobbying), but it was the first bill ever introduced by a government. The government has a majority so we knew that it would likely pass – or so we thought. THEN, to everyone’s surprise, the IPC began her vigorous, over-the-top lobbying campaign against the bill. See http://www.ipc.on.ca/scripts/index_.asp?action=31&P_ID=16185&N_ID=1&P…. She even got ten privacy commissioners across the country to support her publically. The media took up her cause and rode on the fear factor that she was her platform. People actually, it seemed, began to fear the bill. The fight took place in the media and we were only able to get very little coverage. We wrote op-eds, articles, and many letters. No one was listening to us, except the government which is very subject to public opinion. The public was fed and accepted the spectre of the fearful, cowering woman who needed "protection" and the IPC was seen as a hero for standing up for her. For months we have been trying to talk to the IPC but she refused to answer our mail or accept a meeting. She just kept spewing out her press releases, relentlessly. The bill passed second reading with only twelve of the opposition saying "nay". Twelve men. The bill went to committee and some of the dirty dozen filibustered until the bill was held over until the fall. Still very little press for us. 16 adopted people decided that the right to know was their human right, not just a privilege to be meted out to government. The HR case may not make hay in an HR tibunal, but it sure got the media to listen to us. I actually think it is a human right and so does the UN, not that our federal government cares, but it is a case. That’s the way it works here. Privacy commissioners are strong and getting stronger. They seem to have a huge influence on laws, yet they are not elected. What’s worse is that this will affect open records across the country, so the fight here is pivotal. There are three provinces with disclosure vetoes and the advocates in those places would love to get rid of them (like Western Australia did just this month). That’s the short story of it. Karen
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Unlike Dr. Kervokain’s description of adoptees as stalkers, liars and murderers. There’s names for people like her, but no doubt if I used them here somebody would forward them to her. This just isn’t true – if you read what’s in the public record she didn’t say this at all! The only name calling and bitterness I’ve seen is from those who don’t seem to like her. I don’t find that particularly helpful at all – it dimishes the open records argument. Personally, I’d not have filed a suit. There are other, more fun ways, to to handle people like her and run her out of business personall. And why in the world do the nanny socialists up there have a "privacy" commissioner to start with? There is no such thing as privacy. Only secrets. it’s unfortunate that your life experiences have jaded your view in this way. Privacy does exist – it’s important as a social good.
Privacy does not exist in the United States where it is construed as keeping the state out of the personal business of it’s citizens. Take a look at Griswold. I know you’re from up north, but ever hear of the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, Real ID, TSA? The state can do anything it wants, can snoop on anybody it wants, doesn’t need search warrants any more in some cases, basically monitors what we do. Oh, and it can see what books you took out of the library, just in case Osama, who you’re hiding in your home, gets a hankering to read Barbara Cartland. Ideally, for me, the state shouldn’t even issue birth certificates, death certificaets, marriages licences, etc. But as long as they do, it’s in the pubic record, at least here. (A lot of people however do confuse secrecy for privacy, so you’re not alone).
I’ve been in this racket for 30 years, Hiding somebody’s public birth record means that the over-arching nanny state protects the secrets of individuals. I don’t know how anybody can live in Socialist Canada–except to escape the National Socialist US. My birth father who is 77 and lives in Amherst keeps talking about moving to St. Catherines to get away from Bush. Marley
Response:
I understand the frustration in not being able to get media attention to counteract the IPC. I was disheartened by all the media reports slamming the bill and accepting the IPC’s criticism–especially when I find her analysis to be so utterly facile and, out and out, wrong. Moreover, I am aware of the old adage that any press is good press–it’s just that, in this case, the press that these complaints will generate is going to hurt your cause. Presumably, the goal is to try to sway public opinion in favour of opening records retroactively, without a disclosure (or contact?) veto. How are these complaints going to help do that? Hell, I support your cause, disagree vehemently with the IPC’s comments and, yet, I’m distinctly unimpressed with these complaints. I can only imagine the thoughts of someone who agrees with the IPC.
You may be right, but if we had done nothing at all, for *sure* we would be stuck with a disclosure veto. Finally the press is listening to us and hearing about valid reasons to not have a DV. Since we do think that it’s a human right that trumps the vested right of nparents (taken in the oppositional context of the legal system, what we’re stuck with), we think it’s a good idea to demonstrate this to the public. To the extent that this is about selling a message, think about what these complaints have done. The IPC is being lauded for standing up for the "fearful, cowering woman who needs protection" (to use your phrase). Now, she can add to that the spectre that the adoption lobby is trying to coerce her into silence by launching frivolous legal proceedings.
We are trying to make it clear to the press that it’s been US who has been silenced. They appear to be hearing this. I actually think it is a human right and so does the UN, not that our federal government cares, but it is a case. Perhaps it is a case. It’s just not a very good one. In fact, it’s a pretty bad one. And one that, incidentally, won’t be resolved for years unless a settlement is reached (the OHRC is notoriously slow and has a huge backlog). All of which poses a problem for your cause. If you had a slam dunk case, that would be one thing. As it is, it just looks like sour grapes.
It may take years, yes. But if we lose this bill it will be years and years before we get another one. If we lose the HR case, we will be no further behind. That’s the way it works here. Privacy commissioners are strong and getting stronger. They seem to have a huge influence on laws, yet they are not elected. Lots of people who aren’t elected have a huge influence on laws–that’s not news.
Yeah sure, but it is news for a privacy commissioner to take such an aggressive stance against an open records bill. What was news was that a provincial government in Canada was prepared to open adoption records retroactively. It was prepared to do so without a disclosure veto (albeit, with a contact veto). It was resisting vocal opposition from an independent officer of the legislature to include a disclosure veto. All of which was newsworthy within the Canadian context.
Resisting? Some don’t think so – not much anyway. We’ll find out in the fall just how strong their resistance has been. Maybe I’ve misunderstood your motives. If you were out to scuttle the bill in its entirety because of the existence of the contact veto (I think Marley has elsewhere suggested that was her ideal–I could be wrong on that) then you may yet be successful. Who knows?
No we aren’t out to scuttle the bill. We are out to get the best we can within our context. We are not like the US. Look at NL, AB and BC. Politicians here (except the government in ON) resist the experience of open records in other countries. I’m finding the whole process pretty ugly and devoid of common sense on both sides. I guess that’s why I try to avoid partisan politics.
Then what would have been a better strategy? The adoption community, at least almost all I know here, are thrilled that finally we are being heard. BTW this isn’t partisan. The NDP and the Liberals are united in this. Karen – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Tom
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sixteen adoptees have filed human rights complaints with the Ontario Human Rights Commission against Ann Cavoukian, Information and Privacy Commissioner in Ontario. They are alleging that the privacy commissioner intended to incite the infringement of the right to equal treatment because of family status – they are adopted. This is contrary to section 13 (1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code. Dumb, dumb, dumb. This is not the way you get open records. I don’t know the legal system in Canada, but I bet it’s highly unlikely a HR Commission will slap a government official who is, after all, exercising one of the duties of his office. And now you’ve pissed him off, and will undoubtedly pissed off a number of MPs. It’s a club, remember? Y’all have a hearing going on about how clubby the Liberals are, in fact, if you need a reminder. This is more of the liberal-weenie nanny-state approach to problem-solving, and it won’t work — not in Canada and not in the U.S. You want open records? Go into your parliament and fight for them. Indeed, I too was astounded when I read the original post. The complaint likely has little merit–and strategically, it makes adoptees look like a bunch of whiners who are trying to intimidate (through the use of bogus legal proceedings) those who oppose the Bill. To put it bluntly, it’s the equivalent of a child throwing a tantrum when he doesn’t get his way–which I wouldn’t have thought is exactly the image you want to convey when trying to open records retroactively. Tom
Unlike Dr. Kervokain’s description of adoptees as stalkers, liars and murderers. There’s names for people like her, but no doubt if I used them here somebody would forward them to her. Personally, I’d not have filed a suit. There are other, more fun ways, to to handle people like her and run her out of business personall. And why in the world do the nanny socialists up there have a "privacy" commissioner to start with? There is no such thing as privacy. Only secrets. Marley
Response:
She hasn’t even read the complaint, yet she (or her flunky press person) issued a public rebuttal. That’s just not done. It’s usually "no comment." So what’s up with that? Maybe she has a little secret back in Armenia.
You had people from COAR issuing press releases already – perhaps that’s why she responded. I don’t understand the Armenia comment – I doubt she’s even been there. PHT
Response:
Unlike Dr. Kervokain’s description of adoptees as stalkers, liars and murderers. There’s names for people like her, but no doubt if I used them here somebody would forward them to her.
This just isn’t true – if you read what’s in the public record she didn’t say this at all! The only name calling and bitterness I’ve seen is from those who don’t seem to like her. I don’t find that particularly helpful at all – it dimishes the open records argument. Personally, I’d not have filed a suit. There are other, more fun ways, to to handle people like her and run her out of business personall. And why in the world do the nanny socialists up there have a "privacy" commissioner to start with? There is no such thing as privacy. Only secrets.
it’s unfortunate that your life experiences have jaded your view in this way. Privacy does exist – it’s important as a social good. (A lot of people however do confuse secrecy for privacy, so you’re not alone).
Response:
snip Indeed, I too was astounded when I read the original post. The complaint likely has little merit–and strategically, it makes adoptees look like a bunch of whiners who are trying to intimidate (through the use of bogus legal proceedings) those who oppose the Bill. To put it bluntly, it’s the equivalent of a child throwing a tantrum when he doesn’t get his way–which I wouldn’t have thought is exactly the image you want to convey when trying to open records retroactively. Tom Unlike Dr. Kervokain’s description of adoptees as stalkers, liars and murderers. There’s names for people like her, but no doubt if I used them here somebody would forward them to her.
She’s called adoptees stalkers, liars and murderers? Good God, I hadn’t read that. However, I do agree that she’s been over the top. Moreover, I’ve found her analysis of the issues to be deeply flawed and oddly one-sided. Sometimes, when I read some of her statements, I’m floored that (a) anyone could say what she’s been saying with a straight face, and (b) anyone would believe what she’s saying. But, be that as it may, she has been extremely effective in persuading people that her criticism of the Bill is legitimate. In other words, she’s winning the communications war. Frankly, bringing bogus legal proceedings against her just strengthens her position. Personally, I’d not have filed a suit. There are other, more fun ways, to to handle people like her and run her out of business personall. And why in the world do the nanny socialists up there have a "privacy" commissioner to start with? There is no such thing as privacy. Only secrets.
Her role is actually the _Information and_ Privacy Commissioner. Originally, these offices were created to deal with access to information requests to governments. The idea, generally speaking, is that there should be checks and balances to access to information–hence, the concept of an Information and Privacy Commissioner. That’s it in a nutshell. However, privacy is the current buzzword up here. Frankly, it’s all the rage in legal circles. I had expected a more persuasive argument from her; but, I’m not surprised that the Privacy Commissioner is the one holding up the legislation. Tom
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sixteen adoptees have filed human rights complaints with the Ontario Human Rights Commission against Ann Cavoukian, Information and Privacy Commissioner in Ontario. They are alleging that the privacy commissioner intended to incite the infringement of the right to equal treatment because of family status – they are adopted. This is contrary to section 13 (1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code. Dumb, dumb, dumb. This is not the way you get open records. I don’t know the legal system in Canada, but I bet it’s highly unlikely a HR Commission will slap a government official who is, after all, exercising one of the duties of his office. And now you’ve pissed him off, and will undoubtedly pissed off a number of MPs. It’s a club, remember? Y’all have a hearing going on about how clubby the Liberals are, in fact, if you need a reminder. This is more of the liberal-weenie nanny-state approach to problem-solving, and it won’t work — not in Canada and not in the U.S. You want open records? Go into your parliament and fight for them. steve
I don’t think what you’ve been following what’s going on there. In 30 years of this crap I’ve never seen so much hate spewed against adopted persons as came from her. If’ she’d talked that way about racial or religious minorities she’d have been booted out at once. According to her, adoptees are liars, stalkers, killers, and responsible for honor killings. The bill in question, Bill 183 is a government bill (brought by the government, not any adoptee rights group) which permitted records access to adoptees and bparents, which was a big mistake. Though I personally not only support records access for bparents, but for the general public (records should be open for anybody) this is a huge legislative mistake that has scuttled more than one access bill. BN opposed it due to it’s contact veto and $50,000 fine. Cavoukian has gutted the bill. Nobody wants it now. She has also caused extreme harm to records access bill throughout North America, where adopted persons can now be seen as a "suspect class"–not in the legal sense, but the moral sense. Cavoukian has some serious problem with adoption in general and adopted persons in particular. Her long prepared statement is really odd. She hasn’t even read the complaint, yet she (or her flunky press person) issued a public rebuttal. That’s just not done. It’s usually "no comment." So what’s up with that? Maybe she has a little secret back in Armenia. Marley
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sixteen adoptees have filed human rights complaints with the Ontario Human Rights Commission against Ann Cavoukian, Information and Privacy Commissioner in Ontario. They are alleging that the privacy commissioner intended to incite the infringement of the right to equal treatment because of family status – they are adopted. This is contrary to section 13 (1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code. Dumb, dumb, dumb. This is not the way you get open records. I don’t know the legal system in Canada, but I bet it’s highly unlikely a HR Commission will slap a government official who is, after all, exercising one of the duties of his office. And now you’ve pissed him off, and will undoubtedly pissed off a number of MPs. It’s a club, remember? Y’all have a hearing going on about how clubby the Liberals are, in fact, if you need a reminder. This is more of the liberal-weenie nanny-state approach to problem-solving, and it won’t work — not in Canada and not in the U.S. You want open records? Go into your parliament and fight for them.
Indeed, I too was astounded when I read the original post. The complaint likely has little merit–and strategically, it makes adoptees look like a bunch of whiners who are trying to intimidate (through the use of bogus legal proceedings) those who oppose the Bill. To put it bluntly, it’s the equivalent of a child throwing a tantrum when he doesn’t get his way–which I wouldn’t have thought is exactly the image you want to convey when trying to open records retroactively. Tom
Response:
Adoptees should not have the right to know who their birth parents are. They should have the right to their medical history. No more! The rights of adoptees stop where the rights of birth parents begin. Jean-Pierre Gauthier
Are you just being sarcastic? Or are you phenomenally ignorant of the issues involved? Or are you perhaps just a bit of a troll? Robin Harritt
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Groundless complaint has no foundation in fact or in law TORONTO, June 23 / The following statement was issued today by Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner Ann Cavoukian, in response to media calls: I have learned through two media calls that a number of adoptees have filed a complaint against me with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, claiming that I have breached a provision of Ontario’s Human Rights Code (Code). I have not seen this complaint, nor have I received any official notification of its existence, either from the complainants or from the Human Rights Commission.
She hasn’t been officially notified, yet she’s already responding to media reports? Strange. Rh. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I regret to say that I see the filing of this complaint as an effort to silence my voice and discourage me from performing my duties to the public and the Ontario Legislature. This kind of complaint represents a grave threat to the public’s right to hear and participate in a vigorous public debate. Further it could have a chilling effect on the free speech of all Ontarians. Anyone advancing a dissenting view could be vulnerable to this kind of legal proceeding. Moreover, this complaint has no foundation whatsoever in fact or in law. From what a reporter has passed on to me, I understand that these individuals allege that my public statements on Bill 183, the Adoption Information Disclosure Act, including my statements in legislative committee hearings and on my office website, are "intended to incite the infringement of the right to equal treatment without discrimination on the basis of family or marital status." To the contrary, my public statements on the important issues raised by Bill 183 are designed to ensure that the legislation ultimately enacted strikes an appropriate balance between the rights of all concerned, including the rights of individuals to learn the identities of their birth parents or adopted children and the rights of both groups to protect their privacy against unwanted disclosure of their identities. I have a solemn statutory duty as the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario and an Officer of the Legislature to provide public comment on the privacy protection implications of proposed legislative schemes or government programs. This is enshrined in section 59(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The provision in the Code which I have allegedly breached expressly states that it does not interfere with anyone’s freedom of expression of opinion. In advising the Legislature and the public, I am expressing my opinion as an Officer of the Legislature, appointed for this very purpose. This is my job. To say that I could be in breach of the Human Rights Code for doing what the legislation requires me to do simply makes no sense. In legal terms, it would be considered patently unreasonable. In my role as Commissioner, I provide advice to the Legislature on the nature of the legislation it should enact. If the Commissioner can be silenced for advising the Legislature on proposed legislation through such complaints, what about an MPP or the leader of the opposition? Not only is the position I have taken not discriminatory in any way, it is quite the opposite. It is designed to ensure that the Legislature strikes an effective balance and reflects the rights and interests of all concerned. The legislation reflected in Bill 183 – in whatever final form it takes – will of course be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If the legislation faces a Charter challenge, the courts will necessary require that competing rights be considered and balanced. Today, my goal is to ensure that the voices of all parties are heard, and that privacy rights are not trampled upon as we move to openness. To silence the voices of the minority would indeed be a travesty – I will not ignore them, nor should the public or the Legislature. For further information: Media Contact: Bob Spence, Communications
Response:
Adoptees should not have the right to know who their birth parents are. They should have the right to their medical history. No more! The rights of adoptees stop where the rights of birth parents begin.
Nice. Obviously, you’re not an adoptee. — —— Robyn Resident Witchypoo #1557 Science doesn’t burn people at the stake for disagreeing – Vic Sagerquist
Response:
Adoptees should not have the right to know who their birth parents are. They should have the right to their medical history. No more! The rights of adoptees stop where the rights of birth parents begin. Jean-Pierre Gauthier
Response:
Sixteen adoptees have filed human rights complaints with the Ontario Human Rights Commission against Ann Cavoukian, Information and Privacy Commissioner in Ontario. They are alleging that the privacy commissioner intended to incite the infringement of the right to equal treatment because of family status – they are adopted. This is contrary to section 13 (1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code.
Dumb, dumb, dumb. This is not the way you get open records. I don’t know the legal system in Canada, but I bet it’s highly unlikely a HR Commission will slap a government official who is, after all, exercising one of the duties of his office. And now you’ve pissed him off, and will undoubtedly pissed off a number of MPs. It’s a club, remember? Y’all have a hearing going on about how clubby the Liberals are, in fact, if you need a reminder. This is more of the liberal-weenie nanny-state approach to problem-solving, and it won’t work — not in Canada and not in the U.S. You want open records? Go into your parliament and fight for them. steve
Response:
Groundless complaint has no foundation in fact or in law TORONTO, June 23 / The following statement was issued today by Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner Ann Cavoukian, in response to media calls: I have learned through two media calls that a number of adoptees have filed a complaint against me with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, claiming that I have breached a provision of Ontario’s Human Rights Code (Code). I have not seen this complaint, nor have I received any official notification of its existence, either from the complainants or from the Human Rights Commission. I regret to say that I see the filing of this complaint as an effort to silence my voice and discourage me from performing my duties to the public and the Ontario Legislature. This kind of complaint represents a grave threat to the public’s right to hear and participate in a vigorous public debate. Further it could have a chilling effect on the free speech of all Ontarians. Anyone advancing a dissenting view could be vulnerable to this kind of legal proceeding. Moreover, this complaint has no foundation whatsoever in fact or in law. From what a reporter has passed on to me, I understand that these individuals allege that my public statements on Bill 183, the Adoption Information Disclosure Act, including my statements in legislative committee hearings and on my office website, are "intended to incite the infringement of the right to equal treatment without discrimination on the basis of family or marital status." To the contrary, my public statements on the important issues raised by Bill 183 are designed to ensure that the legislation ultimately enacted strikes an appropriate balance between the rights of all concerned, including the rights of individuals to learn the identities of their birth parents or adopted children and the rights of both groups to protect their privacy against unwanted disclosure of their identities. I have a solemn statutory duty as the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario and an Officer of the Legislature to provide public comment on the privacy protection implications of proposed legislative schemes or government programs. This is enshrined in section 59(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The provision in the Code which I have allegedly breached expressly states that it does not interfere with anyone’s freedom of expression of opinion. In advising the Legislature and the public, I am expressing my opinion as an Officer of the Legislature, appointed for this very purpose. This is my job. To say that I could be in breach of the Human Rights Code for doing what the legislation requires me to do simply makes no sense. In legal terms, it would be considered patently unreasonable. In my role as Commissioner, I provide advice to the Legislature on the nature of the legislation it should enact. If the Commissioner can be silenced for advising the Legislature on proposed legislation through such complaints, what about an MPP or the leader of the opposition? Not only is the position I have taken not discriminatory in any way, it is quite the opposite. It is designed to ensure that the Legislature strikes an effective balance and reflects the rights and interests of all concerned. The legislation reflected in Bill 183 – in whatever final form it takes – will of course be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If the legislation faces a Charter challenge, the courts will necessary require that competing rights be considered and balanced. Today, my goal is to ensure that the voices of all parties are heard, and that privacy rights are not trampled upon as we move to openness. To silence the voices of the minority would indeed be a travesty – I will not ignore them, nor should the public or the Legislature. For further information: Media Contact: Bob Spence, Communications
Response:
Coalition for Open Adoption Records Wednesday, June 22, 2005 Adoptees File Human Rights Complaints against the Ontario Privacy Commissioner Sixteen adoptees have filed human rights complaints with the Ontario Human Rights Commission against Ann Cavoukian, Information and Privacy Commissioner in Ontario. They are alleging that the privacy commissioner intended to incite the infringement of the right to equal treatment because of family status – they are adopted. This is contrary to section 13 (1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code. The complaints are a response to the vigorous campaign the privacy commissioner has waged in the media against Bill 183, the Adoption Disclosure Act, that the Liberal government introduced in the Ontario legislature on March 29, 2005. Adopted people only want basic information about themselves. Adult adopted people, unlike all other Ontarians, are currently unable to have access to their original birth certificates. A birth certificate contains essential knowledge about one’s identity:
If you want to stop abandonments you need to find out ‘why’ it is occurring and rectify ‘the cause’ of the problem. Simply making a tragedy legal resolves nothing.