Saturday, June 11, 2005

Craziness in the Ontario Media

Controversy surrounding Ontario's Bill 183, which includes open records provisions for both adoptees and birthparents, has led to publication of some of the craziest Op/Ed pieces on our issue that I have ever witnessed. And here I thought Canada viewed itself as more progressive-minded on social issues than the United States. Well not when it comes to adoptees and their records! On Friday, June 10th, Adam Radwanski of The National Post published an editorial ,which unfortunately is available for subscribers only. Heck, it might be worth subscribing just to see what other scary anti-adoptee nonsense Adam and his cohorts concoct in the future.

Just a few lines of what Adam said:

"Prompted by her latest round of questioning, Mr. McGuinty announced in November that his government would move forward with a new adoption disclosure law. And this March, it did just that -- introducing legislation to help adult children gain access to information about their birth parents, and vice versa."

(Um, "adult children"?????)

"There's no question that the initiative is well-intentioned, or that some of its end results -- notably increased access to family medical history -- would do considerable good. But those positives are overshadowed by the fact that, if implemented in its present form, the legislation threatens to shake Ontarians' trust in their province's government and system of law, spawn an array of personal heartbreaks and tragedies, and push prospective mothers toward ending their pregnancies rather than putting their children up for adoption."

(Yo Adam!! Adoptees and birthparents already find each other in Ontario, ALL THE TIME!!! Ain't nothing new, and it ain't dependent on this legislation! And, how odd that women aren't storming into the abortion clinics in Oregon, Alabama, and New Hampshire, which have all opened records unconditionally to adult adoptees since 1998.)

and..."True, birth control and legalized abortion have already drastically reduced the number of Canadian-born children put up for adoption. But for, say, a pregnant 18-year-old otherwise inclined to carry her child to term and let someone else raise it, how much more tempting will it be to terminate the pregnancy if she's now faced with the possibility of her life being torn apart when she's 36 and the kid turns up on her doorstep?"

(Adam... we're already ON the doorsteps... terrorizing birth mothers and chuckling while we watch the 18 year-old pregnant teens next door run screaming for the abortion clinics once they realize that the horror being visited on their neighbor could happen to them as well!)

For the record, Bastard Nation does not support Bill 183, because it contains an egregious provision that would allow birthparents to put adoptees under legal restraint, punishable by a huge fine ($50,000) if violated. That hardly smells like adoptee rights to us. Nevertheless, we are still outraged by the anti-adoptee nonsense being spewed forth by the media in Ontario and are concerned about its impact for future efforts at good reform.

5 comments:

Cathy said...

I wrote to the National Post about this one - and they actually printed my letter in rebuttal!

They also let me rebut what Patton had to say (he is the one that has hired a lawyer for privacy rights!)

I doubt if he and Clayton Ruby will win as another adoptee, Donna Marchand (sp?) won her case to get her information. Her case has set a precedent.

The judge ruled that privacy is not an absolute right and that the right to information over-rides it.

The right to privacy should also be over-ride for the sake of mental health.

I do not see how Patton and lawyer are going to win after this one!!

Denbigh Patton said...

I am not clear how you can label me "anti-adoptee". I am an adoptee and until now, I had some influence over the disclosure of my pre-adoption birth record. Bill 183 removes that influence, and I am fighting that. I have no opinion about adoptees who want to gain information about their birth, about their medical information, or indeed any other objective an adoptee may have. But I am an adoptee too and 183 dis-empowers me in a way I care about. I understand perfectly that many adoptees want to seek info and I respect that fully. Surely it's not too much to ask that my different wish, for myself only, be respected. I only want one thing: an adoptee who wants (temporarily, until he decides otherwise) to keep his birth-name sealed, should have the power to maintain that seal. I have NEVER said that I advocated similar power for birth-parents or others. I suspect, though, that the only way to get what I want is to defeat the entire bill. The government refused to entertain compromise proposals I would have found satisfactory. What else can I do?

I have been perfectly consistent from the outset: I am in favour of empowering adoptees, whether they want privacy, secrecy, or info. Surely my fellow bastards can join me on that?

Anonymous said...

What else can you do? How about packing up your paranoid ass and moving to South America?

Anonymous said...

oh, that's very mature of you anon. Responses like that do nothing to further your cause.

Anonymous said...

just came across this blog and read cath's comments. clayton ruby and the applicants won! put that in your pipe and smoke it.