Unacceptable in a Civilized Society!

Montreal police bust child prostitution ring -- Girls as young as 12: Six people charged for targeting naive runaways

[. . . . The ] gang targeted runaway teenagers who were vulnerable, naive and impressionable.

[. . . . ] "They seduce young girls who have been conditioned by society that beauty is everything," he said. "The pimps profess their love for the girls and they end up doing anything for them."

Search: "The girl's pimp had his name tattooed on"

Combine this with our government's dereliction of a duty to support the best upbringing for children, which includes optimally, two opposite sex parents supported by society's legal structures, that is, married -- and parenting, one parent at home actually looking after the children while the other works. How far would a child get in running away if a parent were there watching, involved, aware, and ready to pounce to prevent greater harm to the child?

Instead, our government has been supporting and encouraging:

* the family where two parents are working -- They then pay higher taxes which government decides how to use -- hence government is growing ever larger and looming ever larger in everyone's lives -- and hence two incomes are becoming essential. Then, the children are raised by others or on their own too much. Children need parental supervision and training.

* the emphasis on government--even corrupt government--as a better provider than the individual and the family making personal decisions and plans on their own and responsible for the results

* the failure to curb that which denigrates the family:

* what appears to me to be pornographic material in the media, e.g. on television -- Children are drawn to this because it is there -- instead of not there at all. It is "sort of -- kind of" forbidden territory they are naturally curious about and they don't need the media to add to decent parents' woes.

* a strong sex-offender and pimp registry to protect children by allowing families to learn of predators in their area and to act on this

* legislation which would support parents or those acting in loco parentis (where parents don't / won't act) to take children/teens off the streets and off drugs -- e.g. glue sniffing children from Labrador returned to the same situation, uncured of their habit -- e.g. a drug or alcohol addicted mother allowed to continue to reproduce -- In this case, I think a society has a right to see that she does not produce more drug or alcohol damaged children and a right to act for the child already produced.

* advertising which objectifies women and emphasizes beauty and independence from men instead of the complementarity of the relationship between women/mothers and men/fathers -- When did you last see a strong father portrayed? Enlist the aid of the advertising council. My favourite solution would be for parents to note the brand and product and refuse to buy it.

* advertising which overwhelmingly shows men as stupid dupes and women as intelligent or dominant -- the lesson? Who needs fathers, strong fathers or traditional marriage?

* promoting games, fun, winning, chance, lotteries, something for nothing -- instead of study, work, responsibility, et cetera -- a host of homely, but essential virtues for individual, family and societal health -- along with play outdoors, community-centred inexpensive games and exercise which include all, not just the promising athletes

* allowing the taxpayer funded CBC to join in talking about and treating as "news", items about celebrities or those related to someone who once had power, as though to imply that these are worth the amount of attention given. This tells children that the worst examples are news worthy -- Michael Jackson springs to mind. Whether guilty or not, he's not exactly a role model for children and why the emphasis in all of our mainstream media? Why is our government not promoting the best of people as examples? They use the MSM for their own purposes by virtue of their clout so, for the good of the family, this is an area in which to exercise power for good.

* the extreme effort to equate SSM with traditional marriage -- marriage which has been the legal and societal framework that, according to research, best supports and protects children -- Add SSM to the government's decision to make divorce easier and to recognize common law "marriages" as having legitimacy after--is it a year?--and we are witnessing the government's work in destroying the framework which has supported children over centuries.

* the laxity in according the two parent, male-female family all the support necessary to maximize this best setting if our children are to be protected from predators

* the funding of and according status to feminists / feminist groups while refusing funding and status to groups more traditional in nature, groups that argue against what they see happening to the family -- e. g. Real Women (I suspect, but do not know, whether that lack of funding covers United Mothers, anything connected to religion, that kind of thing.)

* the refusal to encourage open discussion of practices such as partial birth abortion,which might lead to recognition of the foetus as having rights, along with pushing abortion as a right to choose (to kill an unwanted foetus) -- What does this do to the idea of sacrificing oneself for the good of anything else?

* the lack of pressure to ensure predators be punished severely -- while bending over backwards to protect the 'rights' of criminals, especially for the criminals who prey on children


There are probably many more ideas I cannot think of at present but the upshot may be, I fear, the breakdown of the family and our society if this does not change.

Related: an article on crystal methamphetamines from the National Post, June 14, 05, A17, by Todd Klinck: The party drug that kills

---