A Worker’s Resistance to the Capitalist Government or State and its Representatives, Part Three

This is a continuation of a previous post that illustrates how politically biased the capitalist government or state and its representatives (such as social-democratic social workers) are when it comes to determining real situations–especially when a person self-declares as a Marxist.

The following may not seem appropriate since it is supposed to be a political blog. However, the personal is sometimes political, and the political is sometimes personal. Political lessons can sometimes, therefore, be drawn from personal experiences. It will also serve as an antidote against the illusions of the social-democratic left, who isolate the various forms of injustices and treat them as independent of each other–a typical methodological trick by the social-democratic left.

Indeed, when I was still a teacher at a school, one union rep implied that certain experiences that I outlined had more to do with purely domestic conflicts. Such an isolation of family relations forms part of the typical methodology of social democracy.

For that reason, I am also including a published essay on Dewey’s conception of language and the human life process on my blog, in the section Publications and Writings. It undoubtedly is limited in many ways and may indeed contain errors, but the idea that the human life process as integrating many elements and hence as comprehensive is relevant for understanding the world.

I will copy, little by little, be, a complaint that I filed against a social worker, Mr. S.W., of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. There was a court-ordered assessment to be performed concerning the relationship between the parents and Francesca Alexandra Harris, their daughter, in the summer of 1998.

I am not including the name of the social worker since it is possible that he would try to take me to court; despite the documentation that I possess against a report he wrote, it is quite possible that a judge would side with him due to joint political bigotry. I am replacing his name with Mr. S.W. (appropriate given the social-reformist nature of most social workers as well as how the Manitoba Institute of Registered Social Workers handled the complaint). The complaint has to do with my daughter, Francesca Alexandra Romani (ne Harris).

The political hostility expressed in the assessment is similar to what I have experienced by many social-democratic leftists here in Toronto. This did surprise me at the time, but it no longer does. I have been called a “condescending prick” (by Wayne Dealy, union rep for local 3902 of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE)–one of the largest unions in Canada. I have been called delusional on Facebook by one of the Facebook friends of another local union rep, Tina Faibish (president of local 552 of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU). I was also called insane by Errol Young (a member of the anti-poverty organization Jane and Finch Association Against Poverty) (JFAAP). I have also experienced a condescending attitude towards my criticisms among the left here.

For those who do attempt to engage in criticism of the power of employers as a class, you can expect such hostility. That hostility may even extend to your family, even if it is indirect and subtle.

Just a recap of part of the last post: Mr. S.W., in a court-ordered assessment, claimed that my claim that the mother of my daughter (Francesca Alexandra Romani, ne Harris) was using a belt and a wooden stick to physically abuse her, was “somewhat ridiculous.” ((I use the initials “S.W.” to represent the social worker who wrote the assessment). Mr. S.W. was much less concerned about determining the truth of this claim (which is in fact true) than with my so-called indoctrination of my daughter in my “Marxist ideology.” Since the civil trial in April 1999, my daughter complained of the following (as of February 18, 2000): 1. Her mother was using a wooden stick on her buttocks; 2. Her mother used a belt to spank her on the same area; 3. Her mother grabbed Francesca and forced her into the apartment building; 4. Her mother had grabbed Francesca’s throat in the elevator and warned her not to tell me that her mother had hit her; 5. Her mother shoved Francesca to the floor on two separate occasions; 6. Her mother hit Francesca on the head with a book; 7. Her mother pulled Francesca’s hair; 8. Her mother scratched Francesca with a comb.

This contrasts with Mr. S.W.’s allegation, as noted in the last post, that ” Mr. Harris’ explanation for contacting the Agency [Winnipeg Child and Family Services] was somewhat ridiculous. He said that the child had made some vague indications that she may have been spanked.”

Mr. S.W. was much less concerned about the truthfulness of Mr. Harris’ claim (which is true) than with Mr. Harris’ Marxists ideas.

Further evidence of Mr. S.W.’s political bias is his lying to the court about what occurred at our first meeting. Let us listen to Mr. S.W.’s account first in the court-ordered assessment, as I detailed it in my official complaint against Mr. S.W. on February 18, 2000, to the Manitoba Institute of Registered Social Workers:

8. Mr. Harris’ “confrontational” style

This needs to be looked at more closely. On page 3, Mr. S.W. notes that on July 29, 1998, he had a telephone contact with Mr. Harris. The purpose was to set up a date for the interview as well as the home visit with Francesca. On the same page, Mr. S.W. includes Mr. Harris’ letter to Mr. S.W., dated August 4, 1998.

According to Mr. S.W.,

“Mr. Harris’ maladaptive strategies in relating to others has probably caused him a great deal of stress and anxiety over the years. This writer, for example, encountered difficulty in dealing with Mr. Harris even before the first meeting with him. In a phone conversation with Mr. Harris, this writer had suggested that his daughter should be instructed in the use of English as well as other languages [Mr. Harris’ emphasis.] Mr. Harris seemed draw [sic] conclusions adverse conclusions from this conversation, almost as if he were looking for an argument and confrontation where no dispute existed [Mr. Harris’ emphasis]. Because of the fact that there was no dispute in the first place, this writer was able to dispose of Mr. Harris’ misunderstandings in a few minutes. This letter, however, is likely a good indication as to how Mr. Harris creates difficulties for himself in relating to people in general” (page 21 of the court-ordered assessment by Mr. S.W.)

Mr. S.W. presents himself as pure rationality, able to bring Mr. Harris, the “insecure” individual, to reason. It is indeed unfortunate for Mr. S.W. that Mr. Harris was keeping a journal at the time (document 29). Since it is in French, the translation of the relevant passage reads:

“Wednesday, July 29, 1998: I went to meet Lloyd [Lloyd Lawrence, my best friend in Winnipeg at the time] after having gone to Manitoba Housing in order to pay the $63 for rent. We talked too long.

When I came back, there was a message on the answering machine by Mr. S.W.; he could not meet Francesca and me on August 1 but on August 8. I telephoned him. He told me that he had already met Francesca twice. I indicated to him that there would be a problem with that: it would be necessary to wait 10 days–that it was a farce. He asked me what was. I related to him how the law had evicted me on the basis of Veronica’s lie [my wife at the time]. He told me that it was the same thing with zero tolerance (equation, identity–I do not agree). I also told him that I found it offensive that he told me that speaking English was logical in a predominately English society (implying that speaking Spanish to her was illogical) [I had asked him which language he would prefer that I use when observing Francesca and me since I generally spoke Spanish to Francesca.] He replied that Spanish was not a widespread language in Canada and that Francesca could have problems in school. I replied that the knowledge of Spanish could help my daughter if she attended a French-immersion school (with the imperfect and the past). He said that he was not going to debate the issue with me.”

Of course, Mr. Harris may be fabricating this. He might have written it only today. The committee will have to decide this as well as whether Mr. S.W. “had no qualms in misleading government agencies.” The dispute centered on why Mr. S.W. would assert that speaking Spanish to Francesca would harm her. Mr. Harris categorically denies that Mr. S.W. made any reference to “other languages.” Mr. S.W., even before he interviewed Mr. Harris, was already questioning Mr. Harris’ intentions and authority as a parent and as a teacher.

Mr. Harris had taught Spanish and French (in French immersion) at the high-school level. He has taken methodology courses in the teaching of French in French immersion and the teaching of French as a second language. He has a major in French and a minor in Spanish. He attended College universitaire de Saint-Boniface to obtain his bachelor of education–despite being an anglophone–for two years. Mr. Harris is much better qualified than Mr. S.W. in the teaching of a second language.

It is Mr. S.W. who created the dispute. To cover up his own bigotry, he then presents Mr. Harris as “confrontational.” Mr. Harris finds this constant whitewash by Mr. S.W. as indicative of an “insecure” intellectual who consciously set out to ridicule Mr. Harris–this time, to present himself as Monsieur Le Rationnel and Mr. Harris as Monsieur L’Irrationnel.

If the letter which Mr. Harris wrote to Mr. S.W. is taken in the context of the translation of Mr. Harris’ journal, then it was Mr. S.W. who was confrontational, and Mr. Harris reacted to that. [The letter I wrote to Mr. S.W. referred to his biased reference to how speaking only Spanish would harm Francesca. I contacted some Aboriginal organizations, which affirmed that they considered it appropriate to teach Aboriginal languages to Aboriginal children. I also referred to the fact that Canada is officially a bilingual country and not limited to the English language.]

Also, given Ms. Harris’ constant denial of Mr. Harris’s right of telephone access–conveniently omitted by Mr. S.W.–Mr. Harris’ reaction to Mr. S.W.’s attack on which language he spoke to his daughter is perfectly natural. [I had the legal right to telephone Francesca every Wednesday, and every Wednesday Francesca’s mother would deny that right–which had been going on for over two months.] Is it normal practice in social work to attack a non-custodial parent by telephone during an assessment?

Note that Mr. S.W., when he had the phone conversation with Mr. Harris, had already spoken to Ms. Harris twice beforehand. Ms. Harris’ lies had obviously already influenced the political bigot.

‘Another curious thing concerning the issue of languages needs to be raised. Mr. Harris indicated that he wanted his daughter to attend French-immersion school. After the last interview with Mr. S.W., Mr. S.W. indicated that he would recommend that as well. Nowhere is such a recommendation to be found in the assessment. An interesting “omission” once again. (Incidentally, Mr. Harris, despite all the lies and distortions, etc. of Ms. Harris, after the trial, attempted to be friendly to her. She indicated that she wanted Francesca to attend French immersion–without Mr. Harris mentioning anything to her. Mr. Harris suspects that Mr. S.W. talked to his client Ms. Harris concerning the issue. In fact, Francesca was registered in Sacre Coeur No 2 for this September. When Ms. Harris started to lie to Mr. Harris again, Mr. Harris broke relations again (he has no intention of basing his life on constant lies–that is no basis for a life). Ms. Harris subsequently withdrew Francesca from Sacre Coeur No. 2 and enrolled her in Sister MacNamara School–an English-speaking school. This is the power that Mr. S.W. has bestowed on his client, Ms. Harris

What lessons can be learned from the above?

Representatives of “authority” will expect proper deference towards them. If you do not display proper deference, you will suffer negative consequences.
If you challenge their authority, they will lie.
The truth for such representatives does not matter; they conceive of themselves as the holders of truth–their truth. That means that unless you have substantial proof to the contrary, they will concoct a story that will present them in a positive light and you in a negative light.
The above probably applies in general and is not specific to Marxists. If you self-identify as a Marxist, you can expect all the above–but in an intensified manner.

Are there other lessons to be learned? Probably, if you can think of other lessons, feel free to comment on the post, or provide your an account of your own experiences.

Working for Employers May Be Dangerous to Your Health, Part Five

In Dwyer’s book, Life and Death at Work: Industrial Accidents as a Case of Socially Produced Error, in a passage quoted below, he argues that so-called accidents at work are socially caused but, historically, have been defined otherwise–as technical problems, for example, or as a result of individual mistakes.

In the passage below, he notes that health and safety issues should be identified and resolved according to need, with the priority being on the most destructive threats to health and safety. However due to the drive towards maximum profit at the expense of workers as mere things to be used to that end (see The Money Circuit of Capital), such a priority is often shelved in favour of solutions that agree with the interests of employers and those in political power.

From Tom Dwyer, Life and Death at Work: Industrial Accidents as a Case of Socially Produced Error. New York: Springer Science+Business Media, pages. 26-27:

Accident Prevention as Political Rationality

One might suppose that problems should be attacked according to
need: accidents provoked by different technically defined causes kill and
injure at dissimilar rates, and from a socially rational viewpoint the most
destructive of these should be the first to be treated. It appears, how ever, that accidents were singled out for treatment on the basis of rational
criteria developed within the economic and political spheres. In
the former case [the economic sphere] the commercial availability and viability of the products of scientific and technical development appears to be an important factor. In the latter [the political sphere], prevention appears to be primarily concerned with those accidents identified as having important political consequences–disasters constitute a prime example.65 In other words, it appears that early safety legislation was formulated neither as a function of needs
ascertained through a form of social rationality nor as a function of a
perception that accidents result from the operation of social forces within
the workplace. Reference to the social world is precluded in developing
criteria of need and strategies of prevention.

Unions often address the issue of health and safety through shifting focus from the worksite itself to legislative measures. From Dwyer, page 27:

The attention of unions was increasingly channeled away from the
worksite and toward legislative change to be conquered through the
efforts of members of Parliament sympathetic to the workers’ cause. The
power of the bureaucracy grew as industrial problems became increasingly
subject to political control through their transformation into
administrative questions.

Legislature measures may indeed address some health and safety concerns, but as just indicated, by shifting focus away from the worksite, legislative measures often transform the question to an administrative level. This shift is consistent with the shift in the nature of the capitalist state from legislative measures to administrative measures (see Mark Neocleous, Administering Civil Society: Towards a Theory of State Power).

Legislative measures are thus insufficient for addressing health and safety issues since they are transformed into a form of administrating workplace relations that are less directly subject to the control of workers.

What is needed, at least in part, is what Jane McCalevey, in her book No Shortcuts: Organizing for Power in the New Gilded Age argues calls deep organizing at the worksite itself. Worker organization and solidarity at the worksite is required. Organized worker opposition at the worksite needs to be developed as a culture. Supplementary tactics (such as those suggested by the International Workers of the World (IWW) should also be integrated; a march on the boss, for instance, where a group of workers face the immediate supervisor with an issue that concerns them, provides workers with a collective means that solidifies their workplace power.

However, this view definitely needs to be linked to a general critique of the power of employers as a class–which is what McCalevey does not do. She argues, incorrectly, if workers are organized at the workplace level, that organization or structure is the same as worker agency, or the idea that workers’ nature as persons is taken into account. However, the peculiar nature of capitalist relations is that what is produced by workers is used by the class of employers is used as a means to exploit, to oppress and to use workers for the purposes of the employers. The class issue cannot be resolved at the level of the workplace since the class issue is much, much wider than any worksite.

The attempt to shift to a legislative focus at least expresses the impossibility of resolving the exploitation, oppression and use of workers by employers solely at the level of the workplace.

What is needed to address health and workplace issues, then, is deep organizing at the workplace with a general critique and movement against the power of employers as a class. In this way, the real health and safety needs of workers can more adequately be addressed.

Should not the issue of the health and safety of workers be a priority? Is it? Can it be when a class of employers exist? Can it be when human beings are treated as means for the benefit of employers?

Should not union members call to account their union reps concerning the impossibility of adequately protecting workers in the face of the power of employers?

Should not workers begin to organize to end that power in order to make health and safety a priority at work?

A Worker’s Resistance to the Capitalist Government or State and Its Representatives, Part Two

Just a recap of part of the last post: I filed a complaint with the Manitoba Institute of Registered Workers against a social worker who had written a court-ordered assessment concerning my wife at the time, myself and my daughter, Francesca Alexandra Romani (ne Harris). I am using the initials S.W. for the social worker. Mr. S.W., claimed that my claim that the mother of my daughter was using a belt and a wooden stick to physically abuse her, was “somewhat ridiculous.” Mr. S.W. was much less concerned about determining the truth of this claim (which is in fact true) than with my so-called indoctrination of my daughter in my “Marxist ideology.”

Since the civil trial in April 1999, my daughter complained of the following (as of February 18, 2000): 1. Her mother was using a wooden stick on her buttocks; 2. Her mother used a belt to spank her on the same area; 3. Her mother grabbed Francesca and forced her into the apartment building; 4. Her mother had grabbed Francesca’s throat in the elevator and warned her not to tell me that her mother had hit her; 5. Her mother shoved Francesca to the floor on two separate occasions; 6. Her mother hit Francesca on the head with a book; 7. Her mother pulled Francesca’s hair; 8. Her mother scratched Francesca with a comb.

It should not be forgotten that these incidents occurred since the trial in April, 1999. There were, of course, several other incidents of physical abuse by the mother before that.

The extent of Mr. S.W.’s political bigotry can be seen in his absurd characterization of my genuine (and true) complaints about Francesca’s mother’s physical abuse of Francesca.

It is interesting to note that in a “$2 million lawsuit brought against the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto for allegedly conducting a negligent investigation and placing her in an abusive home,” (/Toronto Star, August 24, 2019, A1), the issue is, at least on paper (not necessarily in reality), “to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children” (A12). To determine the best interests of children cannot be determined independently of determining the truth.

Mr. S.W. was much less concerned about the truthfulness of Mr. Harris’ claim (which is true) than with Mr. Harris’ Marxists ideas.

For those who do attempt to engage in criticism of the power of employers as a class, you can expect such hostility. That hostility may even extend to your family, even if it is indirect and subtle.

Indeed, according to Mr. S.W.:

Page 22 of the assessment: “As noted earlier, Mr. Harris tends to intellectualize and rationalize his own personal problems (within a rigid framework of Marxist ideology), and tends to see them as the inevitable result of living in a so-called bourgeois milieu.”

Mr. Harris is just “intellectualizing” now. All his criticisms need not be taken seriously because he “intellectualizes” his problems. Since Mr. S.W. has no idea what Mr. Harris’ Marxist ideas are, his conclusion is “ridiculous.” Since Mr. S.W. failed to determine the true state of affairs, it would seem that he concocted an “assessment” in order to whitewash Mr. Harris.

Page 9 of the assessment: “Mr. Harris states that he soon began having ‘political problems’ in his workplace. He became embroiled in many disputes with management about working conditions.”

It is interesting to note that Mr. S.W. neglected to point out that Mr. Harris was a union steward (an official representative of a union; a steward’s duty is to “become embroiled in many disputes with management about working conditions.” Mr. S.W., by neglecting to mention this fact, presents Mr. Harris’ “political problems” as purely personal. Why the suppression of this fact?

In addition, Mr. Harris became embroiled in “political problems” by writing articles in the union newsletter, specifically articles on the history of management. Management did not like that. Moreover, Mr. Harris became embroiled in “political problems” by becoming involved in the collective-bargaining process–a process which took over one year. Mr. Harris had to be away from his regular duties as an employee to fulfill this function. His supervisor resented it and harassed him because of it. In addition, Mr. Harris became embroiled in “political problems” by posting articles of interest to union members on the school division bulletin board in the central office.

Page 9: “Mr. Harris subsequently became embroiled in a conflict with his employer over his not being allowed bereavement leave (for the death of his unborn child). Mr. Harris could not resolve this dispute so he quit his employment.”

Two points here: Firstly, Mr. S.W., as his wont, is quite mistaken. Mr. Harris had the legal right to bereavement leave according to the collective agreement (document 22, page 16, clause 15.01). (Note that Mr. Harris is signatory to that document at the end of the document. Mr. Harris was quite familiar with the collective agreement as a member of the negotiating team and as a steward for the board office. He handled several grievances. See document 23.) Mr. Harris exercised that right by filling out a bereavement form, indicating the reason for the request. However, Mr. Harris’ mother-in-law called him from Guatemala the same evening, requesting that Mr. Harris not fly down to Guatemala because Ms. Harris would be returning to Canada within three weeks. The next day, Mr. Harris found out that his supervisor–against whom he as a union steward had filed a union (policy) grievance in December 1991 for breaching the seniority provisions of the collective agreement–had indicated not only that Mr. Harris was going to Guatemala but why. This was a violation of Mr. Harris’ personal life. Mr. Harris did not request that. It was the representative of Mr. Harris’ employer who did this. She specifically stated that the bereavement form was a public document.

Secondly, Mr. S.W. implicitly presents the responsibility for the “dispute” as stemming from Mr. Harris’ own actions. Mr. Harris believes that he told Mr. S.W. (although he cannot be sure) that his supervisor had been harassing him for his Marxist activities. Indeed, in June 1992, Mr. Harris’ immediate supervisor tried to start an argument with him, criticizing his union and his function as a union steward. Mr. Harris tried to avoid arguing since he had a responsibility toward his wife, but his supervisor insisted. Mr. S.W. could never accept the fact, it would seem, that the capitalist system, with its hierarchy of managers, could ever cause any problems. Any individual who complains about the constant abuse of power by managers is apparently to be blamed for “not being able to resolve the dispute.”

According to certain social theories, disputes which are social in nature cannot be resolved by individuals. Mr. S.W.’s methodology is obviously atomistic. All problems can be resolved by individuals at the individual level. Even if it were so, Mr. S.W. would have to explain why Mr. Harris was the one who could not resolve the problem. Of course, Mr. S.W. either did not understand what the problem was, or he suppressed the true nature of the problem to fit his preconceived notion of this “evil” Marxist.

By the way, there were two other library technicians in the school division working at the board office when Mr. Harris started. Both of them quit because of conflicts with the same supervisor. Furthermore, a library clerk was crying because her supervisor (again, the same supervisor as that of Mr. Harris and the two library technicians) had ordered her not to talk in order to meet a “quota” of inputting a certain number of library cards into the computer every day. Such a pleasant atmosphere in which to work. It was only Mr. Harris, the evil Marxist, who could not “resolve” the dispute. The employer’s responsibility in the creation of the dispute in the first place is not even considered.

But then again, Mr. S.W. did not even understand the nature of the dispute–it had nothing to do with Mr. Harris not being allowed to go on bereavement leave. Indeed, Mr. S.W., by presenting it this way, makes it appear that Mr. Harris did not have a legal right to bereavement leave, and that Mr. Harris still persisted trying to “resolve” this dispute in his favour. It is as if Mr. Harris, since he did not get his way of obtaining bereavement leave, quite childishly “quit his employment.”

See some of Mr. Harris’ articles in the union newsletter (appended to a Marxist essay written for a course in Mr. Harris’ masters’ program. The title of the essay is “A Critical Look at Dewey’s Laboratory School” (document 24). See also in the same document some quotes which Mr. Harris posted to the school division bulletin board at the division office where he worked. Management did not appreciate Mr. Harris’ criticisms, of course.)

A lesson to be learned when dealing with social workers, the courts, the police and other representatives of the social system:

Expect the interests of children to be less important than political oppression of Marxists.
Unless Marxists record everything, expect them to either be incapable of understanding the situation which you face, or expect them to distort it, or even to lie. (And even if you record it, they will try to interpret the situation in such a way that tries to show Marxists to be irrational.)
Expect the social-democratic left, liberals and conservatives to blame Marxists for everything and to deny blame to those who are not Marxists.
Expect their implicit assumption of the rationality of the social system to paint your political efforts as irrational.
Do not expect that your efforts at telling the truth will prevail over lies by others since the representatives of the class of employers will assume that the lies of others are the truth and your telling the truth is a lie.

Perhaps there are other lessons to be learned. If so, please indicate what other lessons can be learned from this.

A Worker’s Resistance to the Capitalist Government or State and its Representatives, Part One

I will first provide the first couple of pages of the complaint, which stimulated me to write the complaint, in order to provide the context of what follows. I then may not follow the order of the complaint since I may want to bring out earlier the more directly political aspect of my experience.

For those who do attempt to engage in criticism of the power of employers as a class, you can expect such hostility. That hostility may even extend to your family, even if it is indirect and subtle.

From the complaint (February 18, 2000):

This is a belated complaint against Mr. S.W., registered social worker. It has been more than a year since the initial court-ordered assessment (document 1) done by Mr. S.W. was completed and provided the court and counsel for Mr. Harris and, Mr. Harris presumes, his ex-wife, Ms. Harris.

What prompts Mr. Harris now to make the complaint is the following: in July of this year his daughter, Francesca Alexandra Harris, complained to him that her mother was using a wooden thing (“paleta” in Spanish) to her on the buttocks. She also complained that her mother used a belt to spank her on the same area.

Mr. Harris confronted Ms. Harris with the allegation when he dropped her of on a Sunday in July. Ms. Harris threatened to call the police (she and Mr. Harris have mutual non-molestation orders against each other). Mr. Harris told his daughter that he would call Child and Family Services and that hopefully someone would put a stop to such forms of punishment. Ms. Harris grabbed his daughter and practically forced her into the apartment block.

The next day Mr. Harris called Child and Family Services; they told Mr. Harris that they would contact Ms. Harris. The following two weeks (Mr. Harris sees his daughter every Wednesday and every alternate weekend) he picked up his daughter on Saturday as usual. His daughter, on Sunday, told him that her mother had grabbed her throat in the elevator the day that Mr. Harris had confronted her mother; the latter told her daughter never to tell Mr. Harris that she had hit her. Ms. Harris’ daughter said that she had cried and that her throat had hurt her.

Mr. Harris informed Child and Family Services once again. In the meantime, when Mr. Harris was talking to his daughter after this, Francesca asked him if he wanted to talk to Ulises (Ulises is Ms. Harris’ boyfriend). Francesca later told Mr. Harris that her mother had shoved her to the floor and told her never to ask that question again. Moreover, his daughter also informed him that her mother had hit her on the head with a book.

Eventually, a social worker, Arla Inglis, interviewed Mr. Harris’ daughter in September at her school. As Mr. Harris understands it, there was no “official” physical abuse in the sense that there were no physical marks. However, there was some apparently verbal confirmation of Mr. Harris’ allegations by Francesca. What exactly Francesca said Mr. Harris does not know, but he did speak to Mr. Orobko, Ms. Inglis’ supervisor, and he led Mr. Harris to understand that although there had been no physical abuse in terms of leaving marks there was nevertheless inappropriate discipline, and Francesca’s mother was advised to desist from punishing Mr. Harris’ daughter in an inappropriate manner.

Since that time, Francesca has told Mr. Harris that her mother had pulled her hair for having dropped some eggs. The weekend of October 9 and 10, when Francesca stayed with Mr. Harris, she told Mr. Harris that her mother once again used a “paleta” (a wooden thing) as well as a belt. On November 6, Francesca told her father that her mother had intentionally scratched her with a comb. There were a few scratch marks just above Francesca’s knee (nothing serious, but the issue was the intent to harm using an implement). Mr. Harris took Francesca to the doctor to verify this after having called Child and Family Services once again because Jacki Davidson, with whom Mr. Harris had been in contact before, in a rather hostile fashion told him that he would have to have physical proof of the allegation. (Arla Inglis more graciously later on told Mr. Harris that he should have taken Francesca to the Child Protection Centre.)

These incidents have led Mr. Harris to open up the question of S.W.’s assessment. Mr. Harris mentioned to Child and Family Services that he had gone to trial, that there had been an assessment, and that Mr. Harris had a copy of the assessment and of the judge’s decision. When requested to provide both, Mr. Harris found himself in the awkward position of not willing to provide the assessment while still wanting to provide the judge’s decision. The reasons will become clear as this complaint proceeds. The social worker accused Mr. Harris, justifiably from her point of view, of wanting to provide a one-sided view of the matter by suppressing relevant documents. Mr. Harris had nothing with which to rebut her objections.

Mr. Harris has spent months compiling this complaint. He finds Mr. S.W’s assessment to be a result of political bigotry because Mr. Harris is a Marxist. Mr. S.W. has done both Mr. Harris and Francesca Harris a disservice. It should be clear that ty the end of this complaint that not only did Mr. S.W let his political prejudices sway his judgement against Mr. Harris but also against Francesca. Francesca is now suffering as a consequence of political persecution perpetrated by Mr. S.W.. She is a victim of his own anti-Marxist proclivities.

The order of the criticism will not be according to Mr. S.W.’s presentation. It has been difficult to provide a complaint because of the large number of lies, distortions, inaccuracies and suppression of relevant facts. The organization will be somewhat logical, but there are many issues that are interrelated.