Is Amnesty International a Progressive Organization?–or Is the Term “Progressive Organization” an Example of an Abstract Slogan of Social Democrats? Part Two

Introduction

In a previous post, I looked in a general way at the shortcomings of Amnesty International (AI) as a “progressive organization”–one of the abstract slogans of the social-democratic or social-reformist left here in Toronto (and undoubtedly elsewhere).

In an article posted on the Socialist Project’s website (https://socialistproject.ca/2021/12/swords-into-ploughshares/), Simon Black speaks to Sam Gindin, a social democrat or social reformer here in Toronto, Ontario, Canada and author, along with the late Leo Panitch, of the book (2013) The Making of Global Capitalism: The Political Economy of American Empire.

Mr. Black states the following:

SB: Canadian arms exports to Saudi Arabia have been opposed by a range of civil society organizations, from Amnesty International to Oxfam. Collectively these organizations have also called for the federal government to work with trade unions representing workers in the arms industry to develop a plan that secures the livelihoods of those who would be impacted by the end of arms exports to Saudi Arabia. And in Labour Against the Arms Trade’s work with these organizations, we’ve always stressed the importance of centring this demand. Why is it important that mainstream, liberal human rights and humanitarian organizations are calling for a just transition for arms industry workers?

Mr. Gindin’s response?

Progressive organizations like Oxfam and Amnesty [my emphasis] are right to see that this [challenge to profit priorities] is a challenge to capitalist power and capitalism itself and so can be a barrier to convincing people, particularly workers and communities where these arms are manufactured, like the LAVs in London, Ontario. But it’s the only honest – and possible – way forward. The message is not just that there are potential alternatives, but also that they could be introduced only if we could build the kind of social force that’s necessary to [implement them]. Sometimes people want to obscure the fact that our demands are radical, because they feel like [this reality will make it] harder to mobilize. [But] unless we can respect workers enough to address the reality and win them over, we’re left with a progressive demand that is in essence an abstract slogan.

I have already addressed the issue of whether Oxfam is a “progressive organization” in a previous post (Is Oxfam a “Progressive Organization?”–An Abstract Slogan (Rhetoric) of Social Democrats).

In this post, I will look at the specific shortcoming of AI in relation to the world of work in the context of a society dominated by a class of employers. I will also look, briefly, at its shortcomings when it comes to the capitalist state in general and to police in particular.

The Focus of AI on Human Rights Leads to Silence Over Economic Coercion, Exploitation and Oppression of Workers on a Daily Basis

As I argued in the previous post, the human-rights movement emerged as a substitute for a socialist movement. In essence, the class power of employers is, implicitly or explicitly, assumed to be legitimate. AI therefore shifts our attention from the daily economic coercion characteristic of a society dominated by the class power of employers to more direct forms of coercion that involve work. Although such forms of coercion should hardly be ignored, the shift to an almost exclusive focus on more direct forms of coercion at work lead to a legitimation of the economic or indirect form of coercion characteristic of the more industrialized capitalist countries (and also of many less industrialized capitalist countries).

On Amnesty International’s website (https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/ , there are 19 issues listed:

armed conflict
arms control
child rights
climate change
corporate accountability
death penalty
detention
disappearances
discrimination
freedom of expression
indigenous peoples
international justice
living in dignity
police violence
refugees, asylum seekers and migrants
sexual and reproductive rights
torture
United Nations
Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Quite a list. Let us, however, look at at point 13, “Living in dignity.”

The ideal company would provide “fair conditions of employment” (drawn from the “Living in Dignity” section). What “fair conditions of employment” would mean is not elaborated on at the website, but the AI document (2014) Human Rights for Human Dignity: A Primer on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights does elaborate. From page 54:

The right to work and rights at work

The [United Nations] Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has emphasized the interdependence of the provisions of the Covenant that safeguard the right to work, rights at work and the right to form and join a trade union, as well as to strike. The right to work remains less well understood than some of the other rights discussed here and is sometimes misinterpreted as the right to a job. The right to work entails access to employment without discrimination of any kind, to choose freely and not be forced into work, access to a system of protection against unfair dismissals, and a supportive structure that aids access to employment, including appropriate vocational education.105 The right to work covers both paid work and people working independently (referred to as
livelihoods in certain contexts) and requires governments to extend protections to people
working in the informal sectors of the economy.

Rights at work protect the right of everyone to just and favourable conditions of work,
including to fair wages, equal pay for work of equal value, safe and healthy working
conditions, reasonable limitations on working hours, protections for workers during and
after pregnancy, and equality of treatment in employment.

The idea of the right to work is thus taken from a document published by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

The AI document referred to above says:

The right to work entails access to employment without discrimination of any kind

The implied emphasis here is on discrimination and not on the absolute right to access employment. Employers are not to discriminate in permitting access to work–they need to treat all workers equally regardless of race, gender and so forth. If there is a lack of discrimination, it is implied, then the employment relation is legitimate–subject to other conditions, such as not being coerced employment. From Karl Widerquist (2010), “The Physical Basis of Voluntary Trade,” in pages 83-103, Human Rights Review, Volume 11, page 87:

… coercion (or force) implies a deviation from “the normal course of events;” thus, the answer depends on what one considers the normal course of events to be.

What does AI consider to be “the normal course of events?”

The right to work entails … [the right] to choose freely and not be forced into work.

AI’s position assumes a normalized conception of what constitutes work that is freely chosen, and thereby judges what deviates from this normalized conception as a human rights abuse.

A lack of discrimination at work and not being coerced directly to work for an employer, however, is quite consistent with the indirect coercion of workers and their exploitation and oppression that characterizes the class power of employers–aka capitalism. AI is silent about economic coercion–the golden chain which obliges workers to work involuntarily.

Mr. Gindin, by referring to AI as a “progressive organization,” simply papers over the issue.

From Widerquiest, page 84:

In two senses, a market economy can be characterized as voluntary. First, people can choose with whom they trade subject to the limits of the property rights of the people involved. They can say yes or no to any one other than the participant. Second, people have the legal right to choose whether or not to trade at all. They have the legal right to say yes or no to trade with all other participants. We can call these the physical conditions of voluntary trade.

But, there is a crucial third sense in which trade is not voluntary for many people today. That is, they are effectively denied any legal means to survive without providing services to someone who controls property. If the law ignores the existence of human needs, it can nominally establish the legal conditions of voluntary trade while legally subverting the physical conditions necessary for voluntary trade. Many people enter the economic system owning nothing; finding that all the resources are owned by someone else, they see that someone will interfere with any effort they make to meet their own needs. Therefore, they are forced to provide services for property owners to obtain money to buy resources. It is the aspect of obtaining money that concerns the discussion here, not spending it. Although trade involves both buying and selling, it is the things we do to obtain money that involve providing services for others; spending money involves other people providing services for us. It is not particularly problematic that a person with government-created tokens called money has to hand them to other people to receive goods and services, but it is a problem for voluntary trade if a person without money has no legal means to survive unless she provides services for people who hold money. It is, of course, desirable that nonmarket interaction, such as marriage and friendship, is also voluntary; but, the primary concern here is trade, specifically the things people do to get money which, for most of us means the labor market.

This article builds on the work I have done to define and argue for the importance of
freedom as effective control … which, in short, is freedom as the power to say no. More exactly, … freedom is the effective power to accept or refuse interaction with other willing people. I have argued that genuinely voluntary interaction requires that all people have … freedom and that … freedom requires an exit option—some way that a person can survive without being forced to provide services for, to take orders from, or to meet conditions set by any particular group of other people (Widerquist 2006a). … the conditions necessary to secure the power to say no are often ignored in law and in many discussion of economics and human rights, in ways that make one group of people subservient to another. A society that establishes nominal self-ownership but interferes with individuals’ attempts to preserve their effective control self-ownership secures the right to say no but denies the power to say no.

AI makes an implicit distinction between “forced work” and work that is freely chosen. If the work is freely chosen, then it is legitimate, and there is no human rights abuse, as far as AI is concerned. Only if the work is not freely chosen is it illegitimate and a breach of human rights. However, AI implicitly accepts that the billions of workers who work for an ideal company somehow freely choose to work for that employer. As I have argued elsewhere, workers do indeed have some freedom to choose–they generally are not forced to work for a particular employer; that does not prevent them from being forced, as a class, from working for an employer (see Do Workers Work for a Particular Employer or for the Class of Employers? Part One: A Limitation of Some Radical Left Critiques of Capitalist Relations of Production and Exchange (A.K.A. Capitalism) and Do Workers Work for a Particular Employer or for the Class of Employers? Part Two: Critique of Unions and the Social-Reformist or Social-Democratic Left; see also The Money Circuit of Capital).

Of course, AI implicitly considers that workers who work for an employer without any explicit economic coercion are not forced to work. Mr. Gindin may not consciously agree with such a view, but by rubber-stamping the view that AI is a progressive organization, he in fact does agree to such a view.

Forcing workers to work for employers is not personal; such a situation forms part of the economic structure of a society dominated by a class of employers and is reinforced by the legal system. From Widerquist, page 88:

The question is why people enter the market in a position in which they must sell their labor to people who own property. For this, there is only one explanation: if propertyless individuals try to produce goods to meet their own needs without trade, someone who claims ownership of the natural resources they need to do so will interfere with them, thus, forcing them to work for people who own property. According to Robert Hale, if the law designates other people as owners of anything with which an individual might secure her own diet, those laws coerce her to offer whatever services she can to someone with property (Hale 1923, 471–473).

Contradictory Call for States to Enforce Human Rights

According to AI:

States have a responsibility to protect human rights.

Human rights as defined by AI can only be enforced by states. However, as AI recognizes in its 19-point list, states often abuse AI’s definition of human rights–such as torture or disappearances. States are supposed to enforce human rights–but states are, even in terms of AI’s own limited definition of human rights–some of the worst perpetrators of human rights. How are states then to enforce human rights with any consistency since they themselves can only enforce human rights?

The old question “Do not the educators themselves need to be educated?” applies here: Do not states themselves need to be regulated? Who is going to do that? AI simply does not address the problem.

Consider point 14 on “police violence.” According to AI:

The most important thing to remember is this: it is the utmost obligation of state authorities, including police, to respect and protect the right to life.

This is ideology in a number of ways. Firstly, the emergence of the modern police goes hand in hand with the oppression and control of members of the working class (see Reform Versus Abolition of the Police, Part 8: The Police and the Political Economy of Capitalism). AI simply ignores the major function of the police as a control mechanism for ensuring workers do not get out of hand. As I wrote in that post:

Modern police function to maintain workers, citizens, immigrants and migrants in a state of poverty–not in the sense of a level of consumption below a defined poverty line, but in terms of a state of dependence on having to work for a class of employers. Those who form the edges of this kind of poverty–who are almost teetering into indigence–are particular targets of the modern police since they represent a more likely direct threat to the premises of that state of poverty and dependence on employers.

Secondly, police hardly exist to “respect and protect the right to life.” If they did, then the police would protect workers’ lives at work–which is hardly what happens. As I wrote in another post:

Some representatives of employers surely did not know what was best for the capitalist economy–whether to shut down for as long as necessary until the number of deaths and infections were reduced, to leave parts of the economy (in addition to essential economic structures, such as food, hand sanitizer and mask production) functioning or to leave most of the economy dominated by a class of employers functioning. But “sacrificing ourselves for our employers” even in normal times is run of the mill. Why is it that there are, on average, over 1,000 deaths officially at work per year and more than 600,000 injuries in Canada (and many more deaths when unofficial deaths are included (see Working and Living in a Society Dominated by a Class of Employers May Be Dangerous to Your Health).

That the police do protect life to a certain extent is true–but a half-truth. The other side is not only the lack of protection of life at work but the persistent threat of the use of the police as a weapon against workers, citizens, immigrants and migrant workers.

AI recognizes that laws may make it legal for the state or government to threaten life; on the other hand, it relies on the state or government to protect workers, citizens, immigrants and migrant workers. This position is contradictory, but nowhere does AI address the contradiction.

Conclusion

Nor does Mr. Gindin. Indeed, his abstract slogan “progressive organization” hides the contradiction, sweeping it underneath an apparent purely positive characterization of AI as “progressive.” For anyone who has been subject to the exploitation and oppression of employers, on the one hand, and the power of the capitalist state (including the police) on the other, Mr. Gindin’s reference to AI being “a progressive organization” rings hollow.

As I wrote Mr. Gindin claimed, as I indicated in my post in this series on Oxfam (see Is Oxfam a “Progressive Organization?”–An Abstract Slogan (Rhetoric) of Social Democrats):

Mr. Gindin implied that it was necessary to create “material structures” first rather than engage in criticizing the ideology of trade-unions (see my critique Fair Contracts or Collective Agreements: The Ideological Rhetoric of Canadian Unions, Part Four: The National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE)). Oxfam certainly has a material structure. Is Oxfam the embodiment of Mr. Gindin’s ideas (since it is “a progressive organization”)? Or is there need to question the implicit assumption by Oxfam that the exploitation and oppression of workers is legitimate? If so, why would Mr. Gindin call it a “progressive organization?”

Does not Mr. Gindin, like so many social-democrats, engage in abstract slogans by claiming that Oxfam is a progressive organization that somehow threatens capitalism?

The same critique applies to AI.

Does not Mr. Gindin, like so many social-democrats, engage in abstract slogans by claiming that Amnesty International is a progressive organization that somehow threatens capitalism? Or are organizations that do not threaten capitalism somehow progressive?

Guilty Until Proven Innocent: The Real Assumption of Some Bureaucratic Tribunals, Part One

It is supposed to be a fundamental principle of criminal law that a person is presumed innocent until proven otherwise by the State (government). This is the ideology or the rhetoric (which much of the left have swallowed). The reality is otherwise. In reality, the administrative apparatus of various organizations of the government and semi-governmental organizations often assume that you are guilty first and that you have to prove your innocence; otherwise, you suffer negative consequences.

An example is the requirements that the Ontario College of Teachers (OCT) imposed on me in order for me to qualify as a teacher in the province of Ontario after I moved from the province of Manitoba. To qualify as a teacher in Ontario, you must gain the approval of the OCT. The OCT website explains what this organization does:

ABOUT THE COLLEGE

The Ontario College of Teachers licenses, governs and regulates the Ontario teaching profession in the public interest.

Teachers who work in publicly funded schools in Ontario must be certified to teach in the province and be members of the College.

The College:

sets ethical standards and standards of practice

issues teaching certificates and may suspend or revoke them

accredits teacher education programs and courses

investigates and hears complaints about members

The College is accountable to the public for how it carries out its responsibilities.

You can find the qualifications, credentials and current status of every College member at Find a Teacher.

The College is governed by a 37-member Council.

23 members of the College are elected by their peers

14 members are appointed by the provincial government.

To qualify as a teacher in Ontario, among other things, you have to answer a questionnaire. On the questionnaire, there are questions concerning arrest–and since I was arrested by the RCMP (the Royal Canadian Mounted Police) (but never convicted), I was obliged to prove my innocence in various ways. Despite no conviction, in other words, I had to prove my innocence. The social-democratic or social-reformist left, of course, are silent about such conditions (they are probably unaware of them).

I sent, along with my explanation, a table that I had constructed concerning my experiences (and the experiences of my daughter, Francesca) with the child welfare organization Winnipeg Child and Family Services (CFS), located in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

The table that I constructed about events is a revised version (always subject to change as I gather further evidence or order it better). I posted it earlier (see A Personal Example of the Oppressive Nature of Public Welfare Services).

Below is my answer to the first question:

I. Explanation for the investigation of Dr. Fred Harris by the CFS [Child and Family Services] and the RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police–the national police in Canada] (related to the accompanying table, which forms part of the explanation):

In all probability, my daughter panicked when I gave her the letter concerning my operation related to cancer; I categorically deny ever having choked my daughter. (My daughter recently told me that she had subsequently indicated to either the WCFS or to the RCMP that I had not choked her).

She may also not been able to face the fact that she had been violent towards her father when he had cancer. The only action that I regret is throwing the tea. I certainly had no intention of hurting my daughter, but for that I am responsible—nothing else. I lost control—that is a fact. The mitigating circumstance is that I had, unknown to myself, cancer at the time, which subsequently was considered to be terminal, in all probability.

However, the initial accusation by the WCFS was that I had choked my daughter; there was no reference to my throwing tea. Given the practical abuse of Francesca for over a decade by the mother—and the neglect by the WCFS in recognizing such abuse (it was only subsequent to the arrest that the WCFS apologized to Francesca, indicating that she had indeed been abused by her mother)—the timing of the apprehension of Francesca is certainly suspect.

Given both the timing and the fact that the ground for the apprehension was the falsehood that I had choked Francesca, I made it clear in court that I was acquiescing “without prejudice.” I then began to send a variant of the supplementary table to the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Education and the Premier, Greg Selinger, implying that they had apprehended Francesca on false grounds. This may have precipitated the investigation by the RCMP.

I asked my daughter this last December (2013) when the issue of the tea came up. She indicated that that issue arose subsequently. My interpretation is that the RCMP was fishing for any grounds (with the probable support of the CFS) for arresting me in addition to the false claims that I had choked my daughter and had thrown her to the ground. My interpretation is that the capitalist government was using Francesca to hide its own criminal neglect of Francesca for over a decade (and, possibly, because her father is a Marxist).

The need to hide the criminal neglect of the WCFS may have even been more urgent for the WCFS since Francesca, in claiming that I had choked her, also apparently claimed that her mother’s common-law husband had sexually abused her. (When she made that claim I am uncertain. On Father’s Day, 2010 Francesca informed me that she had told the WCFS that she had been sexually abused. If true (it is still before the court), the WCFS’s lack of action for over a decade would have contributed to such abuse.) [The court eventually dismissed the allegation of sexual abuse against the common-law husband of Francesca’s mother; I now believe that Francesca was sexually abused by him despite the court’s decision. I will explain that in another post.]

I do not regret what I did (apart from the incident of the tea). The apology ten years after the fact is hardly sufficient for the persistent abuse that Francesca was subject to over the years. The WCFS and the CFS is a fascist organization that acts as if Canadian citizens are guilty first and must prove their innocence afterwards. It uses intimidation tactics (such as the letter of January 2004 and the October 6 2010 phone call by Darryl Shorting) to achieve its ends.

It is instructive that it is I who have to provide an explanation of the investigation. Undoubtedly, it could be argued that it is not the WCFS that is applying for teacher certification. That is true. However, the WCFS apparently need not explain anything at all to anyone.

My explanation, then, is that the organization that need not explain (the WCFS and the CFS) itself needs to explain—its neglect of Francesca (and probably many, many other children) for over a decade. It is necessary to expose such behaviour if the problem is going to be resolved—and not presume that those who have been investigated by such an organization have to explain their actions. It is the WCFS that needs to explain its (in)actions—and it will only have to do so if its neglect is exposed.

However, the WCFS will continue to act undoubtedly with impunity—until those who are intimidated by the WCFS (and the consequences that flow from speaking out) speak up and end the silent oppression that characterizes such an organization. Children deserve much more than the neglect characteristic of the WCFS and the CFS. Such a situation is characteristic of adult behaviour in general in relation to children (see the accompanying article, “Dewey’s Concepts of Stability and Precariousness in his Philosophy of Education”).

This is part of my explanation for answering “yes” in several of the questions.

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

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).

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.

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.

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.