Fornits

Fornits Home for Wayward Web Fora
An open discussion about the troubled parent industry

And I'll say it again, Ajax isn't the issue.  your unthinking acceptance of this cult is.

And I'll tell you, still interested, that Ajax is not the issue.  AARC is.  It is unscientific, amateur and lacking in any rigorous evaluation processes, peer review or epidemiological analysis.  And I have four degrees, though that is hardly relevant to the discussion.

Scientology
Fair game

Jan 31st 2008
From The Economist print edition
An online onslaught against Scientology

A VICIOUS cult run by cynical fraudsters, or a sincerely held religious belief persecuted by zealots? That is the long-standing row about Scientology, founded by the late science-fiction writer, L. Ron Hubbard. In some countries, such as Germany, the group is watched by the security services. In others, such as America and Australia, it has won charitable status as a religion.

Until now the fight could mostly be seen as one-sided. Scientology's lawyers are vigorous litigants. The group argues that its internal materials (which claim, among other things, that expensive courses of treatment can help rid people of infestation by alien souls from an extinct civilisation) are commercially confidential and protected by copyright. They react sharply to any perceived libel.

As a result, public critics of what they derisively term “$cientology” risk expensive legal battles. For example, a new unauthorised biography of Tom Cruise by a British author, Andrew Morton, contains detailed and highly critical material about the film star's involvement in Scientology. It is a bestseller in America but has not been published in Britain. The publisher, St Martin's Press, has even asked internet booksellers not to ship it to foreign customers. Though Scientology representatives vehemently deny breaking any laws, critics have claimed that they experience intensive harassment and intimidation.

Now Scientology is under attack from a group of internet activists known only as Anonymous. Organised from a Wikipedia-style website (editable by anyone) and through anonymous internet chat rooms, “Project Chanology”, as the initiative is known, presents no easy target for Scientology's lawyers. It is promoting cyberwarfare techniques normally associated with extortionists, spies and terrorists. Called “distributed denial of service attacks”, these typically involve using networks of infected computers to bombard the target's websites and servers with bogus requests for data, causing them to crash. Even governments find this troublesome.

Anonymous is also hoping to galvanise public opinion with a mass “real-world” protest outside every Scientology office worldwide on February 10th. But its best weapon may be ridicule. The group got going in reaction to efforts to ban an internal Scientology video of Mr Cruise that leaked onto the internet. The star appears to discuss his beliefs with a degree of incoherence and exaggeration that might lead some to question Scientology's effects on its adherents' sanity. A Scientology spokesman says it has been selectively edited. Several internet sites have taken it down after threats of lawsuits. But it keeps popping up.

Who says it works? Every bit of reliable data says that not only doesn't it work but it causes serious harm, so......

I agree with Hanzomon.  Being familiar with Grande Prairie, I can assure you that in my personal experience
a)  Attempts to force treatment on certain individuals in Grande Prairie has ripped families apart when better alternatives were available, and
b) Jablonski's law has resulted in the alienation of children from their parents where social workers and parents routinely misrepresent minor and relatively inconsequential use of marijuana as a MAJOR DRUG PROBLEM necessitating confinement way beyond what is necessary.

We have two pieces of legislation in Alberta in the Child Welfare area that are forcing treatment where treatment may not be necessary:
PCHAD -- The protection of Children Abusing drugs Act.  -- In this case, parents can have their children confined fro up to 72 hrs for assessment.  This is being used as a lever to get kids into "Temporary Guardianship"  for many more months where treatment is mandated -- and the kids may only have been smoking pot.
 
DECA the Drug Endangered Children Act  -- this legislation is ostensibly aimed at circumstances where children's health may be at risk as a result of meth labs and grow ops.  It arises as a result of the targeting of Alberta Law Enforcement by the DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY  and a series of workshops put on by the DEA at Jasper which resulted in Corporal Sanderson of the RCMP spearheading a campaign to "make our children safe".  Not only that, but a "hanging judge" in the Child Welfare area from Santiago, CA was invited to address  an assembly of law enforcement officials and judges about his "tough love " approaches to Child Welfare issues.  His solution to cases of drug usage by parents was to have their children removed and or send them to jail if they "relapsed"  I attended his presentation.  It seems this approach may not have been adopted entirely by our drug court , but certain members of the child welfare judiciary seem to favour this approach as far as they are able.  
The key fault to this legislation is that it is seen as being entirely too draconian in situations where less serious exposure to drugs are an issue.  For example, in a specific case I was dealing with (even not using the legislation) a child was apprehended from a mother where a lodger in the house had been subjected to an illegal search because of an unpaid ticket.  The search had revealed an empty baggy with traces of crystal meth and a crack pipe in the purse of the girlfriend of the lodger, who wasn't even residing there.  Result -- removal of the child.  At no time was there any evidence that the child was endangered or that the mother was actually involved in using the drug.  yet she was forced to go through the humiliating experience of being drug tested to prove her innocence, before the child could be returned to her.  This sort of use of the Child Welfare legislation to fight a "war on drugs" is reprehensible and  in many cases is victimizing people who may or may not be already marginalized by poverty.

As Senator Larry Campbell said on CBC (the Lens) tonight "John Walters (US drug czar)  is an idiot"    It is the DEA and moral entrepreneurs  like Sembler, Newton and Vause  and the DARE program that are fuelling the hysteria that is generating these crusades and making things worse.  

I don't know when our legislators in Canada( and judges in Alberta) are going to get the message -- but American methods have failed abysmally, and in particular should not be emulated in Alberta.

RON STEVENS, PLEASE TAKE NOTE!
[/b]

Thank you, uninformed outsider/survivor.

Riiiiight!
Sort of gives himself away doesn't he?  Note also his favourable comments about the "Church" of Scientology.  Amazing how people who have exposed the cult of the Church of Scientology have to get restraining orders, even hide their whereabouts because of threats as a result of their exposes.  Hmmph, and the Church of Scientology gets to operate directly across from the courthouse in Edmonton.  

He sounds so REASONABLE until you read him closely, doesn't he.

I wonder if he even realizes the internal contradictions in his arguments.

And I wonder too about the fear that some survivors have about coming forward having examined in some detail the experiences of some people wanting to expose AARC who have posted here.

I think that you would be much more credible if

Quote

you would refrain from using sarcasm as a way of making your point.

I agree but isn't it interesting that those who would support AARC (until you came along  also "come across as somewhat immature and demeaning."  And isn't it true that  

Quote from: ""Interested""

Iname calling, profanity, cute acronym substitutions and derogatory names for those involved. .

 are precisely the sort of techniques used by AARC to break people down as amply demonstrated in "recovering Crystal" which David Suzuki found so impressive.  Your statement ,

Quote from: ""Interested""

There are many parents, friends, and loved ones who are profoundly affected by the agony of substance abuse and addictions. Those looking for answers do not need condescending attitudes and confusing information from both sides of the debate.

is based upon the faulty assumption  that those being coaxed into the program are suffering what they are claimed to be.  My first reaction when someone tells me that they are an addict or an alcoholic is ask them "who told you that?"   All too often it turns out they have come to believe it because someone in a position of authority doesn't like their lifestyle.  If they are using drugs, few ever bother to query why, and almost without exception if their use has turned into abuse it is a result of negative life experiences or self-medication for some other underlying cause.  

You say:

Quote

If the investigation proves that AARC is an abusive organization and Dr. Vause is an evil man then I really do hope it is shut down and he is brought up on charges. The truth will always come out.

You seem to be in the know, is there  really an investigation going on? In Alberta, where the top people in our totalitarian democracy have so actively supported AARC over the last 20 years?  Is it going to take another twenty years for the truth to come out?, 30?  50?  Certainly the current batch of politicians have got a lot of face to lose.  Including Ron Stevens.   And what about the Judges who seem to have taken so much from Dean Vause and his minions at face value?  And the prosecutors, and, yes, defense counsel who will tell you that AARC is the "only show in town".  I call it negligence that nobody in the AG's Department, or the Solicitor General's Department, or Children's Services has ever dared to question their paymaster's dictates.  But then, this government has a history of firing whistle-blowers(remember Cardinal)
There are a hell of a lot of very influential people who are going to lose face if there is a GENUINE INVESTIGATION.  Even the Children's Advocate's Office seems to have clammed up, as has my source in AADAC  

Quote

First of all, I would like to point out that I have never heard of a cult that endeavors to reintegrate their members back into society and reunite them with their families. They are not encouraged to become healthy and productive members of society. The primary objective of a cult is to break societal and family ties forever.

Well, I wonder if you are aware of the Church of Scientology as a cult ..  Or is that the exception that proves the rule?

From what I understand the seclusion at AARC is temporary until they are able to identify and deal with the root of the addiction. The seclusion is also not complete as family members are not only encouraged but required to attend certain meetings. When the kids enter AARC it is not known if one of the contributing factors to the addiction is in fact parental influence. Once the family dynamic is considered to be healthy then it is safe to have kids return home. All possible contributing factors must be removed at the outset.  It is hard to treat a disease if the sick person is regularly exposed to one of the contributing factors. On the other hand, the most well meaning parent can feel the need to “rescueâ€

I thought they went to the Alberta Legislature  last year with their 300th Victim.
at least you should get your story (lies) straight