From: Louise <>

To: donna laframboise<>

Subject: Fw: response to shackleton

Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:13:10 -0400

[Somemore twisted but revealing accusations by Ms. Malenfant]


----- Original Message -----

From: Louise <> 

To: David Shackleton<> 

Cc: leonard zakow <> 

Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 1:59 PM


Hello David,


Your recent letter to DonnaLaframboise was forwarded to me, and I feel the

[Theforwarded letter here mentioned would represent a seventh known-of-but-missingemail from the reporter to Ms. Malenfant. (With the article already published,it was unrelated to reporting--hinting again that these two women had a closerelationship.) Of the seven seemingly missing emails, just two have datesbefore (shortly before) the reporterwas warned to preserve all such documents; regarding this legal matter see thethird hyperlink hence.]          [Back]

need to respond. This entire story concerning the sexual controversies

around ecmas edmontonhave exposed a rather troubling phenomenon, in my

view, that does not speak well of the family rightsmovement.


I thought that this movement was about establishingequality and fairness in

family law, and ending the cannabalization of thepaternal family in this

country.  This goalis large and difficult, but I now understand why it has

been so difficult, if the leaders in this movement seenothing wrong with

the idea of associating controversial views about sex inchildhood with this

goal.  The entirebook written by Christensen is troubling, and very few in

our society would support his intentions there.  He argues that all porn and

the desires that underlie them are good and natural, butpurports to

eliminate any arguments against the free flow of porn inour society.  Yet

hisbook nimbly tip toes around the problem of adult sex with children, so

of course, the book fails in its objective, as this isthe problem most of

us have with libertarian views on sex.  As for his belief that we are

hurting kids by denying them sex, that they should havesex and masturbate

freely without adult interference, that even providingthem with porn has

merit in order to counter society's disapproval of sexand nudity, and that

even coercing children into sex is no worse than denyingthem sex - all of

these views are anethema to most people in our society.


The thought that this story has exposed the fact thatseveral "leaders" in

the family rights movement are not only tolerant of theseviews, but

actively encourage them, is a sad commentary on thecompetence of this

movement.  It is nowonder this movement has gotten no where, since the

criticism that we are tolerant of early introduction ofsex to children is

actually a true criticism.  These odd views that are held by only a very

smallminority of the population, is the likely reason why the average

middleclassvictim of the family courts are staying away from the movement

indroves.  We certainly dillute the mainmessage of fairness in family law

whenwe anchor this effort with these controversial minority opinions about

sexin childhood. [Noteher (correct) insistence elsewhere that neither the public nor the movementknew about my book's ideas until she acted to expose it; now they are "thelikely reason" the movement has been failing!]    

Anyone who believes that advocating the earlyintroduction of sex to

children is a good thing for the movement, has no ideawas a public

relations disaster this association is for the movementin the long run.

Childhood is over when sex starts, and children whoengage other children in

sex have likely been awakened by an adult who taught themhow its done.

Those in the movement who actively support earlychildhood sex will never

get the time of day from the government, childwelfare,and other system

people, and no one will convince me that thenormalization of childhood sex

is the way to go for the movement.  Every falsely accused man I have ever

represented was horrified at the very idea that anyonewould believe they

would want sexual congress with their own child.  Certainly, no falsely

accused would want to be associated with the idea thatsex in childhood is a

good thing.  Whileecmas edmontonshowed itself to be naive about the harm

caused by associating with these views, the bigger shock is certainfather's

rightsleaders have come out in support of associating these controversial

ideaswith the movement.  This is, in myopinion, a dereliction of duty, and

[Avery strange way to describe their objecting to her publicly tarring the movement by raising this controversy.]

it is a big mistake, as media will not give those leadersthe time of day

again.  We haveenough issues to contend with without adding these

controversies to the cart, and I now understand why thismovement gets no

where in influencing the people with the power to changethings.


Louise Malenfant

Family Advocate

Parents helping Parents