MALENFANT RADIO INTERVIEW WITH LESLIE PRIMEAU, April 17, 2001 [Back]

(On Edmonton radio station CHED)

[Like many other radio talk-programs, this one closely followed the morning news to get guests and topics to discuss each day. So The Post is accountable for this interview occurring on the day its article appeared. (Most of the fabrications by Ms. Malenfant here are readily disproved by e-mails, recorded phone conversations, and various witnesses--for example, the latter two disprove her claim that I refused to speak with her--and by the book itself.) Here as elsewhere, she changes her story as she goes along. ]

LP- It’s an odd story. Louise moved here from Manitoba ...

LM- Seven months ago.

LP- Seven months ago, to actually work with the Equitable Child Maintenance and Access Society.

LM- Actually, no. Ferrel Christensen of the Movement for the Emergence of Real Gender Equality and The Gender Issues Education Foundation talked me into coming to Edmonton, probably a decision he’ll regret the rest of his life, I’m sure (chuckle).

LP- Why did he want you to move here?

LM- Well, I’m an investigator. I’ve been an advocate for families, and particularly for the falsely accused, mostly fathers in divorce proceedings, for nearly a decade in Manitoba. In 1999, we saw the allegations slashed by 2/3, chopped by from 740, you know, at its peak, per year, to 200, and, you know, 30 or something in ‘99. And, quite frankly, I was getting bored 'cause I couldn't find any more false allegations in Manitoba. And Mr. Christensen was well known in the men’s rights movement, we had an extensive e-mail communication to develop the terms, you know, of my coming to Alberta. Because I was told that the false allegations were here, it’s a nightmare in Family Law, and that my skills were sorely needed. And, indeed, he told many people that.

LP- And?

LM- Well, a month after I got here, I made the mistake of questioning why he wanted to picket the Edmonton Journal as a media strategy, and saw the other side of Ferrel, which is when you disagree with him. And from that point forward, he refused to speak with me, and yet, I was still employed with him. He insisted that all our communication be in e-mail, and that was very difficult. And finally, there were a number of crises. He tried to stop me from advocating for families. You know, all in all, it was just a horrible, terrible experience, the like of which I never want to have again. And so, finally, at the end of November, I quit and said “Please, do not ever write to me again.” And I really hoped that I could just walk away, and never think about him again.

LP- So, why can’t you? Or, why haven’t you?

LM- What happened is that the cases that were familiar with me, I mean, I’ve been in town three months...

LP- Yep...

LM- And I’ve been investigating like crazy. I mean, I’m sure... I looked at approximately 70 to 80 cases all together. Reference-, referrals and also, you know, people that called me. You know what I mean? My name and number were really getting out there. So, I was non-stop investigating. And they were many of those cases who were confused by why it was not possible for Ferrel and I to work together. You know, I mean, they wanted to hear the answer. But, Ferrel refused to meet with me even with, you know, twenty people in the room or whatever. And that was pretty well his position. I begged for mediation to try to resolve the problem. I did everything I thought human. I've got to be honest with you. I tried to... I really wanted to try to get along with the man. I knew nothing about his book or his views at that time. And just, all in all, it was just a nightmare. The one month was worse than the one before it in Edmonton. And really, that has been non-stop for the full seven months I’ve been here.

LP- All right, Louise. Let’s talk about a really brutal month. Let’s talk about [Tim] Adams.

LM- Well, listen, you know, I mean, the thing is, Leslie, is that, you know, I don’t expect people to be shot and pilloried when they make mistakes. But what I do know, is that the last thing the falsely accused need is people who have controversial views about sex in childhood or, you know, soliciting their clients for sex, which is what Mr. Adams did when he was a lawyer. And she was 16 years old, and she was his client. He also represented her boyfriend who was in jail. So, this is, you know, this is controversial. Let me put it that way. And all I’m saying is that people like this, you know what, should not be leaders and spokespeople for the falsely accused. Because, you know what, you’re not helping a falsely accused by trying to suggest that sex in childhood is a good thing. It’s just not helpful to the falsely accused. In fact, it hurts. It may be the very reason why so much of government and systems are unable to listen to the Family Rights community. Because if we're allowing people who believe that sex with children is a good idea--you know--and

[She doesn't say I express such views--below, she flatly says otherwise--but that nameless "people" in the movement do so publicly!]

we should introduce it to them as soon as possible in their lives, and we’re hurting them by depriving them of it --I mean, I’m sorry, that’s not helpful to the falsely accused. And I’ve dedicated my life to the falsely accused for the last near decade. And I just could not walk away. I mean, the easy thing would’ve been for me, Leslie, that when it all went to hell in November, the end of November, well, remember he had the economic power over me. And then after, you know, when I finally just disassociated, he said a number of times, and it got back to me, that my references didn’t check out and my reputation is not what it seems...

LP- So, is your bone to pick then, Louise, with the fact that your reputation has, in fact, been impugned?

LM- No, it’s not.

LP- It’s not that...

LM- What happened is that the sheer volume of this crisis which was un... you know, it was just unrelenting, OK? I mean, what happened is that people became aware of it, especially within the Family Rights community. And, it was then that somebody brought to me, to my attention, the book “Pornography: the Other Side”, which purports to argue that all of the arguments opposed to pornography and the desire that underlies the pornography are worthless. And that pornography is good and healthy for society, and so are the desires that underlie it. And so, you know, the thing is that, for the most part, I really don’t care what adults do. You know? I mean, you know, I believe in family rights for homosexuals, I believe in... I’m pro-choice, you know? You know, that’s controversial in its own right in Alberta. But, you know, what bothered me was that this book purported to, you know, eliminate all arguments against pornography and yet, at no time in the book does it ever address the issue of adult sex with children. And I think by the very nature of the thesis of the book, its absence is the clearing ['clarifying' meant?] thing. It’s not just, you know, “Oh, I forgot!”, you know, “Oh, the book would have been too many pages, I couldn’t deal with that one!” That was the greatest objection people have to libertarian sexual values.[The book was a defence of healthy sexuality, not of deviant sex--and was not argued on libertarian grounds. So indeed, it never discusses adult-child sex as an issue in its own right; it merely makes a few passing references to pedophiles. As pointed out elsewhere here, whenever it does this it also notes that their behavior is pathological or that it is a threat to children.]

LP- So, are you thinking that the absence of any kind of... I guess...um... I don't know...

LM- Reference.

LP- ...reference to it, in fact, implies consent?

LM- No. What I’m saying is this, all right?, is that in this book, what it does say is that we should introduce sex to children as soon as possible. [Even this is false. The book presents the speculation (presents it as speculation) of some scientists that, because early sexual activity alone and with peers is natural for humans and other primates, growing up without it may lead to sexual deficiencies in some.]

He even suggests that there is some merit to the idea that we introduce pornography material to children to overcome society’s, you know, sexual repression, you know, and fear of nudity. And he even makes one comment which was quoted in the Post today. I’m paraphrasing him, all right?, but, I mean, it’s... the quote that, I swear to you, first time I read it, I literally cried. I didn’t understand how a person who thought this way could be in front of the falsely accused for so many years, a decade, in this city and nobody ever knew. Because the quote says, essentially, and I’ll paraphrase it, that sexual coercion--this is the only time he said anything somewhat bad about sex with children, ok? And he says, “Sexual coercion of children under today’s prevalent social conditions would be”, you know, “maybe difficult and painful, but it’s no worse than denying children sex.” OK? It is, in other words, he equates raping a child as being no more harmful or worse than denying those children sex. And I mean, you know, I think most of us would say that the rape of anyone, man, woman or child is anathema to, you know, a functioning human society, and particularly children. The last thing we need for children is to have adults around who think that children should masturbate openly without intervention from their parents, that children should behave sexually as soon as possible and that we have adults around who believe that. You don’t know? That is not helpful to the falsely accused. You cannot believe that... [These wild distortions and fabrications are all discussed elsewhere here.]

LP- OK.

LM- ...that will help the falsely accused.

LP- All right, Louise, I’m going to take a quick break, here. Louise Malenfant is my guest. My lines are open at 496-0063, 496-0063.

****

LP- Louise Malenfant is my guest. We’re taking a look at what looks to be, Louise, really, a major falling out.

LM- It’s not. It’s not that, OK? Because I walked away. I mean, once I made a decision , you know, at the end of November...

LP- Yeah?

LM- ... all I wanted to do was disassociate myself completely from, from Ferrel Christensen, and do Parents Helping Parents work, which is to change the system one family at a time.

LP- All right.

LM- And, indeed, you know, that’s what I tried to do. But then, as I said, you know, I mean, I have excellent references and, you know, I take issue with a former employer suggesting that they've contacted my references and got something other than an excellent report. I have letters from the Premier of Manitoba, Justice Ministers, you know, families that I've helped, and I take exception to that.

So, when all this became public, it was then that someone brought me the book. I never would’ve known the book existed, you know, ‘cause I just wanted to get away from it all. I didn’t have any idea. Now. I was aware of [Tim] Adams, you know. And I found it concerning that Mr. Adams, I mean, yes, he attended the weekly support group. That's where most newcomers go...

LP- Hm, hm.

LM- ... to get some help, OK? And a lot of these people are desperate, and they desperately need to just reach out to other human beings living the same nightmare. Because every paternal family that goes into the family court in this country, including the city of Edmonton, is fundamentally either destroyed or seriously, you know, harmed by the experience. So, you know, I mean, the support group is supposed to help folks and Mr. Adams did volunteer, he did not get paid to attend, you know, the two-hour support group meetings, and the meeting in the bar afterwards, which he called his office, right? But, I mean, what was concerning to me is he was disbarred as an attorney, this was upheld on appeal in April of 2000, and he charged people, then it was $90.00 ...

LP- OK, but... OK, notwithstanding that... So, there are, you know, some definite inequities, I guess, is what it amounts to, and some very serious concerns with how things are run, and what is actually happening.

LM- Sure.

LP- But, I guess, one of the other things that is trying is that how has this set back the Equitable Child Maintenance and Access Society? Because they, in fact, had, I thought, a fairly decent reputation for being, you know, just hard worker folks.

LM- Well, hear, hear, hear, hear this, OK? There’s a big difference...the Calgary Chapter is the most famous, and the most effective family rights community in all of Canada, and that includes me, and I say that, you know, ...

LP- Right.

LM- ... without difficulty. They know how to talk the government's language, they have the biggest impact on the movers and the shakers that can get things done and change things...

LP- OK.

LM- You know, Ottawa, regularly flies Chapter, Calgary Chapter of ECMAS up to Ottawa, OK, to hear their opinions on every family law issue, OK, that they’re looking at. So, Calgary Chapter is a different animal than Edmonton Chapter. Now, unfortunately, OK, ...

LP- So, what has happened?

LM- What's happened is that Edmonton Chapter has allowed itself to be overtaken by sexual controversies. Two of them: one being the, you know, the significant influence and impact of Ferrel Christensen who, we now know, has some rather unorthodox views about sex in childhood, OK, and what is good for children. And we also have a gentleman who, had he not attempted to obtain a leadership role, you know, on behalf of people in family court, you know, had every right to live a life of dignity and, perhaps, learn from his mistake and move on, OK? But, he, he didn’t do that, you know? Instead, he, he was promoted vigorously by Mr. Christensen, who frequently advised people to fire their attorneys and hire Mr. Adams at a fee. And you know, it’s just, I don’t know, it’s just not right, OK? Because Mr. Adams, you know, is controversial because of his disbarment and, and what he did to get disbarred.

LP- OK. So where does that leave people who were actually looking for help?

LM- Well, I'll tell ya, it’s a pretty sad situation because, if ECMAS doesn’t clean itself up and recognize that this is a, a death knell for its credibility if it doesn’t swiftly and quickly handle this, which may happen. They had a month prior to, you know, Ms. Laframboise beginning her investigation. They had a month, you know, where these controversies ...where I basically indicated that...

LP- So, nothing has happened, you're telling me that nothing is changed, nothing is fixed and people are in somewhat of a mess.

LM- Ya! And the thing is that they don’t seem to understand that these sexual controversies alone, all right?,... And if we, if, if the family, fathers’ rights commu..., you know, organization... movement... allows controversial ideas about child sexual abuse to find a home, you know...

LP- It taints all men.

LM- ...a home in the movement.

LP- Ya.

LM- You know, and indeed, in Edmonton’s case, literally, he takes a controlling interest. I mean, you know, in three different family rights organizations. Four actually, if you count the Men’s Line. I mean, all Ferrel, Ferrel, Ferrel. Right? So, you know, that’s a, that’s a fairly significant influence, you know. And, and, and I think it truly troubling, Leslie, that, you know, this, we all, everybody in Edmonton, and even indeed Alberta, knows about Mr. Christensen. No one ever knew about this book that he published on, you know, pornography and the desires that underlie it. And, you know, really, when it comes to... when we’re dealing with children’s issues, Leslie, this is important, OK?

LP- OK.

LM- You know?

LP- So that’s, so now, ‘cause we’re going into the news, basically, Louise, you’re saying that your involvement with this group is limited at best, if it’s any kind of involvement.

LM- Oh, no! Let me be very clear, all right?

LP- You’re finished with ECMAS.

LM- No. Let me be very clear, all right? Prior to this news story coming out today, I already announced that I would not provide service to any ECMAS, active member of MERGE, ECMAS or GIEF. We're talking 23 members here, OK? Let’s not get over, you know, excited. But, more importantly, now that this is done, you know, I feel that it’s..., you know, I can now..., my duty is done to the movement. I’ve now, at least, informed the community of Edmonton about this. And I'll tell you, you know, this has been seven months of living hell. It’s the hardest... one of the hardest things I’ve ever had to do. I’ve been vilified, and treated with hatred and disrespect.

LP- OK, but... All I’m trying to get to, because..., all I’m trying to get to is anybody looking for help in the city is now S.O.L.

LM- Well, certainly Parents Helping Parents is hoping to leave the city of Edmonton, and only a miracle will keep us here. And that miracle is if the City of Edmonton will let Parents Helping Parents establish a Men's Legal Center with emergency beds for men in trouble. And that’s the only thing that would keep me here. Because otherwise, I’m.... You know what? My personal safety and the safety of my family, all right?, have been put in jeopardy by this story. So, you know, I mean, I've got a duty to my family, too!

LP- Yeah, but who would you be afraid of? [She snickers.]

LM- Hey! Listen, man! This is scary, talking about sex in childhood, and pedophilia and God knows what else in the fathers’ rights movement. And if, God forbid, you should disagree with the fathers’ rights movement, it doesn’t matter that I worked for, you know...

LP- It’s a bad bit of business.

LM- ...for fathers for 10 years, doesn’t matter that Ms. Laframboise has written 50 articles, you know, we’re both persona non grata now because we dared to expose this really serious problem in the fathers’ rights community.

LP- OK. Louise, thank you so much for joining us today.

LM- Thank you very much for having me, Leslie.

LP- Take care.

LM- Good bye.

LP- Bye, bye. [Back]