-->
Showing posts with label Mikipedia Political Blog. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mikipedia Political Blog. Show all posts

Saturday, September 10, 2016

CHILD ALLOWED TO BE ABUSED BY FATHER WITH DHS FOOTSCRAY CONSENT

Submitted by DHSVicNegligence. on Wed, 06/11/2013
DHS FAILURES: What is in the "BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD as Deemed by DHS
CHILD PROTECTION Victoria – Footscray –Team Leader KATE LAVELLE & Case Worker JESSICA-BARBAGALLO


ORDER: A supervision order: Reasons for Order - Domestic Violence as perpetrated by

(Mother) - Michelle Stewart (Father) - Peter Cefai - (Child)the Father and Mother’s Mental Health.
I take full responsibility for the publication of this article because truth is considered an absolute defense and transparency needs exposure when you have nothing else left but your own truth when the law that governs us all fails to protect the most vulnerable in society.
The only way to allow transparency where Child Protection has failed their Duty of Care is exposure publicly where they have failed their duty in relation to the Child as in this case with our daughter “Cefai”

Child Protection Footscray had our young Child on a Supervision Order where she had remained in my care and their intervention was pertaining to the above concerns that was until Friday the 25th of October that Order was subsequently Breached before a Bail Justice by way of "Mothers Mental Health appears to have deteriorated" due to a remark I made telling them if they continued to fail to protect my daughter from being abused I would in order to protect her take matters into my own hands by way of taking the life of the person who was abusing her & "Parent’s continue to Breach Supervision Order exposing the Child to DV" 

I fail to see how I am responsible for another person’s behavior and when as your about to read further on it is DHS that have failed to protect her and that is in disrepute.
DHS where has been the Concern for the wellbeing of the Child regarding “multiple incidents” whilst in the fathers care where by your own Protocol has not been abided by or implemented at all by Child Protection while the child has been on a Supervision Order for a lengthy very extended Period of Time!

Peter Cefai my father can abuse me and DHS fail to protect me
Despite allegations of perpetrating violence against his own daughter, Peter Cefai, until a month ago, continued to enjoy frequent opportunities to harm his daughter courtesy of the Department of Human Services.
Where does the Duty of Care begin to start while a Child is on an Order where you have failed to abide by the Protocol you are here to uphold! red

My fahter can twist my small wrist with DHS consent
Despite allegations of perpetrating violence against his own daughter, Peter Cefai, until a month ago, continued to enjoy frequent opportunities to harm his daughter courtesy of the Department of Human Services.


My Dad can damage my right ear with DHS consent
Despite allegations of perpetrating violence against his
 own daughter, Peter Cefai, until a month ago, continued to enjoy frequent opportunities to harm his daughter courtesy of the Department of Human Services.

Allow anyone who views this documentation to look at the Protocol and see whether DHS have FAILED THEIR DUTY TO THE CHILD “Cefai” IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES where the Duty is only owed to the Child.

Since the Supervision Order was put in Place by the Department we should look at what a Supervision Order Is and then look at this particular case to see whether there Intervention has failed to protect the Child and what have they implemented in way of support whilst the child has been on this Order.
Meet my Dad and Help me
This man is accused of assaulting his daughter and de-facto partner of over 5 years.


http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/584440/supervision...
The Legal obligation of the Department of Child Protection whilst a child is on a Supervision Order! This duty is also respectively there to help and support the Parents!

A Breach of any Order is significant and an Order can be breached if your worker thinks that your situation has become worse and that your safety (The Child Cefai) is at risk, or that the conditions of the order are not being followed, your worker can breach the order and go back to court for a decision.
I will detail why the Breach occurred further on and whether DHS have indeed failed their Duty in relation to this Child and whether multiple subsequent Breaches should have been made in an effort to protect the Child and whether their decisions have put the Child (Cefai) at Further Risk of Abuse.
Child Protection in Australia are mandated to protect Children at risk of harm, ensuring they are "safe in the family". When adults caring for children do not follow through with their responsibilities, are abusive or exploit their positions of power, this is when Child Protection becomes responsible for taking action.
I am going to outline each incident that I strongly believe by reading their own Protocol impeaches on the Child Cefai’s emotional wellbeing, physical safety & neglect, followed by footage, recorded calls and photos of what I deem as a mother to be Child Abuse and severe neglect by the DHS Footscray’s case Manager.
All Incidents are ones for which DHS are very aware of and have even had independent disclosures made by the Child.
DHS & their excuse for lack of Intervention and protection is the "CHILDRENS COURT & RESIDING JUDGES" would not deem any of the Incidents sufficient or significant enough to amend the current order because it is the belief of the Children’s Court that a "Father should have the same proactive role in a child’s life to the extent of a Mother" That I do agree with in every respect & I also agree that a Child requires both parents!
What I have a problem with is multiple incidents of risk by a parent, reports that appear in the Child’s best Interest that are not being met by the Parent and potential behavior that most certainly puts that Child at risk of emotional harm, physical harm and neglect and even endangerment of life.
The Victorian Child Protection Service is specifically targeted to those children and young people at risk of harm or where families are unable or unwilling to protect them! "This is a brief summary that is written on the Department of Child Protections website"
Despite liking them or loathing them, it is a fact DHS-Child Protection are a necessary evil and the system is implemented to protect Children.
I do not have a problem with any system designed to help our most venerable in society, but I most certainly do when particular regions, workers and those in a position of power are in fact breaching their own protocol and daily by doing the adverse and putting those Children at further risk or simply not acting at all!
Best interests principles.
Child Protection seek these Orders in relation to what is deemed in the Best Interest of the Child.
https://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/stuman/wellbeing/protect...
The ‘every child every chance’ reforms are underpinned by principles that promote the right of every child to live a full and productive life in an environment that builds confidence, friendships, security and happiness irrespective of their family circumstances or background.
The Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 is a key building block to support the reform strategy to promote children’s safety, wellbeing and development.
The CYFA has a unifying set of ‘best interests principles’ that require family services, Child Protection and placement services to protect children from harm, protect their rights and promote their development in gender, age and culturally appropriate ways.
For the purposes of this protocol, acting in the best interests of the child includes:
• All allegations or disclosures of physical abuse, sexual abuse,
Emotional abuse and neglect
• reporting to Child Protection when a belief is formed that a child has been harmed or is at
Risk of being harmed
• making the child’s ongoing safety and wellbeing the primary focus of decision-making
• sharing appropriate information, expertise and resources with other service providers
Supporting the child
• protecting and promoting the cultural and spiritual identity of a child and maintaining their
Connection to their family or community of origin
• enabling the child and the child’s family to access appropriate services in order to reduce
The long-term effects of abuse or neglect.
What happens when those who work within Child Protection "Abuse" their position of Power and where they do not follow the protocol that is there to enforce the protection of the said Child/ren ?
When Child Protection seek Orders pertaining to Children & supply written Court Reports before the Children's Courts & the presiding Judges that solely rely upon the evidence presented as being "True & Correct" in all respects to make decisions based on what is deemed in the best Interest of the child given the circumstances presented, If the reports that are presented to the Courts & presiding Magistrates are "NOT" True & Correct or fail to depict the true nature of a Childs Circumstance's with information that is not accurate or credible then it puts the entire system that is designed to protect Children in Jeopardy!
What happens when the same Government Department fails to protect the Children that they are mandated to protect?
What happens when they FAIL their "Duty of Care" regarding children on Orders they have sought before the Courts removing them from Parents?
Where are they made responsible for their failures when there are Laws that protect them from transparency when grave mistakes are being made at the expense of Children and Family’s all over Australia?
Where Children have even lost their young lives due to their severe Negligence when in the position of Loci-Parenti? (Place of Parent)
How many Children are hindered by their Intervention and put at far greater risk of emotional & psychological harm, physical abuse & even on rare occasion’s sexual abuse daily within Australia.
How many Children have been sexually abused in Care?
How many notification's do not come from credible & reliable sources rather than people who are disgruntled, malicious - ex spouses, feuding neighbor's , even family members and friends, where those people are protected and their notifications appear to be validated despite them not being true or correct?
Have you ever had someone make an allegation that was untrue and most certainly unfounded & rather than the person making the allegation providing evidence, you were simply regarded as guilty before you even had the chance to prove your innocence & without them providing any evidence to validate such claims, even in a court of law you are innocent until proven guilty!
Why is it that there are so many expectations from parents that are struggling or have no Family support and yet DHS provide “NO” support or help to those Family’s? The irony is, if you become a Carer the structured support and help is there immediately.
Example: From my own personal experience: If you require a Taxi voucher because you are having trouble getting your child to per say Kindergarten, DHS will tell you they cannot help you & that you will have to find another form of transport or you will be Breached for not providing your child with what they deem as necessary and compulsory education.
If a Carer requests the same they are given it immediately! Those that are struggling are left struggling & with the fear of having those they love taken from them over a transportation issue that was temporary! Where is the rational and most certainly where is the fairness or help and support to those who need it most?
I presume if they were to take as much time helping and supporting those parents in the same way as they do Carer's , how many of these Children would actually be in the system, rather than at home with their parents who are trying ?
How many Children Internationally tragically Die in their Care due to their own failures and complete lack off duty off care when in the position of Loci -Parenti ,how many parents are left trying to pick up those pieces with their lives never being the same & given a life sentence after the loss of their Child and all that entails .
How would a parent be perceived if a Child was to die in their care with the same negligence?
Parents are prosecuted by DHS for far less.
How many mistakes are being made daily with hundreds of Children & Family’s when the material produced to the Courts is not true ,nor accurate and court reports have been embellished or written to suit the needs of the Department or the Departments skewed perception.
Mental Health is one of the major concerns for which they use frequently in their investigations, reports and criteria for involvement .Mental Health even in 2013 despite the changes in approach over the years with far more education implemented and structured around greater awareness regarding Mental Health within society, there is most defiantly still - a stigma very much associated with any Mental Health diagnoses. Lack of understanding where a person is labelled by their illness is common & negative attitudes create prejudice which leads to negative actions and discrimination within DHS when dealing with those who have a Mental Health diagnoses & even where there is “NO” associated risk of harm to the Child.
DHS use parents Mental Health issues constantly as leverage against parents who have any form of diagnoses.
How many parents Mental health issues despite the diagnoses & where it does not oppose a risk to a Child is made worse with their intervention ,intrusion and condemnation & prejudice and should a parent that suffers Mental Health be made to feel any less worthy of being a Parent ,if it does not affect their ability to parent?
Where have you ever seen or read a report written by DHS remotely in the Parents Interest, despite the efforts they have made or even changes they have implemented in their lives in order to help their situation?
How can reports such as these be beneficial to any ones emotional wellbeing when they are struggling & all attempts by parents to rectify situations in order to help their Children & themselves are rebuked by Court Reports from DHS with negative responses and reports that disparage people simply trying !
If DHS and their decisions can be so negligent & impact on our case before the Children's Courts regarding my daughter and fail to protect a young child from risk of harm… I ask how many Children are actually at risk currently within the system where they are failing to provide that duty of care and how many Magistrates that preside in the Children’s Court are fully aware of a Family’s circumstances when making such life changing decisions when so many mistakes are being made during the Initial investigation’s that are fundamentally flawed and skewed in their presentation by the Department before the Children’s Court.
I am unsure of the legal ramifications of this publication, I take sole reasonability for what I have written, This is our life that is being severely affected by decisions made by the powers to be - DHS that are impacting on the emotional wellbeing of my Family and I will produce as much evidence as I can in order to protect my daughter from a system designed to protect her from abuse - yet have allowed continual abuse to occur, that has impacted on my emotional wellbeing , not to mentions my child’s that I am simply trying to protect.
I fail to see why my daughter was removed over a remark I had made regarding her Father in trying to prevent further abuse & due to months of raising concerns where DHS have failed to protect my child and I refuse to have supervised visits with my child when I have never apposed a risk too her or have ever been assessed as being a risk to her and have always been proactive in protecting her and parenting her appropriately.
DHS have disadvantaged my child and have impacted on her stability, security & emotional wellbeing terribly & they have had no regard to my plight to have her protected from abuse, it is fair to say that you will and would do anything to protect your child and more so when you have already lost a child due to the negligence of others.
I have no doubt that Parents like myself are desperately trying to be heard and are being silenced by DHS where we appear to have no voice in a Country where we are known for our Freedom of Speech and it is our most basic Human Right.
We are being dragged through a system with people making decisions that are most certainly not based in the Best Interest of the Child in this case & I presume many others sadly.
DHS can try and silence me in court and continue to write inaccurate court reports where they do not depict the true nature of my daughters circumstances, nor mine before the presiding Judges that govern and make decisions pertaining to what they have before them, that can have life changing & have devastating effects on a Family unit if they are provided with misinformation. When you finally arrive at Court when a date is listed, you are given little to no time to defend such allegations in a system where there are hundreds of cases back logged and not enough Lawyer’s or time to be able to look at all the material in its entirety when you do appear and extremely lengthy adjournment's that take months from your life that are most certainly detrimental to the wellbeing of every family member involved.
I will not be silenced and I will not allow the safety and wellbeing of my child jeopardized because DHS are simply not following their own guidelines and protocol and have ultimately put my child at risk of significant harm and emotional harm removing her from a loving home where I may not have the Family support and I do unashamedly suffer a preexisting Mental illness relating to the death of my son, despite the fact it has not hindered my ability to love, nurture, care and protect my daughter to the best of my given ability and under sometimes the most difficult of circumstance’s. My daughters needs have always been met, well and truly before my own in every respect. I fail to see where I have committed any crime.
My disability regarding the concerns raised by DHS are “lack of Family support “and “Mental Health” that has never ever hindered my ability to parent & care for my Child & cater for all her needs, being a special needs Child accompanied by complex medical illnesses as well and over the years multiple therapists and specialist.
Nor have I ever apposed a risk too her in anyway emotionally or physically ,nor would I & that has been well documented in previous lengthy psychiatric reports to DHS that my preexisting Mental Health does not in any way put my Children at harm. DHS despite knowing this still target my Mental Health that is associated with the passing of one of my Children and to me is merely a reminder of how much I will always love & miss him dearly. The loss of one Child has made me more protective & circumspect with my children & especially when my Child is unwell. I do not see that as a crime and even that does not interfere with my parenting only with the internal fear of loss in situations where I have no control over the outcome such as medical illnesses and those internal fears I work on.
I will also add that since the passing of my son, that I have never ever been medicated for my PTSD ,depression ,panic disorder as I have severe sensitivities' to medications that has made it impossible and I like to believe I have done remarkably well under the circumstances with no Family support or assistance for my condition that seems to have deteriorated over the last 5 months due to DHS intervention and failure to protect my daughter with more than valid concerns from any parent in my position.
DHS has raised concerns regarding my “Mental Health” and Domestic Violence where I am not the perpetrator of that Violence and respectfully do understand their concern’s in relation to Domestic Violence and the impact it has on Children.
My Daughter has been in my care since birth and despite DHS concerns for my Mental Health and ongoing Domestic Violence with the Father who is the perpetrator of this Violence they have sought fit to make an order that she have lengthy access with her Father at one stage it was 3 times a week and overnight weekend access ,this fluctuated with certain incidents where they would supervise for a week or so and then deem unsupervised access to return until there was a “Further Incident” & then they would repeat the cycle .
I ask what abuse is ever rarely done with witnesses and do they think they are dealing with a Man with no brain function who has not got the ability to control himself within the company of DHS workers or Police?
My Mental Health:
.My mental health diagnoses is PTSD after the death of my son.
.Panic Disorder.
.Agoraphobia.
.None of these Mental Health conditions have hindered my ability to Mother & Parent my Child. None of these conditions have ever prevented my daughter who is a special needs child with the Diagnoses of Autism, including multiple medical conditions, such an Epilepsy and others from ever receiving proper medical treatment in every respect and with no help or support from the DHS, despite the fact she has multiple specialists.
.It is known by DHS that her father does not take the time to understand her complex medical needs or takes her to even a GP after accidents have occurred that require review and has no awareness or insight into her medical conditions that remotely see him fit to care for her and takes no interest in being self-educated in her needs and requirements, nor have they implemented conditions or provisions requesting that he does learn.
.My Childs education has always been met, as with her education mile stone.
.My Child eats appropriate meals and meals that entail diligent care because they need to be modified due to health reasons, otherwise she can become ill.
.My daughter has always and solely by myself and without the financial support of her working Father due to him being exonerated from paying Child Support due to his Domestic Violence, has had all financial needs met in every respect.
.My Child in my care has been loved, nurtured, happy, clean and healthy despite her medical dispositions, I have always put in supports that have been required where they have been needed by my child promptly.
.My child has never been around any form of illicit drug use, alcohol use or even resides in a home where I smoke cigarettes.
.My Child has always been in a clean, hygienic environment ,though a somewhat” cluttered household” due to us moving back into our home that had been severely abused and was very unhygienic and without any help or support from DHS despite asking for help that was promised and never given.
I have taken the tedious exhausting task at hand doing the best I can and by myself in a house that was not fit for my Child or myself and where I had been sleeping on a couch and my daughter had "NO ACCESS " to her bed, where I went and had to Purchase another bedroom suite because I simply had no help in accessing the one stacked here amongst furniture dumped down stairs in a main lounge that I could not even get too ,let -alone move by myself and despite my many request from DHS-No help was offered or given only demands to have it sorted and done and the back yard when we moved in deemed as dangerous for our child. This was the condition Peter Cefai left the home in before leaving knowing his daughter was moving back in.
.My child resides in a home where she is very well loved and nurtured by myself, where our outings are limited while I work on my Panic Disorder, but I manage to put in place smaller outings and home based activities to substitute for that.
.I am proficient in teaching my child methods of interaction and social appropriateness because she has Autism and getting structured support that she needs such as her speech therapists and always engage with the teacher as too how she is doing at school and whether there is anything else I can do to make her journey in life a little easier. I focus on the needs of my daughter first and foremost well and truly before my own.
.I do not & have never abused my Child, neglected, emotionally, physically or in anyway and there are "NO" Recorded Incidents from my Child or anyone else whilst she is in my care of any such abuse.
DHS concerns pertaining to myself are:
I do not have Family support that I can rely on if needed or anyone that I can call in case I am unwell and the only person made available has been my daughters father as DHS have been powerless to be able to find anyone for me, despite months of requesting someone ,so that her father was not an option at all, nor should he be.
I cannot produce family I simply do not have due to them being either deceased, in another state or would be deemed unfit by the department.
I have requested, along with those who I work with regarding my Depression and Panic Disorder that DHS find suitable respite support as long as I can remember and I have been told there is “NONE” & since these are significant concerns according to DHS, I find it perplexing they cannot provide a solution, yet expect me to find a miracle and Family I simply do not have and their answers to my questions are below.
(A.)They have "NONE" in fact they not only do not have respite carer’s but a shortage of carer’s and cannot provide one and there disposition is they have "8 year old" children in RESICARE units and they are in debt millions? It appears they can condemn a person for not having Family or support and deem that a requirement when you have Mental Health ,but cannot put any respite or support in place knowing the "child" when viewing all the case notes has "NO" suitable extended Family to care for her at all and hasn’t for the last nearly 4 years.
A. When DHS fail to be able to provide adequate care and simply say they cannot help, I fail to see how they can raise it as an issue at all, unless they have a remedy of assistance in situations like this.
B. The other problem at hand is my Mental Health, the main problem I have with my "Mental Health" is dealing with Panic Disorder which can be rather debilitating and restrictive in relation to area & zone, I can only travel within a certain radius, far better than when I was confined to my house and struggled to go to the letter box. I have on many occasions asked DHS could they assist me in getting into a Panic Disorder Clinic who specialize solely in this field of expertise and I have no doubt I would benefit greatly with this particular therapy & for my condition, that opposes “no risk to anyone “ and are merely quite frightening for those who have them… I was told initially "YES" as both Child and mother would benefit if I had the ability to be able to travel independently rather than rely on people and her father.
C. Then there was a change of heart by DHS and they couldn’t help me at all as the clinics that deal with Panic Disorder are private!
How dare DHS use my "Mental Health" as leverage in your concerns and reports when I do not oppose a risk to my Child & you have me asking for any help or assistance & DHS cannot provide anything and will not HELP! Why use it at all?
If the belief is that it could affect my ability to care for my child, yet have no remedy or support in place to be able to help and know that I have enlisted as much help as possible and work weekly in trying to help myself with the little that is available in the public domain.Is that not a person being productive rather than the counterproductive behavior that DHS have supplied being in the form of Penpushing? That’s really helpful.
I would like to know what has been done to date in relation to support, assistance & help from DHS, apart from wasting people’s time where you can’t help them and hindering and adding insult to injury, condescending, arrogant and unproductive and adding more distress to a family that has gone through enough.
The “ONLY” Concern by DHS that is acceptable and a valid is DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
Should I have to be responsible for the actions of a perpetrators abuse?
I have acted protectively by calling the Police when Incidents have occurred.
There have been 20"documented” or more Incidents, not including his Breaches where I have been flagged by the Police as a high risk category.
The Police say that the Courts are too blame because with each guilty plea or by the time is reaches court which could take a year, the evidence does not get produced and he is asked to do anger management courses. It was also a condition on the DHS orders that he has never complied to that would surely constitute a Breach?
“Father must not expose Child to Domestic Violence”
The domestic Violence has been ongoing and horrendous and I was told by DHS in order to protect my daughter and myself that I needed to prevent him having access to the home.
That meant money, either changing locks, but in this case due to the damage where he had literally kicked in the front doors which were hollow, it meant securing solid front doors and a side fence so that he could not climb over and it also mean changing an entire garage roller door if I could not get access to the automatic key lock. That way I could only deal with the damage to my car’s!
I ask could DHS help us in this way since it was a grave concern or if they could financially assist .They could not help in any way and simply said –WE DO NOT HAVE THE FUNDS:
I had to get money that I did not have and spent over a $1000 on second hand doors to be installed by Hire a Hubby that were solid core doors and $200 for a side fence and when I asked could DHS please get the “automatic Key Lock for the garage” as I could not afford to have an entire roller door replaced as well & had cut corners and he did not reside here and hadn’t since I moved back to my home -I was told "NO" we can’t simply ask him to return it ,that is not what we are here for ,it is a civil matter and then they wonder how he still manages to gain access as he pleases to the Garage and backyard and takes what he like when he wants!
I have done all that one can do in relation too Domestic Violence and what is expected of me in an event of a Domestic Violence incident and are the only expectations in safety plans when you enlist supports as have been done many times with Women’s Health West.
I suspect the problem is when an offender has no consequences from anyone, they tend to believe the Abuse can continue & their actions are justified when there are no repercussions for abusive behavior and conduct! “The father must attend anger management course “He has not complied with that at all has he DHS despite it being a condition of your own Order?
DHS had told Peter Cefai and myself “He Could attend the home as long as it was not when his daughter was present and that they could not entirely stop him and we could meet in public places. This was changed to him not be able to attend the home after they realized that his incidents were still occurring and he was not abiding by the instructions that he was not to come when his child was here!
If it is confusing for you- Imagine trying to comprehend their rather illogical instructions that only made the matter far more complex and in some respects worse knowing the history on and off over the last 4 years! Maybe some couple counselling may have been more beneficial if it was to be in the best interest of the child and he has an important role in her life despite his abuse even to her.
I don’t begrudge a father seeking and getting help and becoming responsible for his own actions and how such actions have ultimately affected the lives of those who love him such as his daughter, only one that can’t see he needs it, refuses to help himself and acknowledge the he has any problems and won’t change his behavior that is detrimental emotionally in every respect to his “only child” and myself being her mother.
I had requested DHS help me by taking me to my daughter’s specialist appointments in the Melbourne, one she waited nearly 4 years for with her Geneticist and DHS had arranged to take me. I was elated and thought how nice of them, they can offer us a “little” support, as they sit there when they do these errands you notice their penpushing (how appropriate, how intrusive and frankly rude).
At the last minute I was called by the worker who said “sorry I can’t make it” do you feel comfortable with Peter taking you because there is "NO" one else that can? It became apparent that is did not matter if I felt uncomfortable, because no other arrangements were made and it was the only choice I had because our daughter needed to attend that appointment and I wasn’t going to wait 9 months after waiting nearly 4 years when it was important as she has a rare gene mutation .
Why is it suitable for DHS to allow access that has been “DENIED” by DHS in Ordering him too not come to the home and especially with our daughter present because of more incidents of Domestic Violence and suddenly have him become my only means of getting to these places in the event they cannot take us? It really does defeat the purpose of what they have placed as a restriction on their Orders. The same way they have had me rely on him in the past with no family support instead of finding someone that can help.
What is even more bizarre is they allow that, yet deny him being an Electrician putting in the oven that I had to purchase because he burnt out the other one and it leaves food not edible and cannot be cleaned as it caught on fire, so he said or to put in the 10 down lights that he has removed all over the lounge leaving it a risk and hazard with exposed wires… I simply do not have the money to pay for an electrician it is hundreds of dollars and it would have got the oven and cooktop out of the hallway!
When DHS cannot support me in doing so and when they allow my abuser to have the ultimate control and by having me rely on him because they cannot provide assistance themselves or give prior notice & they have “no way of supporting my daughter or myself” Why are they Involved?
It appears it’s an “All or Nothing Situation “so my question is if they have not got the ability to support, provide or help in any way beneficial, but merely hinder and confuse me as to what is reallyexpected from myself and do not have the remedy to rectify their own concerns then why are they involved and what is there purpose when they clearly stipulate that we are not to be together around the Child, yet use him when it suits their needs & purpose? It simply defeats the purpose of their Intervention.
I might add on each order there are stipulations such as : Father must not expose the Child to Domestic Violence per say and I can also inform you that he has either not abided by those requirement’s or he simply has not attended what they have requested and not once Breached him for not abiding by those conditions: How ironic!
IT DEFEATS THE ORDERS DHS HAVE IMPLEMENTED & THEIR CONCERNS - IN FACT IT BREACHES THEIR OWN CONDUCT.
Following this there are Incidents which were clear Breaches and DHS should have most certainly acted in order to protect the Child and they clearly did not.
ARE THESE INCIDENTS IN BREACH OF DHS PROTOCOL WHISLT A CHILD IS ON THIS ORDER & ARE THESE NOT SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS & NOT ANOTHER FORM OF DV?
•.The very First concern was the Co-Sleeping between the father & his child in a single bed and DHS had told her father this was inappropriate and that he was required to get his "own bed" and stop as this behavior was unhealthy given her age . Despite residing in a 3 bedroom house where in the 3rd bedroom is a queen bed that does not get utilized, he continued to do it. This appears to me to be a very unhealthy innate need for her father & not for our Child as she sleeps in her own bed at home and despite DHS continuing to ask our daughter where she sleeps and being told with Dad in the bottom bunk, there has been no “BREACH” to date and this has gone on for well over a year!
•Her father continues to Co-Sleep with our 5, nearly 6 year old daughter in a single bed, where he even purchased single bed bunks and DHS deemed that appropriate & where there is a 3rd Bedroom that he could make his own with a queen bed?
•DHS asked initially if I believed that he may have been sexually abusing our daughter, I said "NO" though I did believe his sleeping with her was very unhealthy & more a co-dependency need on his behalf and despite their need to ask if I believed he could have been sexually abusing our daughter -to date DHS have not had our child go through any process to eliminate that initial doubt or any suspicion they may have had & allowing her to see proper experts in that field to dispel any possibility.
•I would never want to even entertain such a thought and I have raised the co-sleeping arrangement’s as a concern given her age and his inability to not be able to stop this habit, but I am not the one they should be asking if they have the slightest suspicion or concern? I am not an expert and should they have not already enlisted an expert to make a proper assessment and determination if they had the slightest concern or doubt?
•Our daughter often urinates the bed at her fathers, so much so that he states he has to wake her at 3am to take her to the toilet.
•My daughter has only ever urinated her bed twice at home & that was due to her epilepsy, she does not have a problem at home with bed wetting. DHS are very aware of this.
•Our daughter told DHS that her father says look at your boobies… highly Inappropriate.
•DHS were made aware there was very inappropriate tongue to tongue wiggling between Father and Child and also between Grandfather and Child when she was younger that was extremely disturbing to watch and they were told that behavior needed to stop immediately. This behavior was quite constant in 2008-09-10 and eventually stopped. DHS said it could be a culture issue given they are Maltese, I doubt there culture indifference has anything to do with this dysfunctional behavior.
•Our daughter has made a disclosure that while her father was washing her in the bath, after he washed her private parts he smelt his fingers and when she asked him what he was doing he said your "minnie stinks" despite being told that he does not need to bath her, as she washes herself at home and is very independent in this area and this behavior is sickening and extremely concerning to date DHS have done nothing.
•.Our daughter shows a very unhealthy obsession with male “men” that are strangers, by inappropriately crawling all over them and rubbing their face ,calling them cute and wanting to get unnaturally close ,sitting on their knees and getting inappropriately close with her body language. When she was on holiday not 1 but 3 men felt very uncomfortable by her behavior and had to keep telling her to either get down or off them.
One was a father with children.
•Another asked her would she like to watch a movie and she said yes a sex movie and he was extremely perplexed, she later explained that she watches home and away with her father and it is a sex movie because they kiss in it ,sex movies have kissing!
•I am unsure what she is viewing whilst in her father’s care, but there clearly appears to be no boundaries regarding what she is watching on TV or even if she has been privileged to pornographic material. How does a 5 year old know about sex or what that even means, I know they do not discuss it as part of her education, so she clearly is being influenced by something or someone?
•Despite my concerns, I had been told on multiple occasions that if I was not to allow access to go ahead with her father I would be in breach of the supervision Orders, yet these are not clearly Breaches or valid concerns ?
•.Her father watches her go to the toilet standing at the door and making her bend over so he can see if she has wiped herself properly and he also shuts the door and invites her in while he is in the toilet using it himself. My daughter has been appropriately toilet trained and able to wipe herself as she does at school since she was 3.
•.The behaviors above with comments from her father hey sexy bum and the fact he does not call her by her name but buddy is not a healthy relationship in any respect for whatever reason .DHS are aware of all the above and have little to know concerns and we have waited for a year to have proper assessment’s to see whether there is underlying reasons for his odd and unhealthy behavior that is most certainly detrimental to our daughter in every respect.
•Her Father always asks her- Do you love me? Tell me you love me and makes her kiss him and say I love you. He has indoctrinated her with his likes, rather than the likes of a child, she tells him he can’t have any girls in his life and he tells her, I only love and want you.
•In the past he has manifested a very unhealthy situation between myself and him, by telling me if I went to kiss him on the cheek to go away and would say to our daughter “I only love you” and scolding me, saying don’t kiss me & shoving me away and then going and kissing our daughter.
•.After many months of this behavior , if my daughter even sees me attempting to kiss her father good bye ,she becomes violent and jealous, shoving me away and punching me ,calling me foul names & telling me not to touch him. The relationship they have is not one you would ever see between a father and daughter, it is unhealthy in many respects and I have never encountered a relationship like it.
•DHS are more than aware that our Daughter has witnessed "Severe Ongoing Domestic Violence" and has been a "Victim" Statistics and documentation freely available tell us the huge emotional, physiological impact that has on a young child-DHS to date have not incorporated any help for our daughter in any respect, nor have they retained a physiologist to see what underlying emotional damage has been done by witnessing DV over a period of 4 years and even participating in such violence by hitting me & getting approval from her father after an incident.
• She also verbally mimics her father by calling me a F…Mole and F Fat Bitch and other vile names and even mimicking the way her brother died as he mimics my dying son, taking his last breaths and asking me for help by saying mum its Nathan help me and she behaves in the same manner, her Father encourages her behavior & reinforces what she is doing by appraisal. It is emotional abuse in its most inhumane form and enough to nearly push anyone over the edge when he does this and even worse when I see my daughter become a victim of his disgusting taunts when she is so innocent and has not got any idea that he is mocking her deceased brother and what will the emotional impact be when she realizes what she is doing when she loves her brother so dearly.
•DHS have asked her ,does she know what it means when she does this and she said NO-I just copy my Dad because he likes it or most commonly refers to him as Peter.
•DHS have a responsibility to enlist appropriate supports and a physiologist regarding her behavior to be able to make the determination what characteristics and behavioral issues are due to her high functioning Autism and what is due to her witnessing years of Domestic Violence and the abuse that has been inflicted upon her by her own father and witnessing such events as the death of her pets and abuse.
•DHS despite a report that was originally given to them that stated ..."The Fathers needs were based solely around "HIS NEEDS & NOT THE NEEDS of the CHILD" and although she loved her father she also feared him. That report was well over a year and half ago and to date nothing has been done and the Domestic Violence has continued not only in my home but also his place of residence and work.
If that alone was not bad enough, there have been multiple incidents of PHYSICAL ABUSE towards the child from her father Peter Cefai.
•Pulling of her hair and making her cry.
•Pulling at her ear and it was red and swollen and she was hysterical and he has done this quite a few times.
•Slapping her in the face with what they expressed as being more than moderate force after an Interview where she made the disclosure of abuse and they asked her to show them how hard daddy hit her & she put her hand back and slapped the workers face that hard the worker said her face was still stinging minutes later.
•Grabbing, twisting and pulling her nose to where she cries.
•Slapping & hitting her where he has left a welted hand prints and where she runs to her room and puts her head into a pillow and cry’s where she can’t catch her breath and will show you how she can’t catch her breath .
•Whipping her in the neck with a twisted T/Shirt discretely and then while she is crying uncontrollable, he stands there denying it and calls her a F…Liar, yet you can see the marks and his abuse appears to be discrete and privately.
•Pushing her in the back & slapping her chest over her heart and near her collar bone leaving significant red markings, where it was hidden with a t/shirt because it is one of the conditions that he not physically abuse her and yet he does, without any Breach occurring or having Peter made accountable for such abuse that is sadistic and childlike and dangerous and he simply cannot stop or help himself from doing it and then blackmails her that if she tells anyone she can’t go to an event she is looking forward to or he will go to jail and the police will take him.
•Slapping her in the back so hard that she came flying off the top of the ladder on the bunk bed and she had bruising to her forehead, arms and legs that were deemed by the hospital as being inconclusive as they could have also come from accidental injuries as well. Even the Police that spoke to her believed what she told them, but she was far too young to make a statement and her injuries were not significant enough as in broken bones. I ask what will it take and how long before she is severely injured .She was also noted as being very pale by hospital staff and tired on arrival after she spent the weekend with her father and looked white as a sheet and sick.
•There is also a small extremely significant scull calcification on her forehead where there was also a tiny bleed that had damaged her skull that still can be felt, after she apparently walked into a pole and I was told she would have most certainly been concussed due to the nature of the injury .Her father hid it for the entire weekend and did not even seek medical attention and told her not to tell anyone, yet after she arrived home and the lump did not look and feel right, I took her to the doctors where they ordered an ultrasound & subsequently where the damage was found.
•He has no boundaries even around his responsibility, if indeed it was an accident in seeking her proper medical attention after such a serious blow to the head/scull where she nearly knocked herself out enough to completely fall over.
•He calls her a F….Bitch or calls her saying you little Bitch & names that are disgusting and highly inappropriate.
•He has made gesture to slit her throat after an incident of Domestic Violence after taking her in his car and always takes her after abuse incidents and you can’t stop him apart from calling the Police, because his aggression and violence are out of control and it would put her I further danger trying to remove her from him.
•He has held her while kicking, head butting and punching me and shoving me over either in his arms or while she has been in my arms.
•He damages my cars and property and steals money that is my daughters Christmas money and takes the most personal things, even my dead sons clothing he has taken and walked in wearing his shorts that have been sacredly kept and put away and when I am beside myself and in shock, he replies what’s your problem & say it’s not as if he will ever get to where them or care his dead.
•He has driven in a 50k zone doing over 80k or more with our daughter in the car and having our child explaining to DHS that the car hit the side of the road and he drives very fast going side to side (apparently the name is fishtailing) and she thinks she is going to heaven & going to die where her brother is and that it scares her really bad and she feels sad. How can you comprehend that fear?
•She says how she always feels sad and how bad she cries after incidents.
•DHS deemed it fit to tell him not to drive like that and he has done it on more than one occasion, despite the obvious emotional damage it has caused her.
•He has driven with her in the front seat of the car without a proper restraint and says she like it though.
•He has driven an un-roadworthy car with her in it speeding calling me and telling her to say hello to mummy and then him telling me how fast he was going, I was absolutely hysterical and him saying F…You Bitch as though my Child was not ever coming back and unrestrained . The Police were powerless to even intercept him as there were NO Family Law Court Orders in Place. I had to wait to see if my daughter was coming home or due to his aggression and impulsivity whether I would get a call saying she had died in a car accident. I was begging them for help and no one not even DHS could help me.
•The Incidents have been multiple and many even costing the lives of our 2 beloved dog’s one being my deceased sons and an assault to a 3rd dog!
•My daughters and mine Jack Russell was mysteriously poisoned whilst he refused to allow us to have our dog after I moved out and she witnessed it die as she tried to reassure her pet he would be okay and who she called her best friend, that he was going to be okay as he lay dying under a tree in the backyard and she was trying to lift him up.
•On the weekend when he had visiting rights ordered by DHS my daughter watched for 2 days her pet die inhumanely where he could not get up from under a fern tree in the back yard and where she could not understand why he was not playing with her and her father telling her maybe a snake bit him, where she was doting on him and trying to talk to him telling him to get better. When she arrived home on the Sunday distressed she said mummy Rocky is sick and he can’t get up and play with me and her father called her a liar, I went to the home where I found my dog lying there unable to get up and dying, I became hysterical. I immediately called the Lord Smith Hospital where they asked me to look at his gums and they were white, they said he had been poisoned .Peter then claimed he had seen him eat rat poison he had decided to put in the shed but had taken him to a vet where he said he will be fine and to give him water a totally different version he gave to his grief stricken 5 year old daughter about her beloved pet who she referred to as her best friend as they spent every night together playing on her trampoline, she never did use her trampoline after his death and still today says how much she misses him. After blood and plasma transfusion trying to desperately save his life, my daughter had to watch him die and was devastated and when Peter was asked by the Lord Smith what vet gave him that information he said I lied and had no remorse at all.

•That was his Childs pet.

•The second and most treasured pet belonged to my deceased son who was my closest companion also died at the hands of Peter .We had an Alaskan Malamute and my old Foxy Sparky that resided together happily for many years . I and Peter knew they could not be fed together. After an incident of DV where I left the home, I came home later to my beloved old dog with his eye hanging out and blood all over his face, I immediately got a friend to take him to the Lord smith where his eye was removed and the socket sutured and eventually sent home, Peter said I never seen his eye or face like that, I forgot and fed the dogs together Jetta must of attacked him. Months later another Incident occurred and when I returned home my beloved dog and friend had to be put down as he was again savaged by Jetta due to Peter feeding them again together despite the incident months earlier, he said I forgot ,accidents happen.

•As little as a few months ago he picked up my daughters and mine little Chihuahua whom she also called Rocky where he was allowed to come to the home with the provided consent of DHS as his daughter had been just diagnosed with epilepsy and was having seizure’s that were petrifying and as he sat next to our daughter with her dog on her lap, he said something in an aggressive tone towards her and I asked him to please leave and return to see her the following day as I knew where it would lead.

•He then grabbed our dog from her lap and threw it with full force into the side of my head where initially I thought he had punched me to my head and I felt dizzy, to only look down to see my dog on the ground who couldn’t get up or move, my daughter became extremely distressed and we were crying ,I was calling around trying to get an after-hours vet, I found one who told me Rocky may have incurred a brain injury with the force or concussion as his body was shaking and he was very sleepy and disorientated and wasn’t responding well.

•As I put down the phone, I had to call an ambulance for my daughter as she suffered one of the worst seizure’s she had to date which started with severe emotional distress and palpitations and led to a full convulsive seizure ,there will never be any doubt in my heart the incident with her pet severely impacted on her as she was saying to her dog please don’t die I love you ,I believe the significant trauma brought on that major seizure where I was hysterical as I was getting coached by 000 in what to do with my daughter she ended up in the Royal Children’s and whilst we stayed in there ,all I could think of was whether I was coming home to another one of our beloved dogs dead and how could I explain that to her a 3rd time when she had witnessed her own father inflict that upon her pet and some body she loved so dearly.

•DHS are aware that he has currently taken one of my pets and I asked them could they get it returned fearing the worse to be told it’s not there job!

•This time we were fortunate that he survived and must have suffered some unconsciousness and shock and he made a full recovery thank god & the only damage that appears to have occurred is slight damage to his right eye, but we still have him to love and his healthy and happy.

•These incidents there is no doubt have incurred severe emotional damage, not only has she witnessed his physical abuse of myself where she has constantly felt the need of late to apologize, saying sorry mummy I didn’t want to go but I had to go because he was so angry and feeling some sense of guilt about it and saying how sad it made her feel, but she has had to witness her pets die or be injured by her own father and even be physically abused by him at various times.

•These are things that have left severe emotional scars even with me, how could they not affect a small venerable innocent child and how will she perceive the world to be when experiencing such severe emotional abuse and DHS are very aware of all of this and too date there have been no consequences or more importantly help for our child, the greatest victim in all of this and now they have removed her from myself the only person that has to date that never has hurt her and has tried with all that I am to protect her in every possible way.

•What use is any parent if they cannot protect their Children, the one thing you would die for if need be and the only thing you most certainly live for and love unconditionally in life. 

•DHS are more than aware in case notes, discussions with our child independently that these all things have occurred and "THEY STILL FAIL TO PROTECT HER."

DHS last week were notified of a -------"SHOTGUN"------ that she had taken and played with in her Granddads Bedroom and she had seen this gun on more than one occasion between the Wardrobe and Wall not secured, where she went in after a conversation with her father regarding Chopper Read and her father saying he killed 7 people and if you do not kill someone like him- he will kill you!

She seen a man painting the house next door with a paint gun and proceeded to take the -----SHOTGUN ----from the bedroom and when asked what she was going to do with it ,she said I was going to --shoot and kill--- him because he was a bad man.

Two days later after the police were made aware of her disclosure they went and confiscated the Firearms from where she said it was and another two in a safe and the gun license was cancelled due to it not being properly secured and subsequent safety concerns.

"DHS made the decision she could return to the home as the gun was gone and there was NO RISK and KATE LAVELLE TEAM LEADER DECIDED THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH OF A” RISK” TO PREVENT FURTHER ACCESS WITH HER FATHER UNTILL PROPER ASSESSMENT’S WERE MADE –Despite all of the previous Incidents!
What 5 year old believes she can kill someone?

What 5 year old has access or has even seen a gun and when is there going to be a need to act in the best Interest of the CHILD and protect her from these incidents where she is being constantly abused, emotionally & physically in every respect and their excuse is that the "Judges that preside in the Children’s Court will not consider such matters as significant harm or Abuse and that the father has as much equal parenting rights as the mother.

I do not dispute that should be the case in most cases, but in relation to these incidents then there protocol that is in the best Interest of the Child is most certainly being breached by the Department of Child Protection where they are significantly breaching their Duty Of Care to my Child and putting her at further RISK OF SEVERE ABUSE.

DHS despite the Order stating one of their concerns are the Domestic Violence and that the Father not attend the home because of his impulsivity and violence, they recently of last week were supposed to drive me to an appointment in Melbourne Royal Children’s for our daughter.

I was called by the worker and told did I feel comfortable with Peter taking me and our daughter as she could not and had no one else to take us and to an important review regarding what her future might entail. My daughter needed to go and so there were no other options since I have no family.

It occurred to me that she did not have any concern of whether I felt comfortable or not with him taking me, she left me with no other option in what I regards a “be all or nothing situation “and where one minute suited DHS as it has before to allow the perpetrator of abuse to do things when they were unable to, yet other times it was deemed inappropriate and what message does that give you and how do you make sense when even DHS have no boundaries around condition’s they have implemented on their own Orders.

Then they Breach you regarding “Parents continue to Breach Supervision Order exposing the Child to DV- “Well what are they doing being aware of the volatility and enabling it to occur when it suits them and when they can’t be bothered to uphold their own concerns & then Breach you after they have impeached their own Orders by allowing it and encouraging it in a “All or Nothing Situation when it appeases them in doing so when they cannot provide alternative assistance “?

There was a further incident where he had emotionally rejected her after she said he had purchased an item and he called her a liar, she was clinging to his leg and then he picked her up not once but 3 times and slammed her into a daybed and she hit her back on the bed and she was severely emotionally distressed by his rejection and asking him to pick her up crying and whispering in his ear don’t you remember daddy and then again he told her she was a liar and slammed her down.

How does a mother continue to see this abuse over years and the powers to be can’t stop him or help your child and knowing in your heart one day he will hurt her so badly if not kill her accidently and feel in a moment of sheer despair & frustration where you are bushed to the brink & consider taking his life in order to protect her and stop the never ending Abuse? I have been close breaking point, I am only human where I have begged them to stop this abuse or I will even if it is at the expense of his life and my own take it into my own hands, because at least I know she will be safe and for that I have been punished by them removing my daughter and have them say my mental health is deteriorating. Whose wouldn’t?

I ask what parents wouldn’t after ALL of these incidents, not to name the ones that I haven’t mentioned, it is enough to push the sanest person to the edge in order to protect their child. If my thoughts are irrational than what the hell is DHS conduct in not being able to protect our child from this? Which is the lesser evil and who has failed my family here?

DHS are in fact impeaching and breaching their own orders and where are they being made accountable and driving people to emotional despair and hopelessness!

To date they have not been made accountable and unless people are able to read what actually occurs and is hidden from the Courts, then Children & Family’s will be at their peril where there appears to be no accountability for those who are making the rules in relation to choices in the best Interest of the Child and is any of this really in hindsight in the best Interest of the child and family apart from being detrimental in every respect. 

I believe this a Breach of their own conduct and failure to “Protect” our daughter and has caused severe damage to the family network and all that entails.

http://forums.altnews.com.au/blogs/dhsvicnegligence/cefai-child-allowed-be-abused



Sunday, August 14, 2016

SOMEONE ELSE'S COUNTRY

"The classic documentary of how a small rightwing group of politicians and economists took power in 1984 and turned New Zealand into their version of a neoliberal free market state.
"A coherent and comprehensive account of the years which will define this country for a century to come" NZ Herald."1


FOOTNOTE
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lDBQWSXu5Y

IN A LAND OF PLENTY

"New Zealand used to have genuine full employment but in 1984 the newly elected Labour government turned unemployment into a tool of economic management with the aim of controlling inflation. The policies and institutions that sustained full employment were abandoned or reconstructed to maximise the new policy of 5 to 6% unemployment. This feature documentary tells the story of this transformation revealing what lies at the heart of the modern free market economy: a deliberate government policy of unemployment."1

FOOTNOTE
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vzp2_K9d2s

Sunday, July 24, 2016

CLINTON CASH OFFICIAL DOCUMENTARY MOVIE

**PLEASE SHARE ON SOCIAL MEDIA EVERYWHERE**

Clinton Cash, is a feature documentary based on the Peter Schweizer book that the New York Times hailed as “The most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle.” Clinton Cash investigates how Bill and Hillary Clinton went from being “dead broke” after leaving the White House to amassing a net worth of over $150 million, with over $2 billion in donations to their foundation. This wealth was accumulated during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as US Secretary of State through lucrative speaking fees and contracts paid for by foreign companies and Clinton Foundation donors.

Wednesday, July 6, 2016

SILENT EXODUS BY PIERRE REHOV

www.MiddleEastStudio.com

"They were more than a million Jews. Between 1946 and 1974, this million is the number of forgotten fugitives, expelled from the Arab world, and whom history would like to forget, while the victims themselves have hidden their fate under a veil of modesty. The Jews have been living in Arabic lands for thousands of years and seemed to accept their fate forever, some even considering their survival as a miracle.

But 1948, the beginning of their exodus, was also the birth of the State of Israel.

And, while the Arab armies were preparing to invade the young refugee-country, while the survivors of the Shoah were piling up in dangerous boats to fulfill at last the return to the land of their dreams and their prayers, a few hundred thousand Arabs from Palestine were getting ready to flee their home, convinced that they would return as winners and conquerors.

They were soon going to fill up the refugee camps built on their brothers’ land, and – because of their refusal to integrate – pass on their refugee status to the next generations.

The Jews did not get any special status. They had just returned to the Land of their fathers

And if they came from Aden, Yemen, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Morocco, Tunisia or Libya, if they had lost everything and sometimes even relatives, memories and cemeteries, it is in Israel and the west that they were ready to rebuild their lives. Without ever asking for any compensation, any right to return, or even wishing that their story be told…"1
FOOTNOTE 
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFyDU62W4Rk

THE TROJAN HORSE - ISRAEL AND THE IMAGES OF WAR: PIERRE REHOV

"This compelling documentary about Palestinian propaganda and hatred shows actual footage of the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat denying the Holocaust and pronouncing the peace process the first step toward the destruction of Israel.
Who is to blame for the plight of the so called Palestinians? A Pierre Rehov documentary."1

PART 1 PART 2 PART 3 PART 4 FOOTNOTE
1.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4cYKCizQCs

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

REPRESSIVE TOLERANCE BY HERBERT MARCUSE 1965 PLUS 1968 POSTSCRIPT


THIS essay examines the idea of tolerance in our advanced industrial society. The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed. In other words, today tolerance appears again as what it was in its origins, at the beginning of the modern period--a partisan goal, a subversive liberating notion and practice. Conversely, what is proclaimed and practiced as tolerance today, is in many of its most effective manifestations serving the cause of oppression.

The author is fully aware that, at present, no power, no authority, no government exists which would translate liberating tolerance into practice, but he believes that it is the task and duty of the intellectual to recall and preserve historical possibilities which seem to have become utopian possibilities--that it is his task to break the concreteness of oppression in order to open the mental space in which this society can be recognized as what it is and does. Tolerance is an end in itself. The elimination of violence, and the reduction of suppression to the extent required for protecting man and animals from cruelty and aggression are preconditions for the creation of a humane society. Such a society does not yet exist; progress toward it is perhaps more than before arrested by violence and suppression on a global scale. As deterrents against nuclear war, as police action against subversion, as technical aid in the fight against imperialism and communism, as methods of pacification in neo-colonial massacres, violence and suppression are promulgated, practiced, and defended by democratic and authoritarian governments alike, and the people subjected to these governments are educated to sustain such practices as necessary for the preservation of the status quo. Tolerance is extended to policies, conditions, and modes of behavior which should not be tolerated because they are impeding, if not destroying, the chances of creating an existence without fear and misery.

This sort of tolerance strengthens the tyranny of the majority against which authentic liberals protested. The political locus of tolerance has changed: while it is more or less quietly and constitutionally withdrawn from the opposition, it is made compulsory behavior with respect to established policies. Tolerance is turned from an active into a passive state, from practice to non-practice: laissez-faire the constituted authorities. It is the people who tolerate the government, which in turn tolerates opposition within the framework determined by the constituted authorities.

Tolerance toward that which is radically evil now appears as good because it serves the cohesion of the whole on the road to affluence or more affluence. The toleration of the systematic moronization of children and adults alike by publicity and propaganda, the release of destructiveness in aggressive driving, the recruitment for and training of special forces, the impotent and benevolent tolerance toward outright deception in merchandizing, waste, and planned obsolescence are not distortions and aberrations, they are the essence of a system which fosters tolerance as a means for perpetuating the struggle for existence and suppressing the alternatives. The authorities in education, morals, and psychology are vociferous against the increase in juvenile delinquency; they are less vociferous against the proud presentation, in word and deed and pictures, of ever more powerful missiles, rockets, bombs--the mature delinquency of a whole civilization.

According to a dialectical proposition it is the whole which determines the truth--not in the sense that the whole is prior or superior to its parts, but in the sense that its structure and function determine every particular condition and relation. Thus, within a repressive society, even progressive movements threaten to turn into their opposite to the degree to which they accept the rules of the game. To take a most controversial case: the exercise of political rights (such as voting, letter-writing to the press, to Senators, etc., protest-demonstrations with a priori renunciation of counterviolence) in a society of total administration serves to strengthen this administration by testifying to the existence of democratic liberties which, in reality, have changed their content and lost their effectiveness. In such a case, freedom (of opinion, of assembly, of speech) becomes an instrument for absolving servitude. And yet (and only here the dialectical proposition shows its full intent) the existence. and practice of these liberties remain a precondition for the restoration of their original oppositional function, provided that the effort to transcend their (often self-imposed) limitations is intensified. Generally, the function and value of tolerance depend on the equality prevalent in the society in which tolerance is practiced. Tolerance itself stands subject to overriding criteria: its range and its limits cannot be defined in terms of the respective society. In other words, tolerance is an end in itself only when it is truly universal, practiced by the rulers as well as by the ruled, by the lords as well as by the peasants, by the sheriffs as well as by their victims. And such universal tolerance is possible only when no real or alleged enemy requires in the national interest the education and training of people in military violence and destruction. As long as these conditions do not prevail, the conditions of tolerance are ‘loaded’: they are determined and defined by the institutionalized inequality (which is certainly compatible with constitutional equality), i.e., by the class structure of society. In such a society, tolerance is de facto limited on the dual ground of legalized violence or suppression (police, armed forces, guards of all sorts) and of the privileged position held by the predominant interests and their ‘connections’.

These background limitations of tolerance are normally prior to the explicit and judicial limitations as defined by the courts, custom, governments, etc. (for example, ‘clear and present danger’, threat to national security, heresy). Within the framework of such a social structure, tolerance can be safely practiced and proclaimed. It is of two kinds: (i) the passive toleration of entrenched and established attitudes and ideas even if their damaging effect on man and nature is evident, and (2) the active, official tolerance granted to the Right as well as to the Left, to movements of aggression as well as to movements of peace, to the party of hate as well as to that of humanity I call this non-partisan tolerance ‘abstract’ or ‘pure’ inasmuch as it refrains from taking sides--but in doing so it actually protects the already established machinery of discrimination.

The tolerance which enlarged the range and content of freedom was always partisan--intolerant toward the protagonists of the repressive status quo. The issue was only the degree and extent of intolerance. In the firmly established liberal society of England and the United States, freedom of speech and assembly was granted even to the radical enemies of society, provided they did not make the transition from word to deed, from speech to action.

Relying on the effective background limitations imposed by its class structure, the society seemed to practice general tolerance. But liberalist theory had already placed an important condition on tolerance : it. was ‘to apply only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties’. John Stuart Mill does not only speak of children and minors; he elaborates: ‘Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion.’ Anterior to that time, men may still be barbarians, and ‘despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end.’ Mill’s often-quoted words have a less familiar implication on which their meaning depends: the internal connection between liberty and truth. There is a sense in which truth is the end of liberty, and liberty must be defined and confined by truth. Now in what sense can liberty be for the sake of truth? Liberty is self-determination, autonomy--this is almost a tautology, but a tautology which results from a whole series of synthetic judgments. It stipulates the ability to determine one’s own life: to be able to determine what to do and what not to do, what to suffer and what not. But the subject of this autonomy is never the contingent, private individual as that which he actually is or happens to be; it is rather the individual as a human being who is capable of being free with the others. And the problem of making possible such a harmony between every individual liberty and the other is not that of finding a compromise between competitors, or between freedom and law, between general and individual interest, common and private welfare in an established society, but of creating the society in which man is no longer enslaved by institutions which vitiate self-determination from the beginning. In other words, freedom is still to be created even for the freest of the existing societies. And the direction in which it must be sought, and the institutional and cultural changes which may help to attain the goal are, at least in developed civilization, comprehensible, that is to say, they can be identified and projected, on the basis of experience, by human reason.

In the interplay of theory and practice, true and false solutions become distinguishable--never with the evidence of necessity, never as the positive, only with the certainty of a reasoned and reasonable chance, and with the persuasive force of the negative. For the true positive is the society of the future and therefore beyond definition arid determination, while the existing positive is that which must be surmounted. But the experience and understanding of the existent society may well be capable of identifying what is not conducive to a free and rational society, what impedes and distorts the possibilities of its creation. Freedom is liberation, a specific historical process in theory and practice, and as such it has its right and wrong, its truth and falsehood.

The uncertainty of chance in this distinction does not cancel the historical objectivity, but it necessitates freedom of thought and expression as preconditions of finding the way to freedom--it necessitates tolerance. However, this tolerance cannot be indiscriminate and equal with respect to the contents of expression, neither in word nor in deed; it cannot protect false words and wrong deeds which demonstrate that they contradict and counteract the’ possibilities of liberation. Such indiscriminate tolerance is justified in harmless debates, in conversation, in academic discussion; it is indispensable in the scientific enterprise, in private religion. But society cannot be indiscriminate where the pacification of existence, where freedom and happiness themselves are at stake: here, certain things cannot be said, certain ideas cannot be expressed, certain policies cannot be proposed, certain behavior cannot be permitted without making tolerance an instrument for the continuation of servitude.

The danger of ‘destructive tolerance’ (Baudelaire), of ‘benevolent neutrality’ toward art has been recognized: the market, which absorbs equally well (although with often quite sudden fluctuations) art, anti-art, and non-art, all possible conflicting styles, schools, forms, provides a ‘complacent receptacle, a friendly abyss’* in which the radical impact of art, the protest of art against the established reality is swallowed up. However, censorship of art and literature is regressive under all circumstances. The authentic oeuvre is not and cannot be a prop of oppression, and pseudo-art (which can be such a prop) is not art. Art stands against history, withstands history which has been the history of oppression, for art subjects reality to laws other than the established ones: to the laws of the Form which creates a different reality--negation of the established one even where art depicts the established reality. But in its struggle with history, art subjects itself to history: history enters the definition of art and enters into the distinction between art and pseudo-art. Thus it happens that what was once art becomes pseudo-art. Previous forms, styles, and qualities, previous modes of protest and refusal cannot be recaptured in or against a different society. There are cases where an authentic oeuvre carries a regressive political message--Dostoevski is a case in point. But then, the message is canceled by the oeuvre itself: the regressive political content is absorbed, aufgehoben in the artistic form: in the work as literature.

[*Edgar Wind, Art and Anarchy (Faber, London, 1963).]

Tolerance of free speech is the way of improvement, of progress in liberation, not because there is no objective truth, and improvement must necessarily be a compromise between a variety of opinions, but because there is an objective truth which can be discovered, ascertained only in learning and comprehending that which is and that which can be and ought to be done for the sake of improving the lot of mankind. This common and historical ‘ought’ is not immediately evident, at hand: it has to be uncovered by ‘cutting through’, ‘splitting’, ‘breaking asunder’ (dis-cutio) the given material--separating right and wrong, good and bad, correct and incorrect. The subject whose ‘improvement’ depends on a progressive historical practice is each man as man, and this universality is reflected in that of the discussion, which a priori does not exclude any group or individual. But even the all-inclusive character of liberalist tolerance was, at least in theory, based on the proposition that men were (potential) individuals who could learn to hear and see and feel by themselves, to develop their own thoughts, to grasp their true interests and rights and capabilities, also against established authority and opinion. This was the rationale of free speech and assembly. Universal toleration becomes questionable when its rationale no longer prevails, when tolerance is administered to manipulated and indoctrinated individuals who parrot, as their own, the opinion of their masters, for whom heteronomy has become autonomy.

The telos of tolerance is truth. It is clear from the historical record that the authentic spokesmen of tolerance had more and other truth in mind than that of propositional logic and academic theory. John Stuart Mill speaks of the truth which is persecuted in history and which does not triumph over persecution by virtue of its ‘inherent power’, which in fact has no inherent power ‘against the dungeon and the stake’. And he enumerates the ‘truths’ which were cruelly and successfully liquidated in the dungeons and at the stake: that of Arnold of Brescia, of Fra Dolcino, of Savonarola, of the Albigensians, Waldensians, Lollards, and Hussites. Tolerance is first and foremost for the sake of the heretics--the historical road toward humanitas appears as heresy: target of persecution by the powers that be. Heresy by itself, however, is no token of truth.

The criterion of progress in freedom according to which Mill judges these movements is the Reformation. The evaluation is ex post, and his list includes opposites (Savonarola too would have burned Fra Dolcino). Even the ex post evaluation is contestable as to its truth: history corrects the judgment--too late. The correction does not help the victims and does not absolve their executioners. However, the lesson is clear: intolerance has delayed progress and has prolonged the slaughter and torture of innocents for hundreds of years.

Does this clinch the case for indiscriminate, ‘pure’ tolerance? Are there historical conditions in which such toleration impedes liberation and multiplies the victims who are sacrificed to the status quo? Can the indiscriminate guaranty of political rights and liberties be repressive? Can such tolerance serve to contain qualitative social change?

I shall discuss this question only with reference to political movements, attitudes, schools of thought, philosophies which are ‘political’ in the widest sense--affecting the society as a whole, demonstrably transcending the sphere of privacy. Moreover, I propose a shift in the focus of the discussion: it will be concerned not only, and not primarily, with tolerance toward radical extremes, minorities, subversives, etc., but rather with tolerance toward majorities, toward official and public opinion, toward the established protectors of freedom. In this case, the discussion can have as a frame of reference only a democratic society, in which the people, as individuals and as members of political and other organizations, participate in the making, sustaining, and changing policies. In an authoritarian system, the people do not tolerate--they suffer established policies.

Under a system of constitutionally guaranteed and (generally and without too many and too glaring exceptions) practiced civil rights and liberties, opposition and dissent are tolerated unless they issue in violence and/or in exhortation to and organization of violent subversion. The underlying assumption is that the established society is free, and that any improvement, even a change in the social structure and social values, would come about in the normal course of events, prepared, defined, and tested in free and equal discussion, on the open marketplace of ideas and goods.* Now in recalling John Stuart Mill’s passage, I drew attention to the premise hidden in this assumption: free and equal discussion can fulfill the function attributed to it only if it is rational expression and development of independent thinking, free from indoctrination, manipulation, extraneous authority. The notion of pluralism and countervailing powers is no substitute for this requirement. One might in theory construct a state in which a multitude of different pressures, interests, and authorities balance each other out and result in a truly general and rational interest. However, such a construction badly fits a society in which powers are and remain unequal and even increase their unequal weight when they run their own course. It fits even worse when the variety of pressures unifies and coagulates into an overwhelming whole, integrating the particular countervailing powers by virtue of an increasing standard of living and an increasing concentration of power. Then, the laborer, whose real interest conflicts with that of management, the common consumer whose real interest conflicts with that of the producer, the intellectual whose vocation conflicts with that of his employer find themselves submitting to a system against which they are powerless and appear unreasonable. The idea of the available alternatives evaporates into an utterly utopian dimension in which it is at home, for a free society is indeed unrealistically and undefinably different from the existing ones. Under these circumstances, whatever improvement may occur ‘in the normal course of events’ and without subversion is likely to be an improvement in the direction determined by the particular interests which control the whole.

[*I wish to reiterate for the following discussion that, de facto, tolerance is not indiscriminate and ‘pure’ even in the most democratic society The ‘background limitations’ stated on page [2 of this book?] restrict tolerance before it begins to operate. The antagonistic structure of society rigs the rules of the game. Those who stand against the established system are a priori at a disadvantage, which is not removed by the toleration of their ideas, speeches, and newspapers.]

By the same token, those minorities which strive for a change of the whole itself will, under optimal conditions which rarely prevail, will be left free to deliberate and discuss, to speak and to assemble - and will be left harmless and helpless in the face of the overwhelming majority, which militates against qualitative social change. This majority is firmly grounded in the increasing satisfaction of needs, and technological and -mental co-ordination, which testify to the general helplessness of radical groups in a well-functioning social system.

Within the affluent democracy, the affluent discussion prevails, and within the established framework, it is tolerant to a large extent. All points of view can be heard: the Communist and the Fascist, the Left and the Right, the white and the Negro, the crusaders for armament and for disarmament. Moreover, in endlessly dragging debates over the media, the stupid opinion is treated with the same respect as the intelligent one, the misinformed may talk as long as the informed, and propaganda rides along with education, truth with falsehood. This pure toleration of sense and nonsense is justified by the democratic argument that nobody, neither group nor individual, is in possession of the truth and capable of defining what is right and wrong, good and bad. Therefore, all contesting opinions must be submitted to ‘the people’ for its deliberation and choice. But I have already suggested that the democratic argument implies a necessary condition, namely, that the people must be capable of deliberating and choosing on the basis of knowledge, that they must have access to authentic information, and that, on this. basis, their evaluation must be the result of autonomous thought.

In the contemporary period, the democratic argument for abstract tolerance tends to be invalidated by the invalidation of the democratic process itself. The liberating force of democracy was the chance it gave to effective dissent, on the individual as well as social scale, its openness to qualitatively different forms of government, of culture, education, work--of the human existence in general. The toleration of free discussion and the equal right of opposites was to define and clarify the different forms of dissent: their direction, content, prospect. But with the concentration of economic and political power and the integration of opposites in a society which uses technology as an instrument of domination, effective dissent is blocked where it could freely emerge; in the formation of opinion, in information and communication, in speech and assembly. Under the rule of monopolistic media--themselves the mere instruments of economic and political power--a mentality is created for which right and wrong, true and false are predefined wherever they affect the vital interests of the society. This is, prior to all expression and communication, a matter of semantics: the blocking of effective dissent, of the recognition of that which is not of the Establishment which begins in the. language that is publicized and administered. The meaning of words is rigidly stabilized. Rational persuasion, persuasion to the opposite is all but precluded. The avenues of entrance are closed to the meaning of words and ideas other than the established one--established by the publicity of the powers that be, and verified in their practices. Other words can be spoken and heard, other ideas can be expressed, but, at the massive scale of the conservative majority (outside such enclaves as the intelligentsia), they are immediately ‘evaluated’ (i.e. automatically understood) in terms of the public language--a language which determines ‘a priori’ the direction in which the thought process moves.

Thus the process of reflection ends where it started: in the given conditions and relations. Self-validating, the argument. of the discussion repels the contradiction because the antithesis is redefined in terms of the thesis. For example, thesis: we work for peace; antithesis: we prepare for war (or even: we wage war); unification of opposites; preparing for war is working for peace. Peace is redefined as necessarily, in the prevailing situation, including preparation for war (or even war) and in this Orwellian form, the meaning of the word ‘peace’ is stabilized. Thus, the basic vocabulary of the Orwellian language operates as a priori categories of understanding: preforming all content. These conditions invalidate the logic of tolerance which involves the rational development of meaning and precludes the ‘closing of meaning. Consequently, persuasion through discussion and the equal presentation of opposites (even where it is really, equal) easily lose their liberating force as factors of understanding and learning; they are far more likely to strengthen the established thesis and to repel the alternatives.

Impartiality to the utmost, equal treatment of competing and conflicting issues is indeed a basic requirement for decision-making in the democratic process--it is an equally basic requirement for defining the limits of tolerance. But in a democracy with totalitarian organization, objectivity may fulfill a very different function, namely, to foster a mental attitude which tends to obliterate the difference between true and false, information and indoctrination, right and wrong. In fact, the decision between opposed opinions has been made before the presentation and discussion get under way--made, not by a conspiracy or a sponsor or a publisher, not by any dictatorship, but rather by the ‘normal course of events’, which is the course of administered events, and by the mentality shaped in this course. Here, too, it is the whole which determines the truth. Then the decision asserts itself, without any open violation of objectivity, in such things as the make-up of a newspaper (with the breaking up of vital information into bits interspersed between extraneous material, irrelevant items, relegating of some radically negative news to an obscure place), in the juxtaposition of gorgeous ads with unmitigated horrors, in the introduction and interruption of the broadcasting of facts by overwhelming commercials. The result is a neutralization of opposites, a neutralization, however, which takes place on the firm grounds of the structural limitation of tolerance and within a preformed mentality. When a magazine prints side by side a negative and a positive report on the FBI, it fulfills honestly the requirements of objectivity: however, the chances are that the positive wins because the image of the institution is deeply engraved in the mind of the people. Or, if a newscaster reports the torture and murder of civil rights workers in the same unemotional tone he uses to describe the stockmarket or the weather, or with the same great emotion with which he says his commercials, then such objectivity is spurious--more, it offends against humanity and truth by being calm where one should be enraged, by refraining from accusation where accusation is in the facts themselves. The tolerance expressed in such impartiality serves to minimize or even absolve prevailing intolerance and suppression. If objectivity has anything to do with truth, and if truth is more than a matter of logic and science, then this kind of objectivity is false, and this kind of tolerance inhuman. And if it is necessary to break the established universe of meaning (and the practice enclosed in this universe) in order to enable man to find out what is true and false, this deceptive impartiality would have to be abandoned. The people exposed to this impartiality are no tabulae rasae, they are indoctrinated by the conditions under which they live and think and which they do not transcend. To enable them to become autonomous, to find by themselves what is true and what is false for man in the existing society, they would have to be freed from the prevailing indoctrination (which is no longer recognized as indoctrination). But this means that the trend would have to be reversed: they would have to get information slanted in the opposite direction.

For the facts are never given immediately and never accessible immediately; they are established, ‘mediated’ by those who made them; the truth, ‘the whole truth’ surpasses these facts and requires the rupture with their appearance. This rupture--prerequisite and token of all freedom of thought and of speech--cannot be accomplished within the established framework of abstract tolerance and spurious objectivity because these are precisely the factors which precondition the mind against the rupture.

The factual barriers which totalitarian democracy erects against the efficacy of qualitative dissent are weak and pleasant enough compared with the practices of a dictatorship which claims to educate the people in the truth. With all its limitations and distortions, democratic tolerance is under all circumstances more humane than an institutionalized intolerance which sacrifices the rights and liberties of the living generations for the sake of future generations. The question is whether this is the only alternative. I shall presently try to suggest the direction in which an answer may be sought In any case, the contrast is not between democracy in the abstract and dictatorship in the abstract.

Democracy is a form of government which fits very different types of society (this holds true even for a democracy with universal suffrage and equality before the law), and the human costs of a democracy are always and everywhere those exacted by the society whose government it is. Their range extends all the way from normal exploitation, poverty, and insecurity to the victims of wars, police actions, military aid, etc., in which the society is engaged--and not only to the victims within its own frontiers. These considerations can never justify the exacting of different sacrifices and different victims on behalf of a future better society, but they do allow weighing the costs involved in the perpetuation of an existing society against the risk of promoting alternatives which offer a reasonable chance of pacification and liberation. Surely, no government can be expected to foster its own subversion, but in a democracy such a right is vested in the people (i.e. in the majority of the people). This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc. Moreover, the restoration of freedom of thought may necessitate new and rigid restrictions on teachings and practices in the educational institutions which, by their very methods and concepts, serve to enclose the mind within the established universe of discourse and behavior--thereby precluding a priori a rational evaluation of the alternatives. And to the degree to which freedom of thought involves the struggle against inhumanity, restoration of such freedom would also imply intolerance toward scientific research in the interest of deadly ‘deterrents’, of abnormal human endurance under inhuman conditions, etc. I shall presently discuss the question as to who is to decide on the distinction between liberating and repressive, human and inhuman teachings and practices; I have already suggested that this distinction is not a matter of value-preference but of rational criteria.

While the reversal of the trend in the educational enterprise at least could conceivably be enforced by the students and teachers themselves, and thus be self-imposed, the systematic withdrawal of tolerance toward regressive and repressive opinions and movements could only be envisaged as results of large-scale pressure which would amount to an upheaval. In other words, it would presuppose that which is still to be accomplished: the reversal of the trend. However, resistance at particular occasions, boycott, non-participation at the local and small-group level may perhaps prepare the ground The subversive character of the restoration of freedom appears most clearly in that dimension of society where false tolerance and free enterprise do perhaps the most serious and lasting damage, namely in business and publicity. Against the emphatic insistence on the part of spokesmen for labor, I maintain that practices such as planned obsolescence, collusion between union leadership and management, slanted publicity are not simply imposed from above on a powerless rank and file, but are tolerated by them and the consumer at large. However, it would be ridiculous to speak of a possible withdrawal of tolerance with respect to these practices and to the ideologies promoted by them. For they pertain to the basis on which the repressive affluent society rests and reproduces itself and its vital defenses - their removal would be that total revolution which this society so effectively repels.

To discuss tolerance in such a society means to reexamine the issue of violence and the traditional distinction between violent and non-violent action. The discussion should not, from the beginning, be clouded by ideologies which serve the perpetuation of violence. Even in the advanced centers of civilization, violence actually prevails: it is practiced by the police, in the prisons and mental institutions, in the fight against racial minorities; it is carried, by the defenders of metropolitan freedom, into the backward countries. This violence indeed breeds violence. But to refrain from violence in the face of vastly superior violence is one thing, to renounce a priori violence against violence, on ethical or psychological grounds (because it may antagonize sympathizers) is another. Non-violence is normally not only preached to but exacted from the weak--it is a necessity rather than a virtue, and normally it does not seriously harm the case of the strong. (Is the case of India an exception? There, passive resistance was carried through on a massive scale, which disrupted, or threatened to disrupt, the economic life of the country. Quantity turns into quality: on such a scale, passive resistance is no longer passive - it ceases to be non-violent. The same holds true for the General Strike.) Robespierre’s distinction between the terror of liberty and the terror of despotism, and his moral glorification of the former belongs to the most convincingly condemned aberrations, even if the white terror was more bloody than the red terror. The comparative evaluation in terms of the number of victims is the quantifying approach which reveals the man-made horror throughout history that made violence a necessity. In terms of historical function, there is a difference between revolutionary and reactionary violence, between violence practiced by the oppressed and by the oppressors. In terms of ethics, both forms of violence are inhuman and evil--but since when is history made in accordance with ethical standards? To start applying them at the point where the oppressed rebel against the oppressors, the have-nots against the haves is serving the cause of actual violence by weakening the protest against it.

Comprenez enfin ceci: si la violence a commencé ce soir, si l’exploitation ni l’oppression n’ont jamais existé sur terre, peut-être la non-violence affichée peut apaiser la querelle. Mais si le régime tout entier et jusqu’à vos non- violentes pensées sont conditionnées par une oppression millénaire, votre passivité ne sert qu’à vous ranger du côté des oppresseurs.*

{translation with help from babelfish: Understand finally this: if violence were to begin this evening, if neither exploitation nor oppression ever existed in the world, perhaps concerted non-violence could relieve the conflict. But if the whole governmental system and your non-violent thoughts are conditioned by a thousand-year-old oppression, your passivity only serves to place you on the side of the oppressors.}

[*Sartre, Preface to Frantz Fanon, Les Damnés de Ia Terre (Maspéro, Paris, 1961). p. 22.]

The very notion of false tolerance, and the distinction between right and wrong limitations on tolerance, between progressive and regressive indoctrination, revolutionary and reactionary violence demands the statement of criteria for its validity. These standards must be prior to whatever constitutional and legal criteria are set up and applied in an existing society (such as ‘clear and present danger’, and other established definitions of civil rights and liberties), for such definitions themselves presuppose standards of freedom and repression as applicable or not applicable in the respective society: they are specifications of more general concepts. By whom, and according to what standards, can the political distinction between true and false, progressive and regressive (for in this sphere, these pairs are equivalent) be made and its validity be justified? At the outset, I propose that the question cannot be answered in terms of the alternative between democracy and dictatorship, according to which, in the latter, one individual or group, without any effective control from below, arrogate to themselves the decision. Historically, even in the most democratic democracies, the vital and final decisions affecting the society as a whole have been made, constitutionally or in fact, by one or several groups without effective control by the people themselves. The ironical question: who educates the educators (i.e. the political leaders) also applies to democracy. The only authentic alternative and negation of dictatorship (with respect to this question) would be a society in which ‘the people’ have become autonomous individuals, freed from the repressive requirements of a struggle for existence in the interest of domination, and as such human beings choosing their government and determining their life. Such a society does not yet exist anywhere. In the meantime, the question must be treated in abstracto--abstraction, not from the historical possibilities, but from the realities of the prevailing societies.

I suggested that the distinction between true and false tolerance, between progress and regression can be made rationally on empirical grounds. The real possibilities of human freedom are relative to the attained stage of civilization. They depend on the material and intellectual resources available at the respective stage, and they are quantifiable and calculable to a high degree. So are, at the stage of advanced industrial society, the most rational ways of using these resources and distributing the social product with priority on the satisfaction of vital needs and with a minimum of toil and injustice. In other words, it is possible to define the direction in which prevailing institutions, policies, opinions would have to be changed in order to improve the chance of a peace which is not identical with cold war and a little hot war, and a satisfaction of needs which does not feed on poverty, oppression, and exploitation. Consequently, it is also possible to identify policies, opinions, movements which would promote this chance, and those which would do the opposite. Suppression of the regressive ones is a prerequisite for the strengthening of the progressive ones.

The question, who is qualified to make all these distinctions, definitions, identifications for the society as a whole, has now one logical answer, namely, everyone ‘in the maturity of his faculties’ as a human being, everyone who has learned to think rationally and autonomously. The answer to Plato’s educational dictatorship is the democratic educational dictatorship of free men. John Stuart Mill’s conception of the res publica is not the opposite of Plato’s: the liberal too demands the authority of Reason not only as an intellectual but also as a political power. In Plato, rationality is confined to the small number of philosopher-kings; in Mill, every rational human being participates in the discussion and decision--but only as a rational being. Where society has entered the phase of total administration and indoctrination, this would be a small number indeed, and not necessarily that of the elected representatives of the people. The problem is not that of an educational dictatorship, but that of breaking the tyranny of public opinion and its makers in the closed society.

However, granted the empirical rationality of the distinction between progress and regression, and granted that it may be applicable to tolerance, and may justify strongly discriminatory tolerance on political grounds (cancellation of the liberal creed of free and equal discussion), another impossible consequence would follow. I said that, by virtue of its inner logic, withdrawal of tolerance from regressive movements, and discriminatory tolerance in favor of progressive tendencies would be tantamount to the ‘official’ promotion of subversion. The historical calculus of progress (which is actually the calculus of the prospective reduction of cruelty, misery, suppression) seems to involve the calculated choice between two forms of political violence: that on the part of the legally constituted powers (by their legitimate action, or by their tacit consent, or by their inability to prevent violence), and that on the part of potentially subversive movements. Moreover, with respect to the latter, a policy of unequal treatment would protect radicalism on the Left against that on the Right. Can the historical calculus be reasonably extended to the justification of one form of violence as against another? Or better (since ‘justification’ carries a moral connotation), is there historical evidence to the effect that the social origin and impetus of violence (from among the ruled or the ruling classes, the have or the have-nots, the Left or the Right) is in a demonstratable relation to progress (as defined above)?

With all the qualifications of a hypothesis based on an ‘open’ historical record, it seems that the violence emanating from the rebellion of the oppressed classes broke the historical continuum of injustice, cruelty, and silence for a brief moment, brief but explosive enough to achieve an increase in the scope of freedom and justice, and a better and more equitable distribution of misery and oppression in a new social system--in one word: progress in civilization. The English civil wars, the French Revolution, the Chinese and the Cuban Revolutions may illustrate the hypothesis. In contrast, the one historical change from one social system to another, marking the beginning of a new period in civilization, which was not sparked and driven by an effective movement ‘from below’, namely, the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West, brought about a long period of regression for long centuries, until a new, higher period of civilization was painfully born in the violence of the heretic revolts of the thirteenth century and in the peasant and laborer revolts of the fourteenth century.*

[*In modern times, fascism has been a consequence of the transition to industrial society without a revolution. See Barrington Moore, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (Allen Lane, London, 1963).]

With respect to historical violence emanating from among ruling classes, no such relation to progress seems to obtain. The long series of dynastic and imperialist wars, the liquidation of Spartacus in Germany in 1919, Fascism and Nazism did not break but rather tightened and streamlined the continuum of suppression. I said emanating ‘from among ruling classes’: to be sure, there is hardly any organized violence from above that does not mobilize and activate mass support from below; the decisive question is, on behalf of and in the interest of which groups and institutions is such violence released? And the answer is not necessarily ex post: in the historical examples just mentioned, it could be and was anticipated whether the movement would serve the revamping of the old order or the emergence of the new.

Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance: ... it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word. The traditional criterion of clear and present danger seems no longer adequate to a stage where the whole society is in the situation of the theater audience when somebody cries: ‘fire’. It is a situation in which the total catastrophe could be triggered off any moment, not only by a technical error, but also by a rational miscalculation of risks, or by a rash speech of one of the leaders. In past and different circumstances, the speeches of the Fascist and Nazi leaders were the immediate prologue to the massacre. The distance between the propaganda and the action, between the organization and its release on the people had become too short. But the spreading of the word could have been stopped before it was too late: if democratic tolerance had been withdrawn when the future leaders started their campaign, mankind would have had a chance of avoiding Auschwitz and a World War.

The whole post-fascist period is one of clear and present danger. Consequently, true pacification requires the withdrawal of tolerance before the deed, at the stage of communication in word, print, and picture. Such extreme suspension of the right of free speech and free assembly is indeed justified only if the whole of society is in extreme danger. I maintain that our society is in such an emergency situation, and that it has become the normal state of affairs. Different opinions and ‘philosophies’ can no longer compete peacefully for adherence and persuasion on rational grounds: the ‘marketplace of ideas’ is organized and delimited by those who determine the national and the individual interest. In this society, for which the ideologists have proclaimed the ‘end of ideology’, the false consciousness has become the general consciousness--from the government down to its last objects. The small and powerless minorities which struggle against the false consciousness and its beneficiaries must be helped: their continued existence is more important than the preservation of abused rights and liberties which grant constitutional powers to those who oppress these minorities. It should be evident by now that the exercise of civil rights by those who don’t have them presupposes the withdrawal of civil rights from those who prevent their exercise, and that liberation of the Damned of the Earth presupposes suppression not only of their old but also of their new masters.

The forces of emancipation cannot be identified with any social class which, by virtue of its material condition, is free from false consciousness. Today, they are hopelessly dispersed throughout the society, and the fighting minorities and isolated groups are often in opposition to their own leadership. In the society at large, the mental space for denial and reflection must first be recreated. Repulsed by the concreteness of the administered society, the effort of emancipation becomes ‘abstract’; it is reduced to facilitating the recognition of what is going on, to freeing language from the tyranny of the Orwellian syntax and logic, to developing the concepts that comprehend reality. More than ever, the proposition holds true that progress in freedom demands progress in the consciousness of freedom. Where the mind has been made into a subject-object of politics and policies, intellectual autonomy, the realm of ‘pure’ thought has become a matter of political education (or rather: counter-education).

This means that previously neutral, value-free, formal aspects of learning and teaching now become, on their own grounds and in their own right, political: learning to know the facts, the whole truth, and to comprehend it is radical criticism throughout, intellectual subversion. In a world in which the human faculties and needs are arrested or perverted, autonomous thinking leads into a ‘perverted world’: contradiction and counter-image of the established world of repression. And this contradiction is not simply stipulated, is not simply the product of confused thinking or fantasy, but is the logical development of the given, the existing world. To the degree to which this development is actually impeded by the sheer weight of a repressive society and the necessity of making a living in. it, repression invades the academic enterprise itself, even prior to all restrictions on academic freedom. The pre-empting of the mind vitiates impartiality and objectivity: unless the student learns to think in the opposite direction, he will be inclined to place the facts into the predominant framework of values. Scholarship, i.e., the acquisition and communication of knowledge, prohibits the purification and isolation of facts from the context of the whole truth. An essential part of the latter is recognition of the frightening extent to which history is made and recorded by and for the victors, that is, the extent to which history was the development of oppression. And this oppression is in the facts themselves which it establishes; thus they themselves carry a negative value as part and aspect of their facticity. To treat the great crusades against humanity (like that against the Albigensians) with the same impartiality as the desperate struggles for humanity means neutralizing their opposite historical function, reconciling the executioners with their victims, distorting the record. Such spurious neutrality serves to reproduce acceptance of the dominion of the victors in the consciousness of man. Here, too, in the education of those who are not yet maturely integrated, in the mind of the young, the ground for liberating tolerance is still to be created.

Education offers still another example of spurious, abstract tolerance in the guise of concreteness and truth: it is epitomized in the concept of self-actualization. From the permissiveness of all sorts of license to the child, to the constant psychological concern with the personal problems of the student, a large-scale movement is under way against the evils of repression and the need for being oneself. Frequently brushed aside is the question as to what has to be repressed before one can be a self, oneself. The individual potential is first a negative one, a portion of the potential of his society: of aggression, guilt feeling, ignorance, resentment, cruelty which vitiate his life instincts. If the identity of the self is to be more than the immediate realization of this potential (undesirable for the individual as a human being), then it requires repression and sublimation, conscious transformation. This process involves at each stage (to use the ridiculed terms which here reveal their succinct concreteness) the negation of the negation, mediation of the immediate, and identity is no more and no less than this process. ‘Alienation’ is the constant and essential element of identity, the objective side of the subject--and not, as it is made to appear today, a disease, a psychological condition. Freud well knew the difference between progressive and regressive, liberating and destructive repression. The publicity of self-actualization promotes the removal of the one and the other, it promotes existence in that immediacy which, in a repressive society, is (to use another Hegelian term) bad immediacy (schlechte Unmittelbarkeit). It isolates the individual from the one dimension where he could ‘find himself’: from his political existence, which is at the core of his entire existence. Instead, it encourages non-conformity and letting-go in ways which leave the real engines of repression in the society entirely intact, which even strengthen these engines by substituting the satisfactions of private, and personal rebellion for a more than private and personal, and therefore more authentic, opposition. The desublimation involved in this sort of self-actualization is itself repressive inasmuch as it weakens the necessity and the power of the intellect, the catalytic force of that unhappy consciousness which does not revel in the archetypal personal release of frustration - hopeless resurgence of the Id which will sooner or later succumb to the omnipresent rationality of the administered world - but which recognizes the horror of the whole in the most private frustration and actualizes itself in this recognition.

I have tried to show how the changes in advanced democratic societies, which have undermined the basis of economic and political liberalism, have also altered the liberal function of tolerance. The tolerance which was the great achievement of the liberal era is still professed and (with strong qualifications) practiced, while the economic and political process is subjected to an ubiquitous and effective administration in accordance with the predominant interests. The result is an objective contradiction between the economic and political structure on the one side, and the theory and practice of toleration on the other. The altered social structure tends to weaken the effectiveness of tolerance toward dissenting and oppositional movements and to strengthen conservative and reactionary forces. Equality of tolerance becomes abstract, spurious. With the actual decline of dissenting forces in the society, the opposition is insulated in small and frequently antagonistic groups who, even where tolerated within the narrow limits set by the hierarchical structure of society, are powerless while they keep within these limits. But the tolerance shown to them is deceptive and promotes co-ordination. And on the firm foundations of a co-ordinated society all but closed against qualitative change, tolerance itself serves to contain such change rather than to promote it.

POSTSCRIPT 1968 

Under the conditions prevailing in this country, tolerance does not, and cannot, fulfill the civilizing function attributed to it by the liberal protagonists of democracy, namely, protection of dissent. The progressive historical force of tolerance lies in its extension to those modes and forms of dissent which are not committed to the status quo of society, and not confined to the institutional framework of the established society. Consequently, the idea of tolerance implies the necessity, for the dissenting group or individuals, to become illegitimate if and when the established legitimacy prevents and counteracts the development of dissent. This would be the case not only in a totalitarian society, under a dictatorship, in one-party states, but also in a democracy (representative, parliamentary, or ‘direct’) where the majority does not result from the development of independent thought and opinion but rather from the monopolistic or oligopolistic administration of public opinion, without terror and (normally) without censorship. In such cases, the majority is self-perpetuating while perpetuating the vested interests which made it a majority. In its very structure this majority is ‘closed’, petrified; it repels a priori any change other than changes within the system. But this means that the majority is no longer justified in claiming the democratic title of the best guardian of the common interest. And such a majority is all but the opposite of Rousseau’s ‘general will’: it is composed, not of individuals who, in their political functions, have made effective ‘abstraction’ from their private interests, but, on the contrary, of individuals who have effectively identified their private interests with their political functions. And the representatives of this majority, in ascertaining and executing its will, ascertain and execute the will of the vested interests, which have formed the majority. The ideology of democracy hides its lack of substance.

In the United States, this tendency goes hand in hand with the monopolistic or oligopolistic concentration of capital in the formation of public opinion, i.e., of the majority. The chance of influencing, in any effective way, this majority is at a price, in dollars, totally out of reach of the radical opposition. Here too, free competition and exchange of ideas have become a farce. The Left has no equal voice, no equal access to the mass media and their public facilities - not because a conspiracy excludes it, but because, in good old capitalist fashion, it does not have the required purchasing power. And the Left does not have the purchasing power because it is the Left. These conditions impose upon the radical minorities a strategy which is in essence a refusal to allow the continuous functioning of allegedly indiscriminate but in fact discriminate tolerance, for example, a strategy of protesting against the alternate matching of a spokesman for the Right (or Center) with one for the Left. Not ‘equal’ but more representation of the Left would be equalization of the prevailing inequality.

Within the solid framework of pre-established inequality and power, tolerance is practiced indeed. Even outrageous opinions are expressed, outrageous incidents are televised; and the critics of established policies are interrupted by the same number of commercials as the conservative advocates. Are these interludes supposed to counteract the sheer weight, magnitude, and continuity of system-publicity, indoctrination which operates playfully through the endless commercials as well as through the entertainment?

Given this situation, I suggested in ‘Repressive Tolerance’ the practice of discriminating tolerance in an inverse direction, as a means of shifting the balance between Right and Left by restraining the liberty of the Right, thus counteracting the pervasive inequality of freedom (unequal opportunity of access to the means of democratic persuasion) and strengthening the oppressed against the oppressed. Tolerance would be restricted with respect to movements of a demonstrably aggressive or destructive character (destructive of the prospects for peace, justice, and freedom for all). Such discrimination would also be applied to movements opposing the extension of social legislation to the poor, weak, disabled. As against the virulent denunciations that such a policy would do away with the sacred liberalistic principle of equality for ‘the other side’, I maintain that there are issues where either there is no ‘other side’ in any more than a formalistic sense, or where ‘the other side’ is demonstrably ‘regressive’ and impedes possible improvement of the human condition. To tolerate propaganda for inhumanity vitiates the goals not only of liberalism but of every progressive political philosophy.

 If the choice were between genuine democracy and dictatorship, democracy would certainly be preferable. But democracy does not prevail. The radical critics of the existing political process are thus readily denounced as advocating an ‘elitism’, a dictatorship of intellectuals as an alternative. What we have in fact is government, representative government by a non-intellectual minority of politicians, generals, and businessmen. The record of this ‘elite’ is not very promising, and political prerogatives for the intelligentsia may not necessarily be worse for the society as a whole.

In any case, John Stuart Mill, not exactly an enemy of liberal and representative government, was not so allergic to the political leadership of the intelligentsia as the contemporary guardians of semi-democracy are. Mill believed that ‘individual mental superiority’ justifies ‘reckoning one person’s opinion as equivalent to more than one’:

 Until there shall have been devised, and until opinion is willing to accept, some mode of plural voting which may assign to education as such the degree of superior influence due to it, and sufficient as a counterpoise to the numerical weight of the least educated class, for so long the benefits of completely universal suffrage cannot be obtained without bringing with them, as it appears to me, more than equivalent evils.*

[*Considerations on Representative Government (Chicago: Gateway Edition, 1962), p. 183.]

‘Distinction in favor of education, right in itself’, was also supposed to preserve ‘the educated from the class legislation of the uneducated’, without enabling the former to practice a class legislation of their own.*

[*Considerations on Representative Government (Chicago: Gateway Edition, 1962), p.181.]

Today, these words have understandably an anti-democratic, ‘elitist’ sound--understandably because of their dangerously radical implications. For if ‘education’ is more and other than training, learning, preparing for the existing society, it means not only enabling man to know and understand the facts which make up reality but also to know and understand the factors that establish the facts so that he can change their inhuman reality. And such humanistic education would involve the ‘hard’ sciences (‘hard’ as in the ‘hardware’ bought by the Pentagon?), would free them from their destructive direction. In other words, such education would indeed badly serve the Establishment, and to give political prerogatives to the men and women thus educated would indeed be anti-democratic in the terms of the Establishment. But these are not the only terms.

However, the alternative to the established semi-democratic process is not a dictatorship or elite, no matter how intellectual and intelligent, but the struggle for a real democracy. Part of this struggle is the fight against an ideology of tolerance which, in reality, favors and fortifies the conservation of the status quo of inequality and discrimination. For this struggle, I proposed the practice of discriminating tolerance. To be sure, this practice already presupposes the radical goal which it seeks to achieve. I committed this petitio principii in order to combat the pernicious ideology that tolerance is already institutionalized in this society. The tolerance which is the life element, the token of a free society, will never be the gift of the powers that be; it can, under the prevailing conditions of tyranny by the majority, only be won in the sustained effort of radical minorities, willing to break this tyranny and to work for the emergence of a free and sovereign majority - minorities intolerant, militantly intolerant and disobedient to the rules of behavior which tolerate destruction and suppression. __________________________________
*Robert Paul Wolff, Barrington Moore, jr., and Herbert Marcuse, A Critique of Pure Tolerance (Boston: Beacon Press, 1969), pp. 95-137. This 123 page book was originally published 1965; this edition includes Herbert’s 1968 postscript.

http://la.utexas.edu/users/hcleaver/330T/350kPEEMarcuseToleranceTable.pdf