Features
Featured Essay
Featured Link

Full Collections
Essays (425)
Quotations (6095)
Links (715)
Books (232)

Other Pages
About Us
Authors
Awards
Bookseller Affiliations
Contact Us
Cookies
Editorial Board
Excellent Essays
Excellent Sites
Liberal Magic
Mush Quotations
Our New Look
Privacy Policy
Sign Up!
Submissions
Amazon.com online bookstore
  


Anne Cools

Senator, family law activist. Cools was appointed to the Senate in 1984 by Liberal prime minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau after years of activism in social services, particularly womens' support services. After field work and teaching in social work, she became a leader in the development of battered womens' shelters across Canada and in advocating better support for troubled families. As many of the supports she advocated and helped to develop have been coopted by radical feminists, Ms. Cools has become a fierce critic of them and their programs, and a powerful voice for balance and restraint in Canadian family law.


Click here for an essay by Anne Cools
The political divide on the bench between the activist judges - some charter, some feminists - and the traditionalist judges, supported by their corollary divide at the bar, has erupted into public consciousness with the force that attends the eruption of a longstanding, fomenting social problem.

Mar. 4, 1999 - from a speech in the Canadian Senate
Gender feminist ideology has driven much law in Canada, and consequently has driven much injustice. It has ravaged law, justice, many careers, and many human lives. It worked for many years. It was even lucrative. It resulted in positions, jobs, grants, and even appointments to the bench. It created a terrible silence as it inflicted obvious injustices on many. It was buttressed by feminist terrorism and aggression, ready to pursue to destruction anyone who gets in its way, while chanting its mantra that all evil and violence are men's, and that all goodness, virtue, and truth are women's.

Mar. 4, 1999 - from a speech in the Canadian Senate
Benefits are always welcome but obligations are not always equally welcome...

Jun. 14, 2000 - from a speech in the Canadian Senate
The evidence indicates that the child support guidelines [for Canadian courts] were never about the best interests of children but were instead about a transfer of wealth from support-paying parents, mostly fathers, to support-receiving parents, mostly mothers, under the guise of child support. The child support guidelines used a design model intended to punish support-paying parents and intended to drive non-custodial parents, mostly fathers, out of their children's lives, and reinforced the fracturing of relationships between children and parents in divorce. The child support guidelines were bad economics, bad public policy and bad family law. That a purely feminist ideological theory on economic relations between men and women should be constructed into regulations under the Divorce Act, under the guise and title of child support, is a serious matter and deserves study.

Apr. 6, 2000 - from a speech in the Canadian Senate