I imagine that 75 is a low count. But we cannot overlook the fact that these sex offenders were released by the Injustice System fully knowing that they will more than likely re-offend. So, the police have to go all over this again because the system does not give a da** about the children. Trois-Rivieres is along a busy corridor between Windsor and Quebec--how convenient for a pedophile.

Posted by: George at August 5, 2007 09:02 AM

---

A friend of mine who works for Child and Family Services told me that I would be shocked to know how many sex offenders lived in my neighbourhood. There was a horrible case in Wpg. several years ago where a youth brutally raped and killed a 2 year old girl. Since he was a youth, his name and photo were never released. He has been out for years now. Where is he? Nobody knows. For all I know, he could be living on my street watching my 2 daughters. This HAS to stop. Our children deserve so much better than this. Child molesters MUST be put away forever - No exceptions!

Posted by: Barbara at August 5, 2007 11:11 AM

---

Small-l liberals in my community used to accuse me of being "an overly protective" parent of my two daughters. I watched them carefully and monitored their whereabouts and with whom they were playing, when they got home, etc.

Whenever I read stories like this one, a chill goes down my spine...there, but for the grace of God, could be one of my girls.

I can't imagine the anguish of Cedricka's mother and her family. SEVENTY-FIVE sex offenders in the Trois Riviere area? My heart sinks. What kind of society are we bringing our children up in? Why are all these sex offenders at large? Why didn't the people Cedricka told she was searching for a missing dog twig to the danger she was in?

We're way too atomized now. We don't look out for our own, let alone others', children the way we used to. Adults had better wake up and begin to seriously protect our children from all the dangers out there, which shouldn't be, but are, more serious than making sure they wear protective helmets when bicylcing or skateboarding. Parents need to know where their kids are, keep an eye on them, and others need to take an interest, too.

The way things are going, many neighbourhoods, wtih stray children, let alone dogs, are like a candy store for all of these sex offenders. Cleaning up the neighbourhood involves far more than recycling garbage.

Posted by: 'been around the block at August 5, 2007 11:15 AM

---

I feel sick - I can't even imagine how awful this is for her parents.

My view - sex offenders who have been charged and proven guilty (the first time) should be in prison for life, no parole - nadda. I've watched experts discussing cures, etc. and none can claim that they can be absolutely cured. Until such time they can, if they can, the children shouldn't be put at risk.

Yes, I'm a Liberal and no, not all liberals believe they should be free (mostly NDP thing I think).

The fact that it's now been 5 days does not look good at all. Hope I'm wrong.

I feel just sick.

And we worry about stupid things in life - political bashing, nit picking nonsense. And then a child goes missing and it sure is a rude awakening of what is important.

Posted by: Sara at August 5, 2007 02:10 PM

---

My prayers are with Cedricka's family.

Posted by: Brian in Calgary at August 5, 2007 02:52 PM

---

Steve, think back to the murder of Holly Jones -the little girl who disappeared in Toronto a couple of years ago and was eventually found dismembered.
The police tried a similar investigation and I recall hearing that there were literally hundreds of RSO's within a relatively small area.

Sara, liberal or conservative, we're in a small minority of people who are actually paying attention to what's going on out there. That "rude awakening" just ain't happening in most cases.
And that's why we keep losing kids.

Posted by: up north at August 5, 2007 10:21 PM

---

It's very scary! My prayers go out as I type. I remember growing up in a small town, us kids would disappear for the whole day and only come in when we heard someone's Mother call. Not happening with my kids, I won't even let them walk to school (a block away) by themselves. They can only go to the playground together and only if the city hired counsellor is there, and we are in a very save area of the city.

If our judges don't start putting these guys away, I'm afraid citizens might start doing the judges job for them. Maybe that's why the liberals want to ban everyones guns, so only the criminals have them.

Posted by: Hunter at August 5, 2007 11:43 PM

---

When people go about their business and take care themselves independently, there is no need for government nannies to create huge bureaucracies, hire scads of their friends onto taxpayer-supported payrolls, and award fat contracts to their cronies. Put succinctly, the more peaceful and co-operative a society, the less room there is for dog-focking parasites to live off the hard work of others.

Now imagine a society plagued with lawlessness, non-co-operation, fear and strife. Here you have a wonderful opportunity for would-be nannies to sell themselves as the answer to the "crisis", and to solicit the public to give them large amounts of money and power. Fear leads to panic, panic to irrationality, and in their irrational state the public becomes incapable of determining whether or not those benefitting from their fear are effectively solving their problems. In any case the governmental solution to problems is nearly always a monopolistic solution, and therefore has all of the problems of high prices and poor service which are inherent in monopolies. Unless the fear and panic can be maintained, sooner or later the public grumbling about the expensive and ineffective government services will lead to booting the government types out on their ears and forcing them to make a living in the free (but competitive) market. There is a strong motivation for some people to maintain and grow the fear and panic.

What you see then is that those in government benefit from strife and suffering by getting bigger budgets, bigger headcounts and less oversight. Consciously or unconsciously governments will therefore tend to promote conditions of chaos and lawlessness, and will tend to resist and hamper the avenues by which ordinary people can improve their society. That is why you see massive bureaucracies and law enforcement apparatuses dedicated to dealing (ineffectively) with the problem of pedophiles and psychopaths, while the number one thing which would help people to protect their children - allowing people to publicize the names, photographs and locations of offenders - is forbidden.

Posted by: at August 6, 2007 11:29 AM

---

nameless poster: "...while the number one thing which would help people to protect their children - allowing people to publicize the names, photographs and locations of offenders - is forbidden."

Good post; there's a lot of truth in what you say. And it's not just government that has a vested interest in panic and chaos. It's very rich charlatans like the Goreacle and Sukooki.

There's something you left out, however, as an antidote to sexual offenders and pedophiles threatening our children--and that's hands-on parenting, which often means that a parent is home to care for and watch out for their child(ren) 24/7.

The Canadian government, under the Liberals and aided and abetted by the NDP and Red Tories, for over 30 years actively discouraged one parent from staying home with their child(ren) through an inequitable taxation system, while actively encouraging the feminist agenda which encouraged both parents to enter the workforce and put their child(ren) in universal, tax-funded daycare programs.

Most Canadians had no idea that the tax system in Canada actually punished one-income families, with mom or dad at home to take responsibility for the care, nurture, safety, and well-being of their own children--and often other neighbourhood kids.

When Hillary Clinton bleats, "It takes a village to raise a child," I laugh my head off. "Which village would that be, Hill?" Not YOUR kind of village where Chelsea stays home with the hired help.

The kind of village it takes to effectively bring up children is the village where there's a mom, dad, or grandmother in every doorway, watching all the neighbourhood kids, knowing when a stranger comes loping down the street, and close and well-known enough to the children to call them indoors if there is imminent danger in the air.

That neighbourhood/village has long been out of fashion. When my children were growing up, I was the only stay-at-home mom on my street and the mom who the neighbours called on blizzard days to take care of all of the kids.

We need to go "forward into the past" and encourage parents to take full responsibility for the care and nurture of their own child(ren). The idea that it's always SOMEONE ELSE's responsibility to care for my child(ren) is a cop out--but it does work for government and other agencies, who can then step in with programs and agendas that make them a lot of money.

Posted by: 'been around the block at August 6, 2007 12:14 PM

---

Quite right, 'been.

The governmental position is that self-sufficiency is too difficult and dangerous to be permitted. Child-rearing, self-defense, crime and punishment, education, environmental protection, health care, business investment, retirement savings, ... the list of things which you and your family and neighbours have been deemed to be incapable of doing is as long as the blue pages in your phone book. But it is illogical that people are now unable to do virtually anything on their own or through small, local, or voluntary organizations when they accomplished these things perfectly well only 100 years ago. Therefore to continue the trend towards greater and greater governmental intrusion, logic and reasoning must be suppressed. Hence the constant nurturing of the state of FEAR.

Posted by: at August 6, 2007 04:14 PM

---

75 pedophiles is just the number that were previously caught and convicted. Do you think that this is a portion only of what's really lurking out there?

Posted by: JJJoseph at August 8, 2007 03:22 AM

---

I agree with you, 'been around, about the way left-leaning governments have deliberately broken the traditional relationship between parents and their children. They have inserted the government between parents and children with disastrous results. On the other hand, as to the issue of child molestation, it is impossible for parents to prevent any possibility of it happening. My wife was able to stay at home (lucky for my kids), but you can't lock your kids in the house forever nor accompany them on every outing forever.

I believe there has to come a time where kids are old enough to visit with and play with friends without a parent tagging along. Sadly, there is a period between this and adulthood when our children are still at risk of being harmed by monsters who prey on the young and weak.

In the good old days before left-wing sociologists decided every pervert could be saved, we were indeed able to lock them up and better protect our children. If it was up to me I'd castrate each and every one of them, give them 100 lashes, and tell them that the next time their head comes off. But that's just me.

Posted by: Larry at August 8, 2007 11:09 AM

---

I was recently witness to a long trial where a woman claimed her husband sexually assaulted her. Due to zero tolerance protocol, the police laid charges against the accused based on her statements alone. No investigation. No witness interviews. No evidence. The accused was found not guilty of any sex offence. If he had been found guilty, he would have made the list of registered sex offenders.

Reading through the above posts one will discover the words "sex offender" mistakenly replaced by "pedophile". Most sex offenders are not pedophiles at all.

From the RCMP:
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/techops/nsor/index_e.htm
The following Criminal Code offences have been included as designated offences under the SOIRA:
- sexual interference;
- invitation to sexual touching;
- sexual exploitation;
- incest;
- bestiality;
- child pornography (making, possession, distribution);
- parent or guardian procuring sexual activity;
- exposure;
- sexual assault;
- sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm; and
- aggravated sexual assault;
- as well as select offences where it can be proven that the offence was committed with the intent to commit an offence of a sexual nature; and
- an attempt or conspiracy to commit the above offences

Before you wish to know dirty secrets about your neighbour, think about your friends and family. Are you, or is any one close to you, in or out of a relationship with someone who may be capable of exploiting the "zero tolerance" protocol? Don't think it doesn't happen. It does.

Our children are precious. Go ahead and form a lynch-mob and chase down those pedophiles. I'll help you. But only if we can learn to be less careless with our emotions.

Posted by: Rick at August 9, 2007 08:16 AM

---