In addition, the law provides for another remedy that is presented to the House as if it were something new. It`s as old as it gets. It provides that the summary court to which she is brought and who is accused of neglecting her child may remove him from his custody and put him in the hands of someone who is ready to receive him, who takes care of him and receives compensation for it. The law is like that today. The people to whom the child is handed over are paid for it and the mother has custody of it. Why does the honourable Member say that he is giving this extra benefit to these poor children? It is the law and action is taken every day. The great society for the prevention of cruelty to children takes many cases, and when they see that one of these poor children is neglected, they take it into their hands and see that it is properly cared for and given to friends, and these friends are paid. Assuming that, for some reason, she is unable to care for the child and is billed to the parish, the guardians have ample recourse. There is no time limit against the guardians of the poor. But if an illegitimate child is charged at the parish ten years after birth, even if no proceedings have been initiated in the meantime, the guardians can bring the alleged father to justice and obtain an order for maintenance, education and education costs. With regard to the confiscation of the money received by the mother of the alleged father, I believe the honourable Member said that there were objections to that.

The law now provides for that. In 1914, the Affiliation Orders Act was passed, which contained many provisions for this purpose. It was passed after a special committee had discussed the whole issue and, under this act, this 2413 collection agent was created to remove the shoulders of the mother who came into contact with a man she may have learned to hate, and that the duty of the collector at the request of the court to receive the money. He must obtain it, and if the father is in default of payment, the debt collector can immediately receive a payment from him without the mother having to intervene, and she is therefore not in the unpleasant position of having to assert in court against her seducer. The debt collector does it for them. All this the honourable Member States are already complaining about the law. There are two main reasons why I say that if this bill is not cut to pieces, if it is not based on a completely different principle, it will destroy its own objectives. They have the paternity provision in the first part of the bill, which cannot help the child. It is true that you should arrange that if you find the father, you should have a settlement for payment as soon as possible. I totally agree with that, but this bill has nothing to do with that, except in the case where the father admits filiation, and I should say, from my experience with these issues, that in a very large majority of cases where paternity is allowed, the man also provides for the birth of the child. for captivity.

This bill does not provide for a review of „yes” or „no” paternity if paternity is denied before the child is born, and it cannot do much to help the daughter needed that once she has had her child, she may be able to receive an order that will reimburse her for the money she may have borrowed. to help them overcome their difficulties. Therefore, this bill does not help in that regard, although I admit that it could be changed in committee. We need to remember that. For many men, the accusation of being the father of an illegitimate child is as serious a matter as the accusation of a crime; he can destroy his house; If he is a married man, it can ruin him socially and in all the ways that his happiness in life means. We provide in this bill for a system of investigating matters of this kind that the House would not tolerate for a single moment for 2427 if it were a man accused of touching his hand or doing something dishonorable in this way, a system of inquisition – which in itself is bad. Because every Inquisition is bad – in a case that, while not criminal, is in many ways just as serious as a criminal charge and an inquisition system that this country would not tolerate in any criminal case. That is one of the serious objections I see to this bill, but beyond that, it contains provisions that not only do not eliminate the difference between the illegitimate child and the legitimate child, but not only remove the stain on the illegitimate child, the shame that he or she may feel throughout his or her life. which not only does not eliminate it, but also emphasizes and perpetuates it through the last provisions of the bill. These in themselves, which are the two main objections to the bill, seem to me to be radical and essentially wrong. [KG] Well, I think we tend to focus on one piece of legislation, and bastard laws really require an analysis of different types of laws. So these are not just bastard laws, but you also have to look at marriage laws, right? There were children who were legal bastards because their parents could not marry.

Why can`t I marry his parents? Often because it was very expensive to marry or because states created restrictions on who could marry and who could not. Men and women played the same role in creating a situation in which bastard laws had to be enforced. All cases of bastards tried by colonial courts were the direct result of adultery or fornication. In early colonial history, men took more responsibility for an act of fornication or a bastard accusation. The women in court claimed that they had engaged in sexual activity with men and explained to the courtroom that if they got pregnant in any way, the man would marry them, thus preventing the birth of a bastard child. [14] An illegitimate child automatically led to a trial to determine who the father was and who and how the bastard would be cared for. To catch fornication, one had to either find the couple who committed the act, or the couple had to immediately confess their sin. Someone who found a couple involved in fornication was rare. For example, court proceedings often relied on confessions to lay charges in a case of bastardization.

[15] Until 1668, the government of the colony of Massachusetts and others imposed the practice of midwives interviewing women during childbirth. It was believed that women had to endure so much fear during childbirth that they would not lie and would honestly confess their sin of fornication and reveal who the baby`s father was. Either pregnant women would gladly tell someone that she had a bastard son, and then she would call the father, or a midwife would ask the mother to say whether her child was legitimate or not. Cases of bastardization in the colonies involved women of high, lower and middle rank, similar to those in England. [16] Once a bastard child was born, women could not deny a charge of adultery or, more commonly, a charge of fornication. We get used to the fact that the Minister of the Interior stands up in his place and defends the indefensible. When the government has taken an impossible position, it usually provides the right MP to represent it. I hope, however, that the right honourable Member will insist that there should be a fair share of cases that can be reasonably combated. As someone whose name was on the original bill, I hope that the House will accompany me for two or three minutes and remind them of the basic principles of this bill and try to illustrate the current state of affairs under the current bastard laws. I do not believe that these laws are as satisfactory as the Minister of the Interior has proposed. I guess the main principle behind this bill is that if two people are jointly responsible for giving birth to a child, they must share the responsibility equally between them and not impose it on one of the parties. In the current position, the woman carries all the burden, or practically.

It carries the stigma, odiousness and torture associated with someone who has violated our social laws.