Dads Against the Divorce Industry

DA*DI is devoted to reinstating the societal valuation of Marriage and the traditional, nuclear American Family, with particular emphasis on the essential role of FATHERS.

DA*DI offers contemporary reports and commentary on culture; its aberrations and its heroes.



Homosexual Teacher Trying to Hide What She Told Students at Fistgate

By Ed Oliver
July 30, 2001
www.massnews.com 

DA*DI has now received a copy of the audio tape [narrated by the two fathers who founded the Parents Rights Coalition] and who captured the now infamous "Children's Sex Conference" or "Fistgate" excerpts. Since then, PRC is being sued by GLSEN for making the tape, and for that reason this copy was obtained elsewhere. We have reproduced the tape in MP3 format for downloading. There are two segments, the "A" side (30 min.) and "B" side (15 min.) of the tape.

The following materials contain explicit sexual commentary and should not be played in the presence of children.
Approx. download times at 28.8kps are listed under the links:
Sample Excerpt
(1.02 meg.)
00:07:24 min
A Side
(10.8 meg.)
00:80:00 min
B Side
(5.2 meg.)
00:40:00 min

The lawyers for the homosexual teacher who sued two parents for revealing what happened at Fistgate in March 2000 are trying to hide what really did occur at the scandal. 

They asked the judge last Friday at a preliminary hearing in Boston’s Suffolk Superior Court to limit what questions can be asked of the teacher by the defendant parents, Brian Camenker and Scott Whiteman. 

The plaintiff’s lawyer, Bennett Klein of GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders), told Judge Judith Fabricant that his client has only one narrow claim, that the secret taping by the parents violated the Massachusetts wiretap law. He said that because of the narrowness of her complaint, the content of the tapes should not be discussed. “The legislature intended that all secret recording should be prohibited,” said Klein, adding that the content of the workshop is “not relevant.” 

But Camenker’s attorney, Robert Roughsedge, told the judge “They’re doing everything they can to keep this information from getting out.” Roughsedge cited a recent United States Supreme Court ruling that said there is a First Amendment right to distribute an illegally obtained recording if it is in the public interest. He said the Massachusetts wiretap statute does not trump the First Amendment. 

Regarding GLAD’s attempt to quash any discovery of what went on at Fistgate, Roughsedge said every Supreme Court First Amendment decision is based on the facts as they bear on the defendant’s actions. He said he couldn’t see how the court could say at this point that the defendants do not deserve to have any discovery that may lead to a defense. 

Atty. Roughsedge pointed out, “It is a crime in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to encourage minors that were in attendance at this conference to conduct the sexual acts that they actually were enticed and encouraged to conduct. That’s a crime; You can’t avoid it.” 

Atty. Darling Says Reporting ‘Child Abuse’ Is Not a Crime 

Scott Whiteman, the parent who actually recorded the session, was represented by Chester Darling. It is not contested that Whiteman taped the session, but Darling argued that his whole defense would be wiped out by prohibiting discovery about what was said at the workshop. Whiteman’s defense is based on the doctrine of “necessity and justification” and argues that a person reporting child abuse shall not be liable for such a report. 

The necessity defense justifies conduct which is criminal on its face, but which promotes some value higher than the value of literal compliance with the law. It is based on the theory that sometimes the greater good for society will be accomplished by violating the literal language of the law. 

Darling said Whiteman’s motivation for taping the sex workshop was to gather proof of systematic child abuse with the purpose of putting an end to it. He said nobody would believe Whiteman and the Parents Rights Coalition when they tried to report to authorities what was being taught to children by state-sponsored gay activists.   

He argued that the Dept. of Education and gay activists such as the plaintiff, Julie Netherland, were exposing the children to unsafe sex practices at the workshop, such as sadomasochism, and giving the youngsters other harmful advice. He said that constitutes child abuse and the parents want it stopped.  

“Fourteen year-old children don’t have the ability to come to some sort of agreement where they won’t tell anyone [about what was discussed at the workshop]”, said Darling. “This is the profile of a pedophile. The Commonwealth is a pedophile is what emerges from this sad, nasty set of facts. These children were told by this plaintiff and others, that ‘we are going to keep whatever happens in this room a secret.’ They then proceeded to show those children a better technique for ‘fisting,’ which is thrusting one’s arm up another person’s rectum or vagina.” 

Attorney Klein responded that Whiteman cannot come close to meeting the threshold requirement of the necessity defense. He said Whiteman admitted in his deposition that he was not trying to prevent a crime from being committed against the 30 children in the room but was trying to protect all Massachusetts children in the future. Klein said the state SJC has ruled that trying to prevent future harm does not excuse a current violation of the law that was committed in anticipation of the eventual over-all benefit to the public. There must be a threat of “imminent harm,” he said. 

Darling says it is still to be decided whether the workshop was illegally recorded. Mr.Whiteman paid admission, he said, and should have been able to record the state-sponsored seminar that was open to the public.  

Another Suit in Cambridge 

There is another suit over the same issues filed in the Middlesex County Court in Cambridge by another lesbian instructor, Margot Abels, who participated in the same graphic sex workshop and was subsequently fired along with Julie Netherland after it became public.  

She has also joined David Driscoll, Commissioner of the state’s Department of Education as a defendant because she says the state gave prior approval to everything she did at Fistgate.  

She claims she was also promised on March 12, 2000, that she would receive 11 ¼ hours compensatory time for her participation at the March 25 event. She says that on the Monday after the conference was held, she sent a list of the questions that had been asked by the students to her supervisors. However, the officials at the Department of Education have maintained that she and other state employees were operating entirely on their own.

Camenker has repeatedly said, “I believe Abels, absolutely. She is being used as a scapegoat, there’s no question about it. For them to claim this was an isolated incident is completely disingenuous.” 

He says that the Governor’s office is well aware of what was happening because he has personally told them. “Bill Weld decided when he beat John Silber in that close race that he was successful only because of the help and money given to him by homosexual activists. Therefore, he repaid those activists by allowing them access to our public schools and even giving them the money to indoctrinate our kids.”

The second suit is forcing the parents to defend themselves in another court.

“This suit is obviously not an attempt to seek justice in the case,” said Atty. Darling.. “It is merely an attempt by the GLSEN crowd to harass Brian Camenker and Scott Whiteman and to have them running all over the state defending themselves. It is also blatant forum-shopping because these people want to hold the trial in a town that has many liberals. They hope it will be impossible for us to obtain a fair trial there. The main defendant in this case is the Commonwealth of Massachusetts whose offices are in Boston. My clients were included only to harass them even more and to give credibility to the filing of the suit in Cambridge.” 

The Abels suit seeks: 1) Reinstatement of Abels to her job, 2) damages for lost wages, 3) compensatory damages including those for emotional distress, 4) punitive damages, and 5) attorney fees.



Back to DA*DI's Home
Dads Against the Divorce Industry Dads Against the Divorce Industry