By PAUL LIKOUDIS

CORNWALL, Ont. — The Corn­wall Public Inquiry, established by the government of the Province of Ontario in April 2005 “ to inquire into and report on the events sur­rounding allegations of abuse of young people in Cornwall by ex­amining the response of the jus­tice system and other public insti­tutions to the allegations,” is now, by a high court ruling, officially a “ court.”

  And on trial is former Cornwall Constable Perry Dunlop, the po­liceman who first reported an al­leged pedophile ring involving priests, lawyers, judges, doctors, probation officers, businessmen, and other prominent citizens in the early 1990s. His investiga­tions and revelations led to a pub­lic outcry, an Ontario Provincial Police investigation dubbed Project Truth in 1997, and even­tually 114 sex abuse charges against 15 men. In recent years, however, more individuals have come forward claiming they were sex abuse victims, and more al­leged perpetrators have been named.

  Dunlop’s wife, Helen, is also on trial, having withstood ( so far, as of September 19) three days of grueling interrogation surround­ing her husband’s role in expos­ing the alleged Cornwall Police coverup of the sexual predations of Fr. Charles MacDonald, the par­ish priest who had married the couple in 1989 and baptized their first child in 1990.

  Perry Dunlop, along with his wife, was forced by Judge Thomas Lederer of the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario to testify in Cornwall, after ruling on August 21 that the “ Public Inquiry” head­ed by Justice Normand Glaude is, in fact, “ a court” with the power to subpoena the Dunlops from their home on Vancouver Island and compel testimony.

  For three days, September 17, 18, and 19, Helen Dunlop has tes­tified what she knows about how her husband learned of the sexual abuse committed by Fr. Mac­Donald; how the Diocese of Alex­andria’s former bishop, Eugene LaRocque, and the diocesan attor­ney Jacques Leduc paid a victim, D. S., $ 30,000 to drop a criminal complaint against the diocese. And how the police department covered up the crime and the ille­gal settlement; how her highly decorated husband — as required by law — informed the Children’s Aid Society that Fr. MacDonald was a homosexual predator; how Perry Dunlop was charged, and then exonerated, twice, by the po­lice department for official mis­conduct.

  She also testified as to how he has been made the scapegoat in numerous trials ( usually ending in acquittal for Cornwall’s pedo­philes if tried); the great personal costs they have endured over the past 14 years, including emotion­al distress, loss of job and friends, loss of home, traumatized chil­dren, numerous death threats, ha­rassment by police officials, attor­neys, and judges, and heavy legal expenses.

  Dunlop has refused to testify. After being called to the stand, he read a brief, one- paragraph state­ment saying that he had no confi­dence in the legal system and would refuse to answer any ques­tions. When told he would face contempt charges, he replied he was willing to be jailed. But un­der no circumstances would he testify.

  On September 17, when the Dunlops appeared in Justice Glaude’s newly defined “ court,” at least 19 of the 23 lawyers present in the courtroom represented agencies and individuals implicat­ed in the Cornwall “ pedophile clan.”

  In all, Justice Glaude has certi­fied 55 attorneys to represent par­ties at hearings in his courtroom, known as the “ weave shed” be­cause it was once a yarn mill; of those 55 attorneys, only one rep­resents the “ victims’ group.”

 Five of the attorneys represent the Ontario Attorney General’s of­fice; 5 represent Fr. Charles Mac­Donald; 4, the Children’s Aid So­ciety; 5, the Cornwall Police; 3, the Diocese of Alexandria- Corn­wall; 5, the former diocesan attor­ney Jacques Leduc; 6, the Ontar­io Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services and/ or Adult Community Corrections ( Probation); 2, the Ontario Provin­cial Police Association; 6, the On­tario Provincial Police and its Commissioner Gwen Boniface; and 4 represent the Upper Canada District School Board.

  Also, 3 represent the Citizens for Community Renewal, 3 repre­sent the Catholic Separate School Board of Eastern Canada; 1 attor­ney each represents 4 “ alleged victims”; 1 attorney represents the estate of an “ alleged” pedophile, probation officer Ken Seguin, who committed suicide.

  In addition to these attorneys, the Public Inquiry has a staff of six attorneys.

  The one attorney representing the “ victims’ group,” Dallas Lee, informed the “ victims” on Sep­tember 12 that he could not be present in the courtroom during the Dunlops’ testimony because he had once, briefly, represented Perry Dunlop. He also expressed surprise that the Dunlops were compelled to be in court since he had received assurances from the “ Inquiry” that the Dunlops could not be forced to attend events at the “weave shed.”

  Since the “ hearings” began in November 2005, none of the al­leged ( or convicted) pedophiles have been called to testify; vic­tims have been grilled merciless­ly, and countless “ experts” from every field of the social sciences, bureaucrats, lawyers, and canon law experts have tried to explain how “ institutions” respond to al­legations of sexual abuse.

 Live-Blogging
  Ottawa- area Catholic Sylvia MacEachern, who has known the Dunlops for at least a decade and who has written extensively on the Cornwall pedophile clan, is live- blogging the Dunlops’ ap­pearance at the “ weave shed” on her blog at www.theinquiry.ca.

 Live video and audio of the hearings in Justice Glaude’s “ court” are also on the Internet, at: www.cornwallinquiry.ca.

  On September 17, Mrs. MacEachern described the scene in the courtroom as the Dunlops walked in: “ There was applause. A very hearty round of applause for Per­ry and Helen when they walked into the coliseum courtroom. There was a standing ovation. A standing ovation for Perry and Helen Dunlop. . . .

  “A weary- looking Perry took the stand first. He read a statement and then declined to answer fur­ther questions.

  “ Then it was Helen’s turn. Helen Dunlop has had enough. She didn’t mince words. Articu­late, witty, quick on her feet, and at time fighting back tears — she had her say and then some.

  “ What cannot be captured in the transcript is the mood. The air was charged. There was one sce­nario which played itself out which I really must try to de­scribe. It was the strangest thing I have ever seen.

  “ When Perry was put on the stand Helen walked over and post­ed herself behind lead commission counsel [ Peter] Engelmann. She was facing Justice Glaude and in sight of her husband.

  “ The Commissioner [ Justice Normand Glaude]: ‘ I see there is a person standing. I’m wondering if we could find a seat. No, that per­son and the person right there.’ ‘Yes,’ Helen replied.

  “ Mrs. Dunlop: ‘ I would like to stand in honor and support of my husband if that is okay with you, Your Honor.’

“ The Commissioner: ‘ M’hm, I don’t see any problem with that. It’s going to be a long time. So if at any time you feel that you want to sit, just find a chair anywhere at all. That will be fine.’

“And this is when it happened. First one, then another, then anoth­er in the stands stood. I don’t know how many stood to show their support for Perry. There were a lot. It was a ripple effect — like a wave rippling through the crowd. Silently. One after the oth­er. Standing to show Perry we were with him.

  “[ Lead Commission Counsel Peter] Engelmann stands facing the judge with his back to the crowd. He had no idea what was happening. But, Justice Glaude, who is ‘ The Commissioner’ throughout the official transcript, could see:

 “ The Commissioner: ‘ No, no, no, no, no, no, no. There we go. Mr. Engelmann, there are a num­ber of people who have chosen to stand behind you. It just is not proper decorum.

  “‘Mr. Dunlop, do you wish them to continue standing or would you rather them just sit down?’

“ Mr. Dunlop: ‘ Of their own free will, I would say.’

 “ The Commissioner: ‘ Good. Good. All right. So I’m going to take a five- minute break and after­wards I’m going to come back in and those people who really want to stand will move over to the side, over there, so the people who are sitting will be able to see. So I will accommodate you’re a — but I will tell you one thing, ladies and gentlemen. Throughout this Inquiry, if I’ve made any mistakes, there’s one I have not made and that is being [ dis] respectful to people. And out of respect for this process and for the questions that we’re going to be putting to this witness, I ask you for the same re­spect back. So you will be able to stand over there. I do not want any outbreaks of applause or dismay or anything like that. Is that very clear? Have I made myself very clear?’

“ Upon return about 15 people moved to the right hand of the coliseum court room. All stood for the duration of the afternoon hear­ing,” observed Mrs. MacEachern.

  Perry Dunlop then read his statement:

 “ Number one, I have been lied to and forced here against my will today. I want that to be on the record. I’ve been forced to leave my children, my business, and my community in British Columbia to come here. I live in fear for my health and my safety of my fami­ly, including my three girls who I had to leave. I have no faith in the Ontario criminal justice system or the mandate of this Inquiry. I am the scapegoat. This has been a coverup since 1993 and it contin­ues to be a coverup to this day. Over the past 14 years, I have co­operated, given all my evidence and testimony over and over again. There is nothing more I can add. The victims and their fami­lies are the heroes and the truth­sayers here. I have nothing more to say at this time.”

  Justice Glaude then asked Dun­lop if he would answer questions.

  “ I have nothing more to say,” he added, observing that he had been lied to numerous times by Coun­sel Engelmann, who objected that he didn’t intentionally lie when he told Dunlop he could not be compelled to testify; he just didn’t know the Inquiry could go to a higher court and get a subpoe­na.

  When she was called to testify, Mrs. Dunlop explained why she and her husband have no faith in the police and legal institutions.

 What Went Wrong

  What follows is taken directly from the official transcript of the first day’s hearing:

“ The Commissioner: Whether or not you have faith in it — we understand your position. I think you’ve made that very clear. Would you not want to tell me where the institutions went wrong and what they did to you and your husband?

  “ Mrs. Dunlop: You mean start­ing with the coverup in 1993 at the Cornwall Police Station by se­nior members there?

  “ The Commissioner: Absolute­ly.

  “ Mrs. Dunlop: Well, I don’t want to do it in this kind of a set­ting because this isn’t supposed to be a trial.

  “ The Commissioner: No, it is not.

  “ Mrs. Dunlop: But I’ve seen people, victims, who have been sent to find a damned good law­yer after they gave testimony.

  “ The Commissioner: No —

“Mrs. Dunlop: I have listened to a Commissioner say, ‘ No one is going to be compelled here to speak. Everything is going to be voluntary.’

“ The Commissioner: M’hm.

  “ Mrs. Dunlop: We have been lied to. I expect we’ll be lied to some more.

  “ The Commissioner: Right, right.

  “ Mrs. Dunlop: So the answer is, no, I don’t have any faith. No, I don’t think this is going to go well for the Dunlops. It hasn’t gone well for the Dunlops or my children in 14 years thanks to the great institutions being represent­ed here today.

  “ The Commissioner: M’hm.

  “ Mrs. Dunlop: And we have been bullied, harassed, threatened and we are tired of it. We want to put an end to it for our children’s health, for our health, and to get some peace for the rest of this country. Our system is out of con­trol. Look what happened to Steven Truscott [ who spent 34 years in jail after being falsely ac­cused of murder and was subse­quently cleared of the charge — editor]. . . .

  “ The Commissioner: Well, then if we’re going to talk about re­spect, all right, I’ve been giving two- and a- half years of my life — “ Mrs. Dunlop: We’ve been giv­ing 14.

  “The Commissioner: — to come here. Right. So I thought maybe we could have some common ground.

  “ Mrs. Dunlop: But we don’t have common friends.

  “ The Commissioner: Ah.

  “Mrs. Dunlop: You’re wrong, sir.

“ The Commissioner: Friends.

  “ Mrs. Dunlop: That we trust, sitting in suits here today.

  “ The Commissioner: No, well — “ Mrs. Dunlop: You think this is funny, Mr. Glaude?

  “ The Commissioner: No, I — “ Mrs. Dunlop: This is our life. This is not funny for us.

  “ The Commissioner: Careful. Careful. You understand the smile as a smirk and what it is, is a sense of frustration on my part when someone tells me that I am put­ting in two- and- a- half- years of my time — right — when you’ve put in your 14. Fourteen isn’t equal to two and- a- half. I’ll agree.

  “ Mrs. Dunlop: And you are get­ting paid and we weren’t. [ There are] two kinds of lawyers in the world. . . . The justice system needs to get cleaned up. There are only two kinds of lawyers in the world, architects and parasites. Decide for yourself which one you are. Because we have had enough of harassment. And I am here to protect my husband and my chil­dren and every other child that’s had the poor choice to be put in places where they have been mo­lested and have grown up dam­aged and have been given deals and money and payoffs so they could all go away and we could just sweep this under the carpet again.

  “ It’s done. You have no more chance — I mean, what are the chances of the truth coming out of the Cornwall Inquiry? About the same as raising the Titanic and finding the band still playing.

  “ Mrs. Dunlop: We want the truth out and it will come out. It will come out long after you’ve left Cornwall with your pockets full. It will come out long after you’ve head up the 401 [ high­way]. It will all come out. You can’t hide the truth.

  “ The Commissioner: So when I was looking at you over there, I saw your lips moving.

  “ Mrs. Dunlop: I was praying.”

  By the end of the third day of her interrogation by Engelmann, it became apparent that the in­tention of the Public Inquiry/ Court is to establish that Perry and Helen Dunlop are delusion­al paranoiacs who imagined a conspiracy and pedophile clan where neither existed and who damaged the reputations and ca­reers of many.