SQLFusion - Abuse victims deserve our support: Marsolais

Abuse victims deserve our support: Marsolais

Cornwall Standard Freeholder

19 January 2010

Posted By GREG PEERENBOOM

Sexual abuse victim Jamie Marsolais visited the city Friday hoping to keep his dreams alive for a community ready to improve the lives of fellow victims and prevent further abuse.

Marsolais didn't intend on becoming perhaps the most notable activist/victim during the Cornwall Public Inquiry.

But he did, and now -- after weeks avoiding media interviews regarding Commissioner Normand Glaude's final report --he's come with a plea.

"I don't really care about burning bridges, anymore. I might make some enemies, but what's more important is to support those victims who came forward," said Marsolais, who testified at the inquiry in October 2007.

His input took an even larger role when he agreed to volunteer with PrevAction, a group that co-ordinates organizations to make the city safer for youth.

Marsolais said the immediate aftermath of the inquiry report has taken a fearful wrong turn.

"It worried me from (the start of the inquiry) that as soon as the inquiry's lights were turned off, the victims were not going to do as well," he said. "It took a tremendous amount of guts for them to come forward and say their stories.

"And then to have the community make (negative) comments on the report, instead of focusing on healing.

"Are these people not important anymore?"

He said city leaders need to lead by example, but that didn't happen, pointing to Mayor Bob Kilger's response to the report.

Kilger surmised there was no proof that a pedophile clan existed in the city and area.

"The fact he (Glaude) wasn't able to say there was (a ring) tells me that there wasn't (one)," Kilger said in December.

"That didn't make sense to me," Marsolais said, of the mayor's stance.

Glaude explained in his summary it wasn't the inquiry's duty to determine if such a clan existed -- an accusation by victim/witness Ron Leroux, which he recanted on the stand.

Contacted Sunday, the mayor said Marsolais' opinion was formed on remarks "that were not complete."

"I don't think we're at odds.

"I respect Marsolais' views," Kilger said.

"I hope he (and other victims) get all the support and healing required.

"We're going to support the initiatives that were recommended from (Glaude) to the province, so we can meet certain requirements for the victims."

Kilger did not avoid the issue of healing in the previous article, stating the "exercise (inquiry) will benefit all of Ontario."

Marsolais claims other figures of authority are also more concerned with putting the inquiry behind them, instead of pushing for programs, such as counselling services.

"It's time to focus on Cornwall as a centre of excellence, to show other communities that they could heal from this; instead of people taking shots at each other."

Marsolais claims the inquiry actually shed a chilling aura over some of the projects that came out of phase 2 discussions.

"If it was money attached to the inquiry, they felt it was tainted.

"Those people were a small minority, but they hold a lot of power."

By and large, he said behavioural science professionals enlisted by the inquiry's phase 2 did their best to address victims' issues, but "they had their backs up against the wall."

Marsolais surmises the out-of- town professionals were actually "shunned" by local advocates on the attidude of "we don't need outsiders."

Marsolais himself is a big advocate of establishing a permanent emergency shelter that would also include youth and men.

But he claims a lack of commitment from the 2015 Shelter committee damaged the future for such an endeavour.

Marsolais was employed as a researcher to make a proposal seeking approval from Glaude, who wound up nixing the idea.

In his report, Glaude highlighted that "serious impediments" exist due to reservations from City of Cornwall staff who have had past experiences with a youth shelter.

Glaude agreed there is service gap for homeless 16-to 20- year olds, but that a lack of consensus held back his endorsement.

Marsolais doesn't blame Glaude or the inquiry staff for shelving the shelter.

"Glaude was very ethical, honest, very intelligent and very thorough and more import than this, he is a very good person," he said.

Marsolais understands that new programs, such as a shelter, would add to the extraordinary costs of the inquiry.

Kilger admitted the city shouldn't be on the hook for funding new programs when such services are the responsibility of other jurisdictions.

"Our role is to support the people and groups, such as PrevAction, to encourage the province," he said.

Kilger stopped short of committing to making official resolutions to the province, with no money conditions attached, in support of victims' services.

"We're still working on all the issues of recovering funding from our reserve to support our police services' (inquiry-related bills)."

Marsolais suggests that existing services, such as the Family Counselling Centre, could be given extra resources that would deal with victims' problems.

If community leaders are slow to respond, Marsolais hopes the general public rallies behind new programs in order to pressure governments.

Article ID# 2266667

CLARIFICATION

Cornwall Standard Freeholder 20 January 2010 In the article on Jamie Marsolais printed in the Jan. 19 edition three was an inaccuracy. Marsolais said a lack of support for the 2015 Shelter committee damaged the future for such an endeavour. He does not feel there was a lack of support from the committee.

Comments on this Article. (19 January 2010: Abuse victims deserve our support )

Our Mayor must have taken a speed reading course to have read FULL report in one day that he was able to make such a pronouncement. On page #774 of the report is the following quote..."There is no technical definition of a "pedophile ring." To the extent that term refers to a group of individuals-some of whom know each other-who are accused of sexually abusing young people, there was evidence that such an entity existed in Cornwall"

Mmmmmmmmm sounds like he says that there is a ring to me!!!

John Mac Donald

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #1 By wildone

There are abuse victims all over the world, not just in Cornwall. Anyone who has been abused should get counselling. Life isn't always fair and we must learn to deal with our issues and become a better person and make our own lives count for something. Support and counselling will help with that, but the abuse in Cornwall isn't the only place this has ever happened. As an abuse survivor (not affiliated with the Corwnall inquiry), I made a decision to not let my abusers win, and my life has been enriched by my own accomplishments, through support of a great support network. If I survived and did it, I hope all of you can too

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #2 By majekin

John I think what Glaude was trying to say hear was, there was no organized ring as suck but that "birds of a feather tend to flock together". But I totally respect your point of view, having backed it up with your name on the bottom.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #3 By Mr&MrsUwho

The issue as to the needs for society to properly deal with sexual abuse is far from over. The facts speak for themselves, the benefits and dividends received by society for properly addressing and treating the damages and affects incurred as a result of sexual abuse far outweigh the cost. The governments position with regard to canceling counseling in Cornwall prior to reviewing the Commissioners report affects all victims and citizens of the province of Ontario. This must not be tolerated. Sexual abuse flourishes in our country and with the expertise we possess it is criminal to not lead the civilized world to a solution. Speak out!

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #4 By John Swales

I try to break things down to their simplest form. Let's start at the beginning...David Silmser reports to police that he was abused by Charles MacDonald and Ken Seguin. Three supposedly smart lawyers are involved in David signing an illegal document (Malcolm McDonald, Jacques Leduc and Sean Adams). Pretty clear so far, these are all facts. Now let's see where this goes. Charles MacDonald (charged and walks on an 11b charter motion), Malcolm McDonald (lawyer representing Ken Seguin and Charles MacDonald-charged, dies before trial), Ken Seguin (commits suicide-FOI request would tell how many settlements were paid to his victims), Jacques Leduc (lawyer for the diocese-charged and walks on a non-disclosure issue). So here is what we have, Dave surrounded by 4 people charged with abusing young men (pedophiles-so we are clear). Now, just how many pedophiles constitutes a pedophile ring?

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #5 By wildone

Now lets address post #7 on the other story which says that Perry coerced victims into lying...The only two victims who "recanted" on the stand were C-8 and Ron Leroux. Interesting facts here, C-8 and Leroux lived together for years, their lawyer Malcolm McDonald (documented fact), their neighbour Ken Seguin (documented fact), first at the scene of Ken Seguins' suicide C-8 and Ron Leroux (documented fact). C-8 claims that he was abused by Ron Leroux when he was a teen (documented fact). C-8 was charged for abusing his teenaged neice (documented fact).

So the two of these guys admit on the stand that they lied. Sixteen lawyers accept that these two guys lied. Who am I to think that these two guys would have anything to hide.

We didn't need an inquiry, a Hollywood scrpit writer could not write this stuff. We just needed good old fashioned common sense.John Mac Donald

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #6 By wildone

wildone you sure have hit the nail on the head

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #7 By dodger,

Of course Kilger would stop short of commitment,he is unable to get the job done and irresponsible in his position to the people. yes sure let's re elect kilger....NOT

John

you never mentioned were A.S. was during all these bad things that happened. I mean he did live with the padre.

A repost from another date. Try and complete it as it may be a lil frustrating but it does make a very valid point.

The only way that you can now live life to the fullest is by moving past what is holding you back. All the things holding you back are inside us. You are your own worst enemies, but we either fail to see it or won’t admit it. Instead, we let fear, excuses and bad behaviour get in the way of your life. You are exactly where you are in life because to one degree or another we have failed to accept responsibility and have therefore chosen to continue to be victims. You are not a lifelong victim! Now some of you are saying or thinking something like this and most of you will not pass this point if even you did the first sentence.

“Itinerant you a@&&hole , He/She did such and such to me and I did not choose to have that happen. What they did damaged me and therefore, I am a victim! I had no control over the situation and if it had never happened then I would be a better person without so many problems.”

This is just one instance of something that happened and because it is in the main stream we all get to see it. How is the rest of your life? Still having issues? And I’ll bet some are blaming the past. Maybe it does have some effect but you control your future and your lives not the system and not everyone else, you choose your reaction to what happens to you.

Being a victim becomes a crutch that is so very easy to lean on

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #8 By itinerant

Itinerant.To me you are a cold blooded person.Your views are very disturbing to many people.But I think you have the support of every child molester and women beater in this city, with your views.That being said, I believe only the molesters,police,politicions,and the few people like you want to forget whats happen in our city and move on.Thats why no good will come of this,in the 70,s forget and move on,in the 80,s forget and move on,in the 90,s forget and move on,and here we are in the 2000,s forget and move on.There great defence, that was then mistakes were made this is now.People have forgotten and moved on for 40 years no lessons have been learnt. except for the pediphiles on how not to be caught.Take a good look at your children,your grandchildren,your neibours children any and all children.We owe it to them, to bring all pediphiles to justice and to show any others, what will happen if you abuse children.We the victims the people just can not lie down and move on like nothing happened.Because we will be in the same situion in years to come.Only this time it will be diffrent children as adults who come forward.

marc latour

luckyred1199@hotmail.com

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #9 By luckyred

wildone or anyone else.How come Ron leroux was not arrested for lieing all those years?

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #10 By luckyred

itinerant.Would you have the same views if it was children who spoke about there abuses at the inquirey?We were those children at one time.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #11 By luckyred

Itinerant....ask A.S....didn't see him on the witness stand!!

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #12 By wildone

I,m not talking about him taking the stand at the inquirey.pre inquirey he gave statments to lawyers police etc.He admited at the inquirey he lied.{so be it].Why didn,t the authoraties arrest him.{i have to buy a dictionary sorry for the spelling]And its luckred asking {not doo doo bird]

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #13 By luckyred

John

Did you ever bring it up when giving statements or to support others facing the inquiry.

Luckyred

You are naive, I do not support molesters one iota, in fact should there be a public stoning for convicted offenders I would cast the first boulder. If you see support in my post then you still have issues clouding your judgement, there is no promoting what they did.

You cannot forget the hatred and it is a sad thing to live that way. Your post validates what I have written. One could call this group a victim ring as you live like the accused amongst each other. Only here it is spreading your hatred and making it difficult to deal with what happened, Familiarity breeds contempt and helps sociologists maintain a living.

Cold yes, but just reading the posts it shows to be true.

Again as for the accused, I strongly think public stoning should be reinstated.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #14 By itinerant

Are you trying to say that I should do the job that the police or Inquiry staff should have done? You cannot speak from both sides of your mouth Itinerant, you knock Perry for doing what you are saying that I should have done.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #15 By wildone

itinerant.I didn,t say that you support child molesters.I said i think you have the support of them{child molesters]they certainly want to move on.Yes i am spreading my hatred towards child molesters.I will deal with what happened my way.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #16 By luckyred

one more thing itinerant.I think you have a lot of hatred stored in you also.You could not servive in buisness in cornwall for which ever reason,Did you not state you had to move your buisness out of cornwall.You seem to be bitter at most who run this city.

ps.I will not be repliying to your comments anymore.

your opoins shall be your opions

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #17 By luckyred,

John you too are confused,

Perry did the right thing but the wrong way.

If you refused to tell them could others have done the same resulting in with held information that could have perhaps opened up more information to get convictions of said offenders. Is it possible John, responsibility wildone that is what it is called.

marc,

I have no hatred, personally i do not give a rats .... sometimes the truth the real truth is difficult to understand.

Yes my business is out of town and successful I might add. It is due to the people such as yourself of cannot do, or it's not my fault attitude. Other cities are growing and beginning to come out of the so called recession, I just returned lastnight after a flight north and they too are into huge development. North Marc, nobody much lives there but they are expanding the infrastructure, but here we still have nothing.

Why stay were people and their support only refute change and remain stuck in a paradigm.....

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #18 By itinerant

I was hoping that you write back with exactly what you said....the assumption that made is that I knew this information, which I did not. The thing is that you seemed to have known this information, are YOU then now not held responsible for what you think that I should be responsible for?

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #19 By wildone

And as for confusion...please do not judge me, you seem to have judged enough. You, have judged Perrys' actions to be wrong. I, can only have an opinion as to his actions, without standing in HIS shoes, who am I to judge right or wrong. All I know is that I am quite certain that there is not a book titled "What happens when the system breaks down, and victims come knocking at your door at home....A cops response". The one thing that I do hope all of us cannot deny is that the system broke down, a ton of money and a 1,700 page report states just that. Unless you disagree with that too.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #20 By wildone

John in a previous discussion we went along the same path, I asked if you knew who lived with him and you posted AS. if you did not know as you claim now, how could you have answered with the initials?

I am not your judge by any means all I do is read and ask questions and provide opinions not ullike yourself. If you feel judged maybe there is still something you need to discuss.

John the system did not fail anyone, the people manipulating and working with in the system failed the public. Just like a boat John, it cannot move well if everyone does not row at the same time. Unfortunately in this democratic system we have in Canada the word accountability does not exist

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #21 By itinerant

Finally we get to it. I did not know prior to prviding any statement. I learned of A.S. through documents provided in another case. This means that the police, and thereby Inquiry staff (if they had the info) were informed of A.S. Now you see my question....Why did he not take the stand? Do not confuse confusion with my right not to be baited into something. Ask me a straight question, and I will give a straight answer.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #22 By wildone

You judged me as to being confused....I have no confusion that it is people that "ro the boat" if you scroll back on these comments, you will see that I pointed out people, NOT institutions. Perry lost faith in the judicial system, as he stated on the stand. You could not be more dead on with accountability either, that is why I filed a complaint, that the RCMP have been investigating for almost a year now, against 2 sitting judges and a crown attorney. Someone has to be accountable if "the system" broke down.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #23 By wildone,

No John intepretation or misinterpretation is the problem creating confusion.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #24 By itinerant

Re: Post 21: This is “the real problem”. Read the “words”. Read the misrepresentation of the word “democracy” with the writers’ theme and conclusion. This IS the problem. Ignorance! “We” espouse our ignorance! Unfortunately, the strongest and more persistent voice, with the most powerful means to deliver the message,…. prevails.

That is of course, unless you present the facts with reference to the documented evidence, as John has done, lately.

John, I believe you are a victim and survivor, so you have direct experience; you are intelligent; you can present an argument in “form”; you are an advocate. The difference between you and others is that you have taken risks and you are willing to take more risks. So John, may I be so bold as to ask, what is your goal/objective? …or “calling”.

How do you plan to achieve it/them. You can do it!

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #25 By Lapdog,

Page 2

And the circus of lies and bullcrap goes on.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #1 By dodger

: So now that we have A.S. squared away as to where I found out, let's get back to your post #18 Itinerant. When you THOUGHT that I had knowledge of who he was and that he lived with "the padre", you pointed the finger and said that it was MY responsibility not to withhold this info and that I should have reported it to them (police). It is quite obvious now that YOU had knowledge of this information in one of three ways. #1...YOU knew of this info, and seem to hold me to a higher level of responsibility than you hold yourself? #2...You are A.S.? #3... You went through the same documentation that I did, and if you did then you would have seen that documentation was dated prior to my statement, thereby attempting to bait me?

I have given you the courtesy and answered your questions. Notice that I have put the 3 points as questions, have the same courtesy and answer mine.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #2 By wildone

Lapdog

John has referred to documents of people he does not trust or has made mention that they are not forthcoming. That is kind of contradictory don't you think.

My questions and information comes from being there at the time. I know a good portion of the people. I too was interviewed at the time on three different accounts and gave statements. All my statements would not have helped victims as I had a good relationship with both the accused and victims.

Since this whole gambit began I have heard some old timers talk about a motel on Vincent Massey rd where some questionable activities use to occur, a blue convertible caddy which use to travel about town filled with youth, the motel atop the Old Fort had some rumour about abuses occurring on film. Many of these people have since passed on .The confidence and conviction in telling what they saw still remains. I base my questions on watching what happens and listening to people. When inconsistencies occur I ask questions. That is why I have a good career but would magically disappear in government. John

1. John, I asked if you knew of a person living there. I also asked if you mentioned that fact. Why you speculate a higher level of responsibility comes from your own imagination, not my words. As mentioned before “ All the things holding you back are inside you”.

2. Nope not Mr S here sorry.

3. It matters not when the documentation was dated, the question was did you tell them about Mr. S in your original statement. It appears that you are a bit fixated on being judged and baited. The questions are straight forward wildone, for some difficult to deal with. However as I mentioned earlier if something seems to be inconsistent I will ask.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #3 By itinerant

About the document, no I cannot read all of it.

It like many government documents lacks clarity and conviction. I did not see commitment to complete anything or to improve anything, to me it reads as a “we will see what happens and if possible”. There are NO words such as SHALL, or RESPONSIBLE in a sentence stating direction or commitment. John I write portions of contracts and similar documents in my career. This document lacks commitment and direction to both improvement of the systems in place and assistance to victims. In the end victims’ will be forgotten and rolled under the carpet; however the cost and the proceedings will last forever in the news.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #4 By itinerant

FULL OF HOT AIR!!:

Re: “Itinerant”, (see above): Etiquette and debate suggests, in-this matter, if you believe John, a.k.a. “wildone”, is biased or otherwise in his presentations, then you would be so inclined as to support your opposing assertions by referencing supporting evidence/documentations “the world can review”. Point us to documents of your testimony and other evidence. In this matter and with your “blogging” history on this website, anything else is simply, “hot air”.

Instead “Itinerant”, you rely on spreading hearsay, blaming, rumour, innuendo and speculation, to assert your position……why? You rely on purporting to be some kind of expert, when you disclose your career-expertise, implying, “you know better”. Also, “Itinerant”, although your disclosure surrounding your career indicates that you participate in the construction of contracts and other documents, you imply you have little or no trust in them. Marvellous, simply marvellous. Credible? I think not. I submit, “Itinerant’s” submissions are exactly why there are so many conflicts relating to this matter, i.e.) a lot of “hot air” and ignorance. No substance, no statement of facts with supporting evidence; simply fanning the flames with ignorance as the fuel….very, very dangerous.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #5 By Lapdog

I see no reason to prove anything as I do not accuse anyone.

If you see me questioning people you need a better understanding of the english language. My discussion with wildone was to see if we have knowledge of issues and people in common.

I have actually agreed that this inquiry has proven nothing and as a result only suggests what could be done. If you call that hot air then perhaps you could share your "experiences and documented proof".

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #6 By itinerant