Hearings resume at the Weave Shed today with Rudy Gheysen the first witness from the Ontario Police College on the stand. He will be followed tomorrow (31 May) by Phil Debruyne and on Thursday, 01 June by Irene Barath.
****
On a more serious note word is the inquiry team didn’t have the courtesy to advise mainstream media that a publication ban was in the offing yesterday. That I believe is standard practice, but it in this instance it wasn’t done.
Well, to be very honest the only thing I know for a fact is that CBC wasn’t notified, and that Mr. Engelmann apologized for not giving them a heads up that a publication ban was in the offing.
Perhaps that explains why the diocese’s motion was rammed through on the spot? Had Justice Glaude tarried as is his norm with rulings on motions the word would have seeped out and no doubt there would have been major challenges to a publication ban – and ergo, the much desired ban would never have seen the light of day.
The whole thing smells to high heaven. So many questions:
What brought David W Scott into the fray at this moment in time?
Why and how did a motion to redact or remove certain Victims Group affidavits on the cornwallinquiry.ca website morph into an all out publication ban?
Why do all lawyers in the Weave Shed favour a publication ban in an inquiry which is supposed to be “public.”
Why are deals being hammered out behind closed doors instead of in the public eye in an inquiry which is supposed to be “public”?
Why did Justice Glaude instantaneously rule on a diocese motion which suddenly morphed into a publication ban while Mr. Cipriano (for Father Charles MacDonald) is still waiting for a ruling on his motion on redaction or removal which was argued five long weeks ago?
Why was Justice Glaude short – even rude – to the extreme with Cipriano?
It is becoming increasing clear that this inquiry is nether public, independent or impartial. The best that can be said for this ruse is that a horde of lawyers are lining their pockets with taxpayers dollars and that – figuratively speaking – they’re all in bed together.
And, at the end of the day, what with (1) the paedophile friendly mandate, (2) a judge who is engulfed in real and perceived conflicts, and (3) a shed-full of lawyers in the Weave Shed bunker ready to roll over and sacrifice “public” for their own vested interests the alleged paedophiles of Cornwall can sleep tight – they’re home free: they have something the victims and vulnerable children of Cornwall lack; friends in high places.
And that’s more than enough for now. It all turns my stomach. It really and truly does.
Sylvia
(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)
You ask so many good questions. I have another one. What are the names of the four previously named priests who must no longer be named? How are we law abiding citizens to know when we are breaking the publications ban in our discussions of the Cornwall Public cover up? Justice Glaude will have to name these priests one last time to make the ban effective. Is the news media required to never again name a priest as an “alleged” sex molestor out of abundant caution to avoid breaching this publication ban?
Exactly. No one has a clue who these four four priests are or who they might be. It’s top secret information. All we know to date is that Glaude et al had no problem publicizing the Victims Group affidavits in their entirety for nigh on seven months on their own website.
Then along came Mr. Cipriano around the 26th of April with a motion to have certain affidavits redacted or removed.
Nearly two weeks later along came David Sheriff-Scott’s very similar motion to have the affidavits redacted or removed.
Then along came David W Scott to argue Sheriff-Scott’s motion which had – with the consent of the Men’s Project, the Citizens for Community Renewal and the Victims Group – morphed into an all out ban on the publication of the names of four unidentifed priests.
We know too that Justice Glaude broke with his tradition, complied with David W Scott’s wishes and instantly ruled in favour of a motion which, in this presumably “public” inquiry, had morphed – behind closed doors! – into an all-out publication ban on four nameless priests.
And we know that Cipriano, who got the ball rolling on this whole business of redacting or removing documents which have been in the public domain for months, is still waiting for a ruling! And I distinctly recall that Glaude scoffed at Cipriano for raising concerns about affidavits which had been posted on the inquiry website for months.
And here we are. Cipriano is waiting. David W Scott won the day. And Justice Glaude is holding the names of four favoured priests very close to his chest. We are left guessing
This is the way justice plays itself out in Cornwall.
Sylvia
Who are the four? That’s a guessing gameWe’ll have to wait and see.