Media coverage of Justice Glaude’s commentary yesterday is posted on the Media page (scroll down). And as yet not a boo from any about Glaude’s latest publicly self-declared bias against the allegations (read “rumour” and “innuendo”) which prompted calls for an inquiry in the first place.
Sylvia
(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)
Sylvia: Just as an example of how confusing this Inquiry is: doesn’t anyone else find it strange or disturbing, that many people, including Judge Glaude, have always suggested that the word “ALLEGED” should be utilized when discussing victims in this matter….and now Judge Glaude himself says, “revictimize the victims?” Did he not mean, allegedly revictimize the alleged victims? Also, Judge Glaude discusses the many people who have sought out the counselling, which is being provided through the provisions of the,Inquiry Mandate. So, does Judge Glaude therefore acknowledge there were/are victims….and…if there are victims, because “alleged” victims presumably would not seek out counselling, I ask, who victimized them…and victims of what…or…are these victims from other parts of the world, accessing the counselling…for some unknown reason?
You see, Leader’s of the Cornwall Community have always reiterated,that,there are no victims of sexual abuse in Cornwall, as depicted on your website Sylvia. Publication bans, deletions, redactions are designed for what….to protect the innocent or alleged innocent or do they suppress the truth to protect the priviledged?
Then, what does Judge Glaude mean when he says “revictimize the victims” or that many people are seeking counselling? Are there undiscovered sexual predators roaming the streets, generating the accusations….and are we to believe that all of the accusations are false and the inquiries, counselling sessions, “revictimize the victims” simply, misguided ventures? Strange…doesn’t anyone care?
Yes, it truly is interesting to see Justice Glaude refer to the “alleged victims” as victims. No caveats this time.
He doesn’t tend to slip on that one so why is he suddenly recognizing them as victims? Is it because he knows it would just sound too absolutley foolish to say “we don’t want to revictimize the alleged victims”?
And another thought to add to and take yours a little further: Do Glaude, the inquiry staff and the counsellors have a duty to report allegations of sexual abuse to the Children’s Aid Society? If for example a victim who has never reported his sexual abuse allegations to police – or anyone for that matter – arrives at the Weave Shed and tells Justice Glaude or one of his team that he wants counselling because he was sexually molested by a man who is very much alive and well, do these people have a duty to report? They should, shouldn’t they? If not, why not?
And, as you say, does anyone care?
Sylvia