I’ve been pondering the process at Weave Shed. I truly would like to say something positive but find that the longer this goes on the more I am convinced you just can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
More recently I found that something was gnawing at me since the victims first started to take the stand and I just haven’t quite been able to put a finger on it.
Perhaps someone out there can help me to sort my way through this.
You will recall that Justice Glaude and his team have reiterated time and again that this inquiry is all about how various institutions responded to allegations of sexual abuse: it is not a trial, and it has nothing to do with Project Truth, the veracity of the real and “alleged” victim’s allegations is irrelevant and no one will be held accountable for anything.
You will recall also that Justice Glaude determined long ago behind closed doors that the “rumour” and “innuendo” swirling around Cornwall upon his arrival are false, and will no doubt have noted that Giuseppe Cipriano’s rant of Wednesday past focussed on “rumour” and “innuendo,” his conclusion being that not only were/are they false, but somehow Perry Dunlop – not the alleged paedophiles of Cornwall – is the bad guy. (Cipriano is one of Father Charles MacDonald’s lawyers)
I have no problem accepting and stating what has for me become increasingly clear, namely that this inquiry is a ruse and is in fact – or is intended to be! – the final chapter in the cover-up. I believe that common sense alone says cover-up is written all over an inquiry headed by a judge surrounded by a multitude of real and perceived conflicts armed with a mandate crafted to avoid the very issues which prompted calls for an inquiry in the first place.
I did however try, briefly, to go with the flow and hope for the best, – perhaps the odd crumb from under the judicial table for children, victims and their families and the community at large, and maybe even a tiny scrap of the Charter which the real and alleged paedophiles and sexual predators of Canada have cast aside as superfluous.
I gave up. You just can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
So, on to the gnawing…
This inquiry is not a trial. And if it’s not a trial, why does it seem that it is being conducted like a trial? For example, if it’s not a trial and no-one gives a hoot who is or is not a paedophile, or part of a clan or part of a cover-up, why are witnesses being subjected to cross-examination as if in fact it is a trial? What difference, for example, does it make to Justice Glaude and the outcome of the inquiry (the research paper) if Mr. C1 told Mrs. Brisson that he told Bishop Eugene Larocque two years plus earlier that he had been sexually molested by Father Gilles Deslaurier and Larocque did nothing? At the end of the inquiry day truth is superfluous. Bishop Larocque is safe. Jacques Leduc is safe. Father Gilles Deslaurier is safe. Everyone is safe. So why interrogate the witnesses?
And I wonder if perhaps things will be balance out a little downstream. Will for example, Jacques Leduc be obliged to take the stand to round out the Brisson case with his version of events regarding witness tampering – and be subjected to cross-examination? What about Mr. C1? And Father Denis Vaillancourt? And Father Bernard Menard?
But I wonder too about Deslaurier’s other victims? Where are they? Their accounts of events would surely give Glaude a better grasp of the diocesan response to sexual abuse allegations than Bishop Durocher’s attempts to save diocesan and Episcopal face by dispatching his legal team to woo the masses with belated apologies and confuse witnesses with slick legal tactics.
Is it a trial or isn’t it? If not, then why are witnesses being interrogated as though it is? And if not why is Glaude allowing lawyers to play their traditional courtroom games with people’s heads?
And if this is about the institutional response and not a trial, why the Perry Dunlop question to every witness? If this has nothing to do with Project Truth why the Perry Dunlop question?
And if this is all part of the game plan to allow Justice Glaude to unilaterally determine a victim or alleged victim’s credibility and it’s not a trial what about a level playing field? What about a game plan for Justice Glaude to determine an alleged paedophile’s credibility?
Will real and alleged paedophiles be put on the strand and subject to interrogation? If not, why not? If this is not a trial and their guilt or innocence is as irrelevant as their alleged victims’ allegations, why not let them take the stand and let a few lawyers play around with their heads for a while? If the name of the game is scrutinizing people’s credibility to understand why various institutions responded as they presumably did, why not put the alleged paedophiles on the stand too? Would it not be beneficial for Glaude to examine the credibility of an alleged paedophile so he can determine why various individuals and institutions decided an alleged paedophile is as credible as his denials?
What am I missing? It’s gnawing away at me. I think there is something very fundamentally wrong with this process and I can’t quite put my finger on it.
***
Don’t forget to check for postings on New to the Site on the Home page.
Hearings resume tomorrow, Monday 16 October at 2 pm. I believe tomorrow afternoon is earmarked for sorting out how to handle documents which contain top secret information about real and alleged paedophiles. More of the same old same old 🙂
Tomorrow is also Day 1 of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops annual plenary which will be held in Cornwall. Word is that the victims plan to deliver a series of proposals to the bishops regarding clerical sexual abuse. There will be a Press Conference at the Ramada Inn in Cornwall at noon tomorrow. Good for them! I hope and pray they put the bishops’ feet to the fire.
Enough for now,
Sylvia
(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)