The poignant voice of the victim muzzled

Share Button

I took a day off yesterday.  A dear friend visited and before we knew it the day was gone 🙂

And now it’s back to work…. 

And back to the issue I am currently besetted with at – the publication ban on Andre Lavoie’s Victim Impact Statement.

There has been a brief exchange of emails between commission counsel Simon Ruel and myself on the matter.  First an email from Mr. Ruel ordering me to take the statement off  Next my response confirming the statement is down, expressing my confusion about the ban and raising a few questions.  And the most recent, . a quick note from MrRuel indicating that he will respond to my questions today.

I truly am mystified by the ban.  It doesn’t make an ounce of sense.   One of my biggest questions now is who “owns” a Victim Impact Statement?  Does a victim “own” his Victim Impact Statement, or is it the property of the court?  I truly don’t know and hadn’t given it much if any thought before.  I suppose I subconsciously assumed that if in the one breath  “the system” invites a sexual abuse victim to give voice to the impact of his abuse it is logical to assume that in the next breath the same system is not about to gag him.

For whatever reason that’s what has happened.  The Poignant Voice of a Victim has been muzzled.

Does this make sense?  If no one’s anonymity is at stake?  If no state secrets are endangered or divulged?  Does it make a single ounce sense?

Perhaps it does?  We’ll see. . . . . .

Enough for now,



This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The poignant voice of the victim muzzled

  1. Myomy says:

    It seems to me that the only person who would have the authority to censor the Victim impact statement is the victim himself. I cannot imagine why a victim would go to the trouble of writing such a statement and not want it to become public. What sort of inquiry is this that makes it confidential and illegal for victims to speak about their abuse even when the law has recognized that the abuse really happened? This does not make any sense.

  2. Sylvia says:

    I’m glad it’s not just me. It makes no sense, does it? I have tried and tried to make sense of it and I just can’t.

    Perhaps it’s just that we – the public – lack the requisite ability to get so entangled in Charter legalese that common sense flies out the window?

    I don’t know. I suppose we’ll just have to wait for word from the Weave Shed to find out what we, the legally illiterate masses, are missing here?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *