The commissioner’s own words

Share Button

Day 7 of the Ban

Here are Justice Glaude’s words (referenced in my last blog):

“Openness is particularly important in the context of this inquiry which is expected to dispel rumours and innuendos and ascertain allegations of cover-up and conspiracy theories.”

I erred.  He did also say ‘ascertain” allegations of cover-up and conspiracy theories.  But, little difference.  After nearly a full year a non Project Truth inquiry mandated to deal with everything but has suddenly and mysteriously morphed into a Project Truth inquiry. 

Justice Glaude has changed horses in mid stream and questions are NOT being put to the witnesses which would help anyone ascertain cover-up, ring, clan, conspiracy or cover-up. But we’re certainly finding our who rubbed shoulders with Perry Dunlop!

I will blog on this later.  It’s Hallowe’en 🙂



This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to The commissioner’s own words

  1. breachoftrust says:

    In Re:
    “Directions on Process-Requests For Confidentiality of Victims’ or Alleged Victims’Identities.”

    It is very nice that Judge Glaude has publicized the above-mentioned document. This is an excellent effort to “reach out” and clarify some concerns many people have.

    It will also help in “public opinion forming.”

    However, as Judge Glaude well knows, even if in his wildest dreams he wished, as I do, that “The Open Court Principle” actually existed in practice,… does not. The many circumstances directly and indirectly related to the perceived or actual Cornwall Public Inquiry, is, in fact, anything but “OPEN.” (perhaps we can debate “openness” and Canadian Criminal/Civil Procedure, on “TVO” at a later date.)

    Taking into consideration, I/we are coming from the perspective that, as MOST Expert Witnesses in The Cornwall Public Inquiry have testified,…… “no programs, treatment, intervention, knowledge, training, protocol, etc., etc., existed, up to and into, the twenty-first century, which would help facilitate the better understanding and management of sexual abuse allegations.” In short, for whatever reason’s, “they” were all ignorant of “state-of-the-art” intervention strategies being utilized in other parts of the world for decades.

    In addition, some of the expert witnesses are/were your standard, run-of-the-mill, handpicked, scholars.

    More frightening is that other expert witnesses actually represented various municipal, provincial and federal, private sector and/or public sector, service agencies/agents, i.e.) Ontario Provincial Police, Children’s Aid, etc., etc.

    In fact, I would say we could all state that “Justice” in general, including Judge Glaude in particular, are either “blind” to, naive or brutally ignorant, about “protocol” or other issues surrounding sexual abuse allegations, especially where prominent citizen’s are alleged to be perpetrators. The old practice of “paying off the alleged victim, silencing the alleged victim, silencing the “mainstream” news media, transferring alleged offenders” is wearing thin…finally, especially since “the new media” has arrived.

    Despite the above, and, instead of “setting in motion” the mechanism for legislating new law in such an “extreme case” being followed by viewers/readers around the world, or even setting new “case law” at the Cornwall Public Inquiry venue, the “good Jurist”, Commissioner Normand Glaude, does exactly what is expected of him.

    He references the Criminal Code of Canada and articulates various 1986 and before, “case-history”, relating to (non-sex abuse) publication bans and explains his reliance on the specific, “case law”, supporting his, “Directions on Process-Requests For Confidentiality of Victims’ or Alleged Victims’ Identities”, directive,of October 31, 2006.

    Despite what we are conditioned to believe, being a Judge IS NOT DIFFICULT…..This IS NOT DIFFICULT stuff people….BOY, this Judge is a real “mover and shaker”…(sarcasm)…tough job, Judge Glaude, you have CHOSEN the easy, unprovocative route…WHY?

    And finally, two points: 1)in your “Directions” you discuss where ONE victim requested confidentiality. Were there other victims? Were they asked? What was their reply? or did The Court “assume” the others would “prefer” confidentiality? 2) Included in all your writng Judge Glaude, you write a very important one liner; “…I do not believe it is necessary to rule on this matter today….”

Leave a Reply