Here we go again….
At this “public” inquiry the public was excluded from hearings for the entire afternoon – right until 5:20 pm!
Yesterday (Monday 27 November 2006) David Sheriff Scott and the chosen few spent the afternoon behind closed doors wrangling over publication bans and redactions regarding one “alleged” clerical paedophile who will be part of Claude Marleau‘s testimony.
When Justice Glaude reported back to those of us who stuck with it and spent hours alternately gazing or glaring at the “Hearing in Camera” screen we were told that the session was a replay of Father Charles MacDonald’s motion from months ago – and that of course boils down to the “alleged” clerical molester believing he is entitled to his entitlements, which in this case is his presumption of innocence.
Justice Glaude dismissed the motion. Sheriff-Scott said he was directed by his “client” (read Bishop Durocher) to request a stay and seek a judicial review.
And so the day went something like this:
(1) A diocesan motion.
(2) Public excluded – in camera ++++
(3) Commissioner’s dismissal of the diocesan motion.
(4) A diocesan request to stay the ruling.
(5) A stay granted ‘till Thursday.
(6) An imminent diocesan sortie off to Ontario Divisional Court to seek a stay of Glaude’s ruling pending a judicial review of the ruling.
(7) Motions for funding by other interested parties to head to Toronto to argue pro or con pending (Funding, incidentally, is traditionally NOT granted at inquiries but Justice Glaude DID set a precedent which he said was NOT setting a precedent when he granted Charlie funding some months back to finance his trip to Divisional Court AND the trips (shared) of those who wanted to follow along to argue against him.
And so here we are. Another man of the cloth who presumably professes his innocence is digging into the ever-ready arsenal of legalities and technicalities and stall tactics to hang on to his hard-won presumption of innocence.
What a disgrace to the Church, and how very unlike Christ whom these men represent during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and whom they should at least strive to emulate in their everyday lives.
Innocent? Take the stand. Tell us your side. Tell us who you rub shoulders with. Tell us, please. Subject yourself to cross-examination. Call your friends to take the stand to corroborate your side of the side of the story. Let them be subjected to cross-examination.
For goodness sake, be a man. And for Heaven’s sake at least act like a man of God with nothing to fear but fear itself. Be a priest. Act like a priest.
It’s doubtful that will happen. At this moment in time it’s not looking good 🙂
And herein of course lies the problem with this thoroughly hobbled inquiry which is at the mercy and desperate whim of the “alleged” paedophiles of Cornwall – clergy sadly included – and their cohorts.
Think about it. With this mandate:
(1) No one, absolutely no one, is compelled to take the stand.
(2) Guilt or innocence of criminal wrong doing is totally irrelevant;
(3) Whether children have been wilfully placed and are currently at risk – and who placed them there – is totally irrelevant;
(4) Not one molesting head will roll;
(5) Not one obstructing head will roll;
(6) Not one judicial head will roll;
(7) No heads will roll;
(8) Which sexual predators and “alleged” predators visited who, partied and vacationed where with whom and when and did what with whom or to whom when they got there and may hence earmark them as possible members of the long denied and equally long alleged clan/ring is totally irrelevant;
(9) The fact that many “alleged” victims may be unjustly labelled liars for life is totally irrelevant;
(10) The fact that Perry Dunlop’s reputation has been maliciously destroyed by clergy, lawyers and judges is irrelevant; and,
(11) The fact that “alleged” paedophiles are ‘presumed innocent’ for life is imperative.
Is it any wonder the alleged paedophiles of Cornwall and their friends are alternating between the Charter and the mandate every chance they get?
Why wouldn’t they? I said it months ago and I’ll say it again: they’d be fools to look a gift horse in the mouth. wouldn’t they? And, the mandate is a gift horse. The more this inquiry spins out of control the more apparent it becomes.
Here’s the problem as I see it: The mandate is flawed. People who thought this inquiry would be a walk in the park are in well over their legal heads. Justice Glaude has lost control. The “alleged” paedophiles are running the show.
So, there’s more chaos at the Weave Shed? Small wonder.
And, it won’t get any better.
Yes, there are great 11th hour plans afoot to jam Claude Marleau’s testimony in this week before he leaves the country – even if that means going late into the night and right on into Friday, a scheduled day off! (all of next week is scheduled off).
So, some questions:
(1) How many hours a day can Claude take? That’s my question. In this 11th hour rush to squeeze him in at all costs before he’s gone, and one and all going to burn the midnight oil, what about the victim. How many daily hours of grilling can he take? Did anyone think about that?
(2) What kind of examination in chief and cross examinations can we expect from a roomful of exhausted, frazzled lawyers?
(3) What about poor Albert? He was re-scheduled again for Thursday. What about him?
(4) How much does it take for people to see what the “alleged” victims, their families and the Dunlops have been battling for the past thirteen or fourteen years?
(5) What does it take for people to see at least a hint of cover-up?
(6) How much of this disorganized chaos can the real/ “alleged” victims tolerate before some poor soul decides he’s had enough of lawyers, judges, legal shenanigans and broken promises?
(7) I heard no mention of an application for funding from David Sheriff-Scott for this legal venture to Divisional Court. Will the review be paid from the collection plate? Or is a diocesan application for funding just around the corner, perhaos this morning?
When the inquiry was first off the ground I recall thinking the victims were like lambs being led to the slaughter.
They are. They really and truly are.
How much of this can they take?
Meanwhile, credit where credit is due. Cudos to David Sheriff-Scott. As anticipated he’s doing a masterful job of running down the clock. He was well chosen for the job.
****
If you haven’t already, you must read this: Publication ban requests delay Cornwall public inquiry.
****
Hearings resume at 9:30 am Tuesday 28 November 2006. Claude Marleau is supposed to take the stand. When he gets there is anyone’s guess.
Enough for now,
Sylvia
(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)