Judicial kid gloves

Share Button

Perry has now spent 138 days in jail – for stepping up to the plate to protect children, and then daring to say he has lost faith in the justice system. This is the institutional response to allegations of childhood sexual abuse.

****

NOTE: Perry’s birthday is 22 July 2008. He will be 47. Pick up a card now. Have Masses said for him. Swamp him with love – lots of cards, letters and notes of best wishes.

Perry Dunlop c/o OCDC
Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre
2244 Innes Road
Ottawa ON
K1B 4C4

****

There it is again.  Another molester treated with judicial kid gloves

Remember, Perry’s in jail.  First, a six month sentence to coerce him to take the stand at an inquiry which is supposed to be addressing the institutional response to historic allegations of abuse but in reality has spent an inordinate time trying to sort out who Perry Dunlop rubbed shoulders, and who he glanced at out of the corner of his eye, and what he said to whom and what he meant or might have meant by what he said.

And remember that come September it will probably be another fifteen months behind bars because Perry publicly admitted he has lost faith in the administration of justice because of the way events have unfolded since he first stepped up to the plate to protect children fifteen long years ago.

And meanwhile, at the Ottawa courthouse a few miles from the Ottawa Detention where Perry is housed in virtual solitary confinement 24/7, another convicted paedophile gets a judicial tap on the back of the hand, a little judicial “Tut! Tut!” a lot of judicial compassion – and gets to serve his 90 day jail sentence on weekends!!!

Ninety days.  Three months!!!!

For molesting a little five-year-old girl!!!

And jail time on weekends so he can hold onto his job!!!!

And brownie points because he admitted he did the dastardly deed.

And compassion because he explained that he was depressed when he molested the child.

Unconscionable!

And look at the contrast….

Six full months for Perry – that’s just for starters.

There has been not a judicial boo about Perry holding onto his job.  None.  They don’t give a hoot about Perry’s job or the well-being of his family.

Nor has there been a single judicial brownie point for Perry because he readily admitted he has lost faith in the system.

And there hasn’t been an ounce of judicial compassion acknowledging that Perry has a conscience and had to do what he had to do or he’d never be able to look himself in the mirror and would never forgive himself if a single child was hurt because he failed to act.

Where’s the judicial logic?  Why kid gloves for a convicted paedophile and steel boots for Perry?

And look what’s happening South of the border.  The whole issue of capital punishment aside look how they’re starting to go soft on paedophilia down there.

It’s small wonder Perry is where he is and the real and “alleged” paedophiles of Canada are where they are.

We are hurtling toward a moral abyss.  Hurtling.  I sometimes joke that one of these days we’ll have state run day care centres for paedophiles.  The paedophiles can wander in and  have their pick – it will be seen as beneficial for paedophiles who have a special affinity for sex with children (inter-generational sex they call it!) and equally beneficial for the children, who, as Kinsey insisted, are sexual beings.  It’s black humour I admit, but I fear the day is coming faster than we think.

I remember about 20 years ago meeting a man from Sweden. His wife worked in a day care centre over there.  She was upset. A routine was being introduced whereby staff were to masturbate the babies in their care.  It was seen as healthy because, after all, the theory went, even babies are sexual beings and deserve sexual stimulation and  gratification!

I am quite serious!

That is very Kinseyan.  It doesn’t take rocket science to sort out who would clamour to work in a daycare with that as part of the job description, does it?

And it’s not much of hop skip and jump is it to go from masturbating babies because they are presumably sexual beings in need of sexual stimulation to determining that it’s really no big deal to molest a little five year old?  Nor, in the same vein, is it much of a hop skip and jump to letting an “alleged” molester walk because his Charter rights to speedy trial have been violated, is it?

Dear Lord above have mercy on us.

I had to get that off my chest.  I read those two articles, thought of Perry and just had to get it off my chest.

By the way, can you conceive for one moment that being depressed is a good rationale to sexually molest a child?    Really?!!!

What have we come to? And where oh where are we going?

Enough for now,

Sylvia

([email protected])

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Judicial kid gloves

  1. Myomy says:

    There is no doubt as this blog implies that there is a reversal in practice of what is thought to be a crime in Canada. The real crime of sexual abuse of children is thought of as no big deal and is punished if at all accordingly – with kid gloves. The heavy punishment is reserved for Perry Dunlop who acted as a whistle blower and more recently has lost faith in the justice system. We must all believe fervently in the justice system contrary to all the evidence it presents us of being corrupted by Kinsian pedophile frinedly thinking.

    Everything is inverted and it seems on reflection that it has been inverted since the beginning of this affair.

    When Perry was before the judges Swinton and Ferrier he said something very important which was a standard in the past but has become a dead letter today. Perry told the court that he was instructed in police academe that if he was walking by a house and saw in the door that drugs were piled up on the table he would have to go and get a warrent before entering the house and dealing with it but if he passed a house and it was evident that a child was being abused in the house he should go in and rescue the child on the spot. No judicial warrant or oversight was required because the crime was so serious that it took precedence over everything including all the normal red tape and restraints on police power that are ordinarily in place to protect civil rights from police and state power. What Perry did was well within these restraints and was acutually quite measured and deliberate. He has acted properly and with restraint since the beginning and yet he is the one who is under constant repeated investigation for not following all the police procedures and respecting the chain of command. In this respect the old rules have been turned on their head. If the attitude at the top of the police force is Kinsean and they decide to do nothing about the sexual abuse of children then nothing can be done legally. Anyone who takes action is a vigilante by definition and subject to whatever sanctions that may be used in the new inverted law. Instead of having rules that give top priority to the prevention of child abuse there is a maze of restrictions which make it almost impossible to catch and punish child abusers. The investigators are walking through a minefield of restrictions which could punish them if they make any procedural missteps. Perry was taking his instruction at police academe at face value and was acting accordingly and he got injured by stepping on one of the mines, laid to protect pedophiles, which he was not even aware that he needed to be cautious about. The law was already inverted to protect rather than punish pedophiles, and Perry Dunlop is the unfortunate canary in the mine shaft that warns others of the new situation. As long as he continues to suffer because of this the signal is sent out to other police who might be inclined to protect children to tread very carefully or forget about it for their own good.

    As long as Perry is in jail longer than many child abusers the law is inverted in its purpose and any explanation to the contrary that is invented by Glaude and company is just spin.

  2. RealityChecker says:

    Well THIS appears to be a CRIME in Canada. It’s in the Criminal Code….(but it seems certain members of the CPS are above the law and who would dare lay charges on behalf of the Dunlops???)

    THREATS AND RETALIATION AGAINST EMPLOYEES
    425.1 (1) No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer or in a position of authority in respect of an employee of the employer shall take a disciplinary measure against, demote, terminate or otherwise adversely affect the employment of such an employee, or threaten to do so,

    (a) with the intent to compel the employee to abstain from providing information to a person whose duties include the enforcement of federal or provincial law, respecting an offence that the employee believes has been or is being committed contrary to this or any other federal or provincial Act or regulation by the employer or an officer or employee of the employer or, if the employer is a corporation, by one or more of its directors; or

    (b) with the intent to retaliate against the employee because the employee has provided information referred to in paragraph (a) to a person whose duties include the enforcement of federal or provincial law.

    Punishment
    (2) Any one who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of

    (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

    2004, c. 3, s. 6.

    OH YEAH….INTIMIDATION IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE TOO!!!

    Intimidation
    423. (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, wrongfully and without lawful authority, for the purpose of compelling another person to abstain from doing anything that he or she has a lawful right to do, or to do anything that he or she has a lawful right to abstain from doing,

    (a) uses violence or threats of violence to that person or his or her spouse or common-law partner or children, or injures his or her property;

    (b) intimidates or attempts to intimidate that person or a relative of that person by threats that, in Canada or elsewhere, violence or other injury will be done to or punishment inflicted on him or her or a relative of his or hers, or that the property of any of them will be damaged;

    (c) persistently follows that person;

    (d) hides any tools, clothes or other property owned or used by that person, or deprives him or her of them or hinders him or her in the use of them;

    (e) with one or more other persons, follows that person, in a disorderly manner, on a highway;

    (f) besets or watches the place where that person resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or

    (g) blocks or obstructs a highway.

    Exception
    (2) A person who attends at or near or approaches a dwelling-house or place, for the purpose only of obtaining or communicating information, does not watch or beset within the meaning of this section.

    R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 423; 2000, c. 12, s. 95; 2001, c. 32, s. 10.

  3. Sylvia says:

    Interesting. Here’s what comes to mind in an instant

    425.2 speaks for itself in regard to Perry and the Cornwall Police Service.

    There was nothing but threats and/or retaliation against Perry from his employer or persons in authority working on his employee’s behals. It started 29 September 1993 when Luc Brunet told him “You realize you can be charged under the Police Service Act. We would really hate to lose you Perry. You’ve been through this before but you were single at the time. Now you have a wife and three children to think about. You have your career to think about. You have to operate within the system or you’re just as bad as criminal.” It continued in the events which unfolded almost daily after 30 September 1993 when, at the request of a Children’s Aid Society official, turned a copy of David Silmser’s victim statement over to the CAS.

    In the years up to and including his resignation in 2000 how many unsuccessful stabs did the CPS take at having Perry charged with something or other? Did anyone count?

    Perry is no longer an employee, but they haven’t let up.

    As for s. 423, and intimidation…

    Perry had a lawful right to take go to Children’s Aid Society and at their request turn over a copy of David Silmser’s victim statement. That’s a given.

    Was it lawful for Luc Brunet to try to keep Perry from dealing with CAS? I don’t think so.

    And then there’s this business of charging and convicting Perry for losing faith in the justice system.

    Is it illegal in Canada to lose faith in the justice system? There’s been no lack of intimidation on that count has there?

    Finally, does denying Perry inmates rights which are readily awarded to paedophiles and murderers constitute intimidation as well?

  4. Myomy says:

    You ask ” is it illegal in Canada to lose faith in the justice system?” Perry is charged and convicted for this. This is the equivalent of making it illegal to be sane. No sane person who is paying attention to the actions of the justice system could have faith in the justice system.

Leave a Reply

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