It’s “over”

Share Button

It may be “over” in the Weave in Shed but it’s not over.  And far from over for me.  I have much to do and probably much more to say 🙂  The only difference is that now I will thankfully have the time at my disposal to blog and dig out and read documents, and get time-lines squared away, and, and, and….

In truth though, I am of mixed emotion.

I am thankful that it is finally “over.”  Once upon a time I thought I would rejoice on the last day, but, I find there is nothing in me which rejoices.

I am disappointed that this whole mess closes on much the same note it began.  A multitude of questions are left unanswered, many more have been raised.

I also find that over the years I have become more disillusioned than ever with “the system.”  Not healthy, but fact.

I am concerned for the well-being of the victims, those who will eventually realize that, contrary to their high hopes and great expectations, this was not about the pursuit of justice and truth, but rather, in part, occasion for institutions to rationalize and excuse with never-ending talk of ever-evolving policies, practices and procedures, to scapegoat Perry for all the institutional failings and oversights, and for Jacques Leduc and Father Charles MacDonald to publicly profess their innocence – at tax payer’s  expense.

And I am concerned for the well-being of children, children forced to fend for themselves in a society bereft of adults ready to take the steps required to protect them. 

 Where does it go from here?

I will ponder my thoughts this evening. 

Before I close for now , two questions:  (1) Did you see Justice Glaude tip his hand in there – again.?  (2) Is there any doubt that  Perry will be the whipping boy – again? 

 All that’s in question is to what degree. 

We shall see,

Enough for now,

Sylvia

([email protected]

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to It’s “over”

  1. RealityChecker says:

    Sylvia you ask – where does it go from here?

    UH – you answered that question a long while ago. You do know where it’s going….so do most of us.

    There’s absolutely no joy in being proven right!!!

  2. prima facie says:

    Sylvia, you have done a great service in recording the daily events and providing your observations, comments and opinions. Thank-you for telling us about how you are feeling, as this comes to an end. Contrary to “the Parker Pair” of the Helen Daley and the “Nutty Professor”-“CCR” fame, I do not believe this “Inquiry” has been the best thing for Cornwall since “sliced bread”, so-to-speak. I mean what else could those two and Paul Scott have said….

    About where to go; I believe your opening paragraph above says it all; i.e.)taking special interest in specific, important areas and diving further into them, providing supporting documents, evidence, statements, etc….over the next several months. BUT…take a rest Sylvia…there is lots of time, to get the “story” clear.

    As you proceed, patiently,….I believe your direction will become clear.

  3. Sylvia says:

    True RealityChecker. True.

    Strange though isn’t it? A rather anti-climatic conclusion ….”ah,” “ehm,” “er,” “uhm.”

    Or, uhm, I don’t recall, if I ah think about it, I have no independent recollection of what I thought three years ago when uh this ah all began, but uhm if I could see a document to refresh my memory, ah, uhm yes I ah do now have a vague recollection of thinking ah something about the mandate, the mandate, the mandate. And I ah think uhm there was something there about cover-up

    So, ah, well, ah I think I would have to go by what is in the ah documents, and I think now that I have eh refreshed my memory I can see uhm more clearly that today was a ministerialized er version of the uhm the ah instutional same old same old 🙂

  4. prima facie says:

    That’s IT!!! THAT’S IT!!! Sylvia…when you are interviewed on your opinion of “the whole thing” just repeat your post #3.
    Can I use it too?

    In fact, looks like an excellent “opening” for the book.

  5. Sylvia says:

    It’s yours prima facie. No copyright 🙂

  6. Sherlock says:

    I’m glad there was some thought directed to improving the situation with nondisclosure agreements.

    From Prof. Knutsen:

    “…in Florida and Texas they have sunshine laws, that require anyone making a settlement to disclose details if there is an issue of public safety;however, there are no court cases interpreting what “public safety” means. The law does not appear to be used.”

    This might be because it is usually fairly obvious?

    “Another potential option is to require judicial approval of confidential settlements, to make sure it is in the best interests of the parties, however…”

    Well, the third party is the public interest. The judge can’t just arbitrate between two parties because their collective interest may be to the detriment of the public safety.

    Nondisclosure seems to be a recurring theme in this Cornwall saga.

  7. RealityChecker says:

    I don’t think this will “end” for a long long time.

    here’s an example of things to expect…

    They are still trying to nail Cardinal Mahoney in California. Take a look at this from the L.A. Times…

    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-mahony29-2009jan29,0,6232753.story

  8. Myomy says:

    Sylvia was that #3 direct from the transcript?

  9. Sylvia says:

    I don’t think it’s in the transcipt Myomy. I just took a quick boo and don’t see any “ah,” “ehm,” “er” or “uhm”s 🙂

  10. prima facie says:

    KEEP IT SIMPLE: Just my opinion:

    I believe it is most important for each of us to look at comments or opinions we all made or had when the “Glaude Inquiry” was first introduced.

    I mean all people on all sides, from the various perspectives.

    For example, I remember Carson Chisholm being reported as suggesting something like, the inquiry was the final nail in the “cover-up” coffin.

    -Have any of our fundamental beliefs changed?

    -Have our original beliefs been modified, dispelled or reinforced, as a result of testimony, policy, protocol, procedure, or real/perceived agendas, observed at the “Glaude Inquiry”?

    I will not spend too much time being angry, with what I already knew would most likely take place.

    However, “anger” can be very beneficial if managed and directed effectively; ex) fuel to organize groups, think-tanks, etc.

    Yes, to have “the Inquiry” controversies so brazenly pushed into our faces with such impunity, is hard to take, but like it or not, this is the way “the system” deals with issues that require administrative “intervention” in these days. The Inquiry mandate and policies were designed from the “rehabilitation and reintegration”, “shared responsibility” perspective, as opposed to the assigning of “individual responsibility”.

    The “system” believes that if an “accused”, especially a prominent “accused”, attends a venue for rehabilitation, then they should be reintegrated into the system, under the assumption, “they” are rehabilitated. The current belief and practice is that, a person is not totally responsible for their deviant acts and acts of omission. May I also add that, many, many previously defined “deviant” acts, etc., are currently not seen as “deviant” acts, etc.

    The current belief/practice includes the belief that many factors in society, including biological, psychological, social factors, are causes or influences for, what was once regarded as dysfunctional, deviant or criminal behaviours. Today, those “factors” are weighed heavily, when assessing the behaviours of an individual or group.

    In another time, behaviours were assessed more from an “individual responsibility” perspective.

    Unfortunately for whistleblowers like Dunlop or others in today’s “system”, the “practice” given to some is not given to others; i.e.) too much authoritative discretion is assigned to the “rulers” and their chosen surrogates. Whistleblowers, thinking they are doing the right thing, soon find out differently.

    If they are not “harnessed” into compliance, they become the “guilty”, humiliated, persecuted and imprisoned. In another time, they would be paraded as heroes, today they are regarded as “betraying the system”.

    BACK TO REHABILITATION AND REINTEGRATION:

    It is my opinion the genuineness of the “rehabilitation” is “assumed”, rather than “proven”. The facts which were present “at the time”, provoking the “request” for treatment become secondary and often never publicly disclosed, as long as “rehabilitation” and “treatment” is “assumed”. The more prominent the “patient”, the more likely “facts” will be not disclosed. (notice I have modified “accused” to “patient”)

    Some may ask, “how can rehabilitation be proven”?

    In most cases, the specifics of the “rehabilitation” are not publicly disclosed, simply the fact, an accused attended “rehabilitation” may be disclosed.

    Under the above “social policy” (integrated slowly since early 1980’s), professors, doctors, students, justices, public administration officials, etc., etc., who share common philosophies, education and “ideologies”, are retained in “Inquiries” and other, as witnesses and “policymakers”.

    Interpretations on “disclosure-non disclosure” become the sole domain of a “sitting judge”; too much discretion in my opinion. Additionally, some “justices” could interpret that information under publication ban is actually “disclosure” and individuals must attempt to access the information, via legal norms, which may be a lengthy and costly process.

    In specific cases, the presumption becomes, the “accused” is exonerated, because of their debilitating illnesses or because of society’s ignorance or prejudices. (all re-defined)

    Finally, for consideration: Do we believe as Peggy Parker, (a member of the “Citizens For Community Renewal”) does, that, “the inquiry is worth it and Cornwall will be the safest place to bring up a child”?

    I believe Peggy, her husband and the President of their group mentioned above, Paul Scott, could be seen daily sitting in camera shot at the inquiry. The only “citizens” to show up, with exception to the mass support displayed for Dunlop when he appeared at the inquiry. The day/week the Dunlop’s appeared, Peggy was absent, and her husband and Paul Scott were the only one’s to remain seated and snub their noses, when standing ovations were given to Dunlop. Hardly an offer of reconciliation, tolerance or renewal from a “group: espousing renewal. It’s more like, “do it my way or no way.”

    Does Peggy Parker’s opinion and the “Citizen’s For Community Renewal’s” representations portray a true representation of how the majority of Cornwall citizen’s feel? Or, must the “Citizens For Community Renewal” tow this line, to move on, “for the greater good”. I wouldn’t be surprised if Commissioner Glaude suggests their names be memorialized on plaques along Cornwall’s “Walk of Fame”, in recognition for their obvious obedience….eh…ah….sorry, I meant “dedication”.

  11. Myomy says:

    Prima Facie has in #10 an important discussion of the therapeutic outlook which is taking over in the justice system. This outlook starts from a basic assumption about human nature which discounts moral responsibility. This viewpoint ultimately does not believe that anyone is morally responsible for their actions but their actions can be explained as the product of numerous environmental factors and impulses to which they have been exposed. There is no point in punishing a human criminal any more than you would punish an animal that did something destructive. Just give some therapy and rehabilitate them. Since I believe that evil comes from the choices people make and people should be held responsible for these choices, I reject this whole therapeutic way of thinking. As for the offender/patient being rehabilitated why not use the good old standard of “put your money where your mouth is” to judge these things. Are the therapists willing to post a very substantial bond that the people they have declared “rehabilitated” do not offend again? Obviously they do not put up any money to back their words and so I say their words and judgement that the offender is rehabilitated are worth what the therapist puts up namely nothing.

    The big question is why do normally sensible people let themselves be taken in by these therapist charlatans?

Leave a Reply

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