A response to John MacDonald from S/Sgt.Garry Derochie:
Subject: Your email of January 27th
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 14:21:20 -0500
To: xxxxx [John MacDonald]
Good afternoon John,
Please be advised that your matter is still under review and you will be advised as soon as possible.
Cornwall Community Police Service
340 Pitt Street, P.O. Box 875
Cornwall Ontario K6H 5T7
John’s “matter” is still “under review?”
When pray tell did the CPS’ “review” commence? I just looked back over the exchanges to date and find nothing to indicate that the CPS ever ‘reviewed’ anything related to John’s allegations. I see lots of Pontius Pilate activity, but nothing whatsoever indicating a “review” in any way, shape or form. The CPS hands were dutifully washed, and allegations of criminal activity were left with an inquiry which is incapable of finding criminal wrong-doing!
Again: What review has been conducted? And by whom?
I think the hand washing exercises are over John, you’re back to run-around time.
Nothing has changed. $50M later – nothing has changed.
This is less than impressive. It took no time for police to swing into action when sex abuse victim Steve Parisien’s name came their way. Within weeks Steve was charged. Seems it’s a horse of a different colour when the obstruction of justice allegations are against the former local Crown attorney and two judges.
Goose and gander stuff 🙂
I will add the latest exchanges to this pathetic saga to bring it up-to-date this evening.
As I said, something in the Robins Report Executive Summary struck me as odd and launched me on a bit of search for answers.
I found bits and pieces, enough to eventually realize that Dr. Peter Jaffe had a hand in the Robins Report. I missed that in testimony.
The man seems to have his fingerprints on everything. I find that troublesome. Given that Jaffe seems to view all things sexual abuse related through a decidedly radical feminist lens, I find that extremely troublesome.
I will leave it at that.
A few comments then about the Robins Report Executive Summary:
(1) Round and round we go
It’s quite amazing. While Justice Sydney Robins was conducting his year 2000 “ review” on the Sault Ste. Marie/ De Luca scandal, down in Cornwall Ontario teachers Marcel Lalonde and Robert Sabourin and school chaplain Father Gilles Deslaurier had been charged.
Robins review was restricted to DeLuca. While his review was restricted to the facts related to the DeLuca scandal Robins final recommendations would presumably be applicable not only to Sault Ste Marie but to the entire province of Ontario.
I am told by those who know far more about this than I that, after nine years, a mere 25 % of Robins’ 101 recommendations have been implemented in some fashion.
And nine years later here we are with the Cornwall Public Inquiry. With a host of Robins’ recommendation still sitting on the back burner, Justice Normand Glaude has been looking in some cursory fashion into the manner in which Cornwall-based “institutions” responded to the allegations against that school-based molesting trio (Lalonde, Sabourin and DesLaurier) – all of whom, like DeLucas, were found guilty in a court of law.
So, Justice Glaude took a little boo at the Cornwall school situation and, based solely on what teachers/educators did or did not do to or for children in Cornwall schools, he, like Robins before him, will come out with yet another set of recommendations for the entire province.
Something about this doesn’t make sense. It’s a little like the hamster on the treadmill – round and round they go. Millions of dollars. For what? A recommendation which might be implemented from the multitude in this Report, another which might be implemented from the raft in that Report?
What’s the point? Tell everybody what they already know, i.e., the system failed the victims? abysmally?
And then what? Pump out a host of recommendations, which are simply that, recommendations. No more. No less. Toothless recommendations.
And then what?
Another nine years? Another review? Or another inquiry? And another set of recommendations?
What’s it all about?
Soothe the savage beast? Placate the troubled masses? Avert legal action?
At tax payer’s expense?
Over and over and over again.
On and on and on, and round and round and round we go.
It makes no sense.
(2) Tap dancing
I am intrigued by the tap dancing around the use of the words “sexual abuse.” Note for example, how frequently the executive summary employs the words “sexual misconduct” rather than “sexual abuse.”
And my how they hate the word pedophile. Look at this. From Chapter 3:
….teachers who engage in sexual misconduct with children and adolescents are not pedophiles in most cases. Terms such as “boundary violators”, “romantic/bad judgment abusers” or “situational offenders” have been used to describe different types of abusers.
Teachers who molest their students are “boundary violators”? or “romantic/bad judgment abusers” or “situational offenders”?
How do you suppose these Justice Robins/ these people would classify Robert Sabourin? and Marcel Lalonde? and Father Gilles Deslaurier?
All three were molesting their students.
What are they? “Boundary violators”? “romantic/bad judgment abusers”?
This is too ridiculous for words.
What carefully chosen and genteel words to characterize educational sexual predators who prey on their students.
What genteel words for grown men who use and abuse their students to selfishly gratify their perverted sexual passions.
What does discrimination have to do with teachers sexually abusing their students?
Look at these two quote from Chapter 6 of the executive summary:
(i) … the Report emphasizes that the safety of our children must be one of Ontario’s highest priorities.
It is the Government of Ontario which bears the responsibility of ensuring that financial and other resources are available to achieve the important objectives of protecting our children and ensuring a school environment free from violence, abuse, harassment, and discrimination.
(ii) It is important to remember that policies and protocols designed to identify and prevent sexual misconduct by educators may, and indeed, should be established within larger initiatives designed to create a school environment free from violence, abuse, harassment and discrimination. These initiatives could address student-to-student or student-to-teacher activities as well as a wide range of conduct, including physical abuse or harassment unrelated to sexual misconduct
Note that Robins is moving well beyond the issue of teacher-student sexual abuse. He’s into “larger initiatives,” such as creating a school environment free of “violence, abuse, harassment and discrimination.”
Where did that one come from?
What does DeLuca molesting his female students have to do with discrimination?
By the look of it, more morphing…
On the heels of the Robins Report came the Safe Schools Act, 2000 and the Student Protection Act, 2002.
I can’t quite sort out the sequence and the connections of this and for now don’t want to spend any more time on it, but according to the Ontario Public School Boards Association website:
“Today the standard of care required of school systems for the protection of students is higher than ever. The Safe Schools Act, 2000 and the Student Protection Act, 2002, based on the Robins report, are now in place to promote safe environments in Ontario’s schools.” (emphasis added)
Implementation of all of this apparently required a team, the “Safe Schools Action Team. “
It seems there is a scarcity of funding to implement much of the R0bins Report, but no lack of funds to launch the “action” team to do what can only be termed as a bit of advocacy and social engineering for the radical feminist cause.
In February 2008, at the request of Kathleen Wynne (Ontario’s openly lesbian Minister of Education), the “Safe Schools Action Team,” headed by Liz Sandals (Wynne’s Parliamentary Assistant), sprang into action.
On 11 December 2008 the team published a report Shaping a Culture of Respect in Our Schools: Promoting Safe and Healthy Relationships. Take a deep breath, think of the Robins Report Executive Summary, and read.
There’s lots on “gender-based violence.” And lots on “homophobia.”
Do you see anything about protecting students from molesting teachers?
Is there even an inkling in there that some teachers can and do indeed molest students and therefore children may be at risk? ..from adult teachers?
Is there anything to help students identify teachers who may be grooming them?
Is there anything to help teachers recognize a child who is being groomed and abused by a fellow teacher?
I see nothing. As far as I can see this is geared solely toward reporting what goes on between students. And, as far I can see it’s simply another avenue to advance the radical feminist agenda.
Right up Jaffe’s alley!
Believe it or not the plan of the McGuinty government is to legislate mandatory reporting of such student-student ‘offences’ as “homophobia” and “gender-based violence” this Spring. According to the Ministry of Education press release hailing the publication of Shaping a Culture of Respect
Sexual harassment and gender-based violence disproportionately affect female students, including those for whom race, class, sexual minority status or disability are a factor .
There it is. Focus on females. Marginalize the males.
….and turn our children into guinea pigs for those with an ax to grind.
If that’s one of the outcomes – direct or indirect – nine years after the Robins’ Report, where will we be nine years down-stream the Glaude Report?
I perish the thought.
Enough for now
John…you must be a real thorn in Derochie’s side 🙂