Only one

Share Button

No “work” accomplished today – at least not on the computer 🙂

A chance to think though…

It dawned on me that there was only one victim in the Weave Shed yesterday for the big Phase 2 day.  Only one.  Keith Ouellette.  That was it.  No horde of victims rejoicing.  Just Keith.

Could be wrong, but I think that says something. 

****

I heard that Dave was going home today.  No confirmation on that.  Will find out tomorrow.  Meanwhile, keep Dave and his family in your prayers.  Keep Perry and his family in your prayers.  And keep all the victims and their families in your prayers. 

Enough for now,

Sylvia

(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Only one

  1. prima facie says:

    Yes it says something: I would have expected to see many, many victims attend and community members, to show “their” support for the “so-called” job well done. Do not forget, many $$$$ will flow into Cornwall and Area to help….as outlined in Phase I and II submissions and the many other proposals, funding requests, etc., being “generated” as we speek/write.

    I would have expected the “beneficiaries” of this Inquiries “work” and of these expected $$$ to have attended the “last day”, therewith showing “proof” of the existence of these beneficiaries and their open display of their thanks.

    Perhaps this “blog” will convince “them” to stand-up and “speak out”, discounting what you are implying Sylvia and therewith expressing open support for Commissioner Glaude, when he publicises his “final report”….or to express “their” disapproval.

    Who are these beneficiaries?….”victims”, “alleged victims”,citizens, caseworkers, agency managers, politicians, police outreach programs, schools,….who are the “beneficiaries” and why didn’t they appear? Or, does Paul Scott’s appearance as President, indicate he is representing the area 45,000 citizens and did Dallas Lee, tell his clients to stay home? Why?

    REFLECTION: I remember back when Perry went to the Inquiry in the Fall of 2007. Keith was sitting with Paul Scott (President for Citizens for Community Renewal group “CCR”). They were about two rows in front of me. As Perry and Helen entered, there was a standing ovation. Everyone in the gallery stood, with exception to Paul and Keith. As the cheers roared on, Keith finally stood up exclaiming, “Perry is a hero”; Paul Scott remained sitting..I hurled a few questions in Paul’s direction and yelled, “you’re finally, openly displaying how you feel.” Based on some discussions I had with Keith afterwards, I got the impression, Keith had been “lulled” into sitting with Paul, unknowing of Paul’s feelings or “intentions”. Keith spent the next few days interacting with Perry, Helen and others.
    Keith also protested outside the inquiry and yelled a few words during the hearings. Keith often stated that no one was listening to him and he was not being allowed to “join a group”. I suggested he start his own.
    Based on Phase II “plans” and what you have written Sylvia, it appears that, for whatever reason, Keith was finally “heard”; good for him; however it would be interesting to follow the “process” of inclusion or “the taming of Keith”, that took place.
    Make no mistake about it, I am supportive of Keith’s voice being heard.

    During these inquiry years in particular, I have often felt that many of the “alleged victims”, other witnesses and otherwise, who were now sitting on the “peripheral”, were “lulled” into believing or accepting “something”, being offered or presented to them, by some “opportunists”.
    I believe these “peripheral targets” were being “lulled” into a false sense of security and trust, without being fully aware of the “motives”, intentions or similar, of these “opportunists”.

    In or about 2000 and shortly after my move to southwestern Ontario, I received a letter from Paul Scott and I replied………..
    (“brief background”)I had met Paul in or about early 1998. I believe he had been retained by a local (provincially and/or federally funded) agency. I believe Paul’s expertise was accessing public funding/re-funding dollars, for his own self-preservation. This included “finding” funding to prolong various existing “programs” or aniticipated “new” programs.
    At the time, Paul and I discussed “new” directions for Cornwall and Area. Paul was big on the word, “Renewal”, being included in any talks.
    At that time I began to sense Paul was, in part, attempting to use me to “hook into” my experiences, contacts and/or acquaintances in the community and elswhere. Paul knew I had previously been employed as a youth and family substance abuse counsellor in the community and elsewhere and that I had met many people with various “histories”. That included people in the professional, private and public sectors. Paul also began to interact with me and many of my friends who were in the “self-help” communities.

    For various reasons, eluded to above and others, Paul and I have not e-mailed or talked since 2000 or thereabouts,(with exception to a brief “leave me alone” interaction), I tossed at him at the Nov. 2007 hearing mentioned above. He said then in 2007 “I have to talk to you..”

    However back in 2000 or thereabouts, I asked Paul if he was getting what he wanted. Paul replied to me that he still had to “bleed into the fabric of the community”. In 2007, I returned to Cornwall to attend a “function”. At that function I discovered, for “good or for bad”, Paul had accomplished “the bleed” or was very close to accomplishing “it”. (YOU DECIDE)

    In the last day (Feb. 27, 2009), I have read where an editorial has been posted on a local newspapers website. The author of the editorial is not displayed. The title reads, “Dunlop’s role needs to be addressed.”
    Strange isn’t it, despite the many stories in the “mainstream” portraying Dunlop as “the bad guy”, despite Dunlop “spending time in jail” for defying “Court Orders”, despite the flow of dollars coming, despite the convincing style of David-Sheeriff Scott’s submissions, despite the words of the many witnesses, despite all this and more, despite Dunlop’s expulsion from the Province of Ontario, “THE WIN” being experienced by “some” is not “big enough”.

    Some of these people appear to want Dunlop’s head. Nothing else will do.
    And this ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, is a typical “sign and symptom” of how anyone is treated when “they” crawl out of an abusive “system”, crying for help or disclosing what is happening within the “system”……whether it is a family system, church, school, political, public servant, private, religious affiliation, and their surrogates….so, so, very typical.

    Sad, very sad.

Leave a Reply

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