The best laid plans….

Share Button

The best laid plans of mice and men….

It’s been a rather unpredictable and chaotic few weeks – try as I might no chance to get back to wrap up the Skinner portion of the timelines.    Getting set for Newfoundland now 🙂  Hopefully when I get back I can do what I have been saying I’m going to do. 

I see people have been wondering about the Glaude report.  I know no more than anyone –  no sign nor word of it yet.  I’m thinking now that it will be released closer to end July.  But, …I certainly could be wrong.   We shall see. ….

For now, I am getting excited at the prospect of a few days in beautiful Newfoundland 🙂

Enough for now

Sylvia

(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to The best laid plans….

  1. Prima Facie says:

    Expectations and “Anticipating the Pitch”; from my perspective.

    I don’t believe I would be incorrect if I stated that public-discussion and debate surrounding the “Cornwall Public Inquiry” and related, fell silent, since February, 2009.
    In addition; I don’t believe the mainstream news media has had much, if any comment, either.

    In an effort to appear “fair and balanced”, I believe major public administrative issues, surrounding “social policy-government”, “public inquiries” and the like, encourage public input, throughout “the process”.

    Recently, Commissioner Normand Glaude, re: “The Cornwall Public Inquiry” a.k.a. “The Glaude Inquiry”, distributed a “press release” to the media and various other recipients, publicizing his desires to have an “extension of time”, in which to file his “findings and recommendations”, re: “The Glaude Inquiry”, a.k.a. “The Cornwall Public Inquiry”.
    I believe that somehow, Commissioner Glaude et al, must attempt to generate, construct, provoke and stimulate interest and debate, surrounding what is arguably the most expensive and lengthy public inquiry ever convened in Canada. Really, how much?
    I have read 50 million, 40 million, 48 million, really, how much?
    Commissioner Glaude must get “ahead” of the masses, so-to-speak, in attempting to dispel the perception held by many that for various reasons and as far as the facts go, nothing has really changed. In fact, many people would suggest that this inquiry has gone further to support the perception of “cover-up”, than to dispel it.
    Additionally, it is my opinion, the “Canadian Press”, which quite possibly, is the ONLY “news source/gatherer-provider/marketer” in Canada, continues to follow its “lapdog-policy”. Now, in association with Commissioner Glaude’s press release, “CP” intentionally or through ignorance, more than likely creates further misinterpretations, in what I see as its attempt to provoke and bait so-called “media-savvy” ”Perry Dunlop supporters”. I infer by their reporting that “media savvy Dunlop supporters” urged the so-called rogue cop on. Really. To be clear, are these the same “homophobic, conspiracy-theorist Dunlop supporters”, previously “labelled” by and portrayed by the “mainstream” news media, or, are these a newly discovered and labelled group of, seemingly “social deviants”, now labelled as, “media savvy Dunlop supporters”?
    Lovely! Is the “tone” being established with readers; sophisticated and not so sophisticated? Is this the tone we can anticipate being projected in Glaude’s “report” and by his “cronies”?

    “ANTICPATING THE PITCH” (baseball metaphors and analogies)
    I recall, as a twelve year old, one hot Sunday afternoon on the Cedar Park Heights baseball diamond. What a beautiful setting it was…right out of a “Disney Production”. I was at the plate and the count was 3 and 2. The pitcher was leaning forward towards me, searching for a signal from the catcher (I wanted to reach out and punch him in the nose) when a loud shriek filled the air…”time”…the umpire quickly screamed, “TIME OUT”.
    My overweight manager and I met along the baseline, halfway between home plate and third base. He said, “remember the clinics. Anticipate the next pitch”, he said. “What do you think it’ll be?” I said “fast and inside.” My coach enthusiastically replied, “good”.
    Back to the plate I went, and, “game-on”! I peppered a fast-inside pitch over third base dropping along the baseline into left field for a run-scoring double. Far out!

    So, what can we “anticipate” from Commissioner Glaude et al? What personal experiences, education, biases and other informed “factors” are influencing our thoughts and forming our opinions, as far as what to “expect and anticipate” from Commissioner Glaude et al?

    As I reflect, a few factors to consider are; a) “the mandate” – was it appropriate or not and why? Any unfinished business; i.e.) Motions, Orders, directives, etc.?
    b) the substantial “facts” documented “on-the record”. Are they credible or not? c) how about testimony provided through examination, cross-examination, deposition, voir-dire, etc., including real or perceived unlawful submissions/filings? d) are supporting documents and evidence seen by many as, creative factual errors or are they accurate representations, recollections, suppositions and speculative reflections/depictions of the “facts-of-the circa”? e) was Commissioner Glaude et al, lawful, diligent, fair and acting in good faith among other things, in the execution of the “mandate”, the “procedure”, the “terms of reference”, his/their duties and his/their power and authority? f) did Commissioner Glaude ever address the claims by some that he was in a conflict of interest? g) were expert witnesses representative of an eclectic approach or variety of perspectives, relating to theories, philosophies, ideologies, public administration, social policy, understanding of sexual abuse and social intervention strategies among other things or were the “expert witnesses” a collection of similar thinking “experts”, from similar philosophical and theoretical backgrounds, disciplines, etc.?

    Don’t forget; Commissioner Glaude’s findings and recommendations must be primarily based on his analysis, review and inquiry surrounding the “facts” that are documented “in-the-Cornwall Public Inquiry record/file”. Therefore, is it fair to suggest that Commissioner Glaude may be, in reality, “reviewing” an inaccurate depiction of the events since in or before 1993?
    In the same light, it is my opinion that most of the “parties” granted standing and funding at the “Inquiry” (with the exception of two “parties”), through their lawyers, vigorously asserted the position that allegations of sexual abuse were no greater or “sensational” in Cornwall and Area, than in any other community. The above-referenced “parties”, through their lawyers, further asserted that there was no evidence of “cover-up” as alleged, and, that there was no evidence of the existence of a ring of paedophiles acting in Cornwall and Area in the circa or thereafter.
    In addition, the “file/record” is replete with unchallenged accusations and speculation that blacklisted “rogue police constable” Perry Dunlop and his “homophobic, media savvy” supporters, for whatever profit or gain, dreamed up the whole sordid affair; from before 1993 to the date of this writing and hereafter. I mean, really.
    Regarding the “two exceptions” mentioned about, i) “the victims group”, ii) “the coalition”, represented by lawyer Frank Horn.
    In my opinion the “victims group” was muzzled/restrained and consequently their effect minimized, because of “their” pending/anticipated and/or active civil litigations against many of the “parties” sitting at the “Inquiry”. In fact, it is my understanding some of the “alleged” victims “settled” for large $$$ out of court, one night before appearing to testify at the “Cornwall Public Inquiry”.
    Also, in my opinion, lawyer Frank Horn’s theatrics were better suited for “Upper Canada Playhouse”, not a public inquiry hearing. I believe Mr. Horn was a serious detriment to his clients, in this matter.
    The fact of the matter is, there was no “un-handicapped”, un-restrained/un-constrained and competent representation at the “Cornwall Public Inquiry”, asserting or arguing from the perspective that sexual abuse was present and prominent in Cornwall and Area or that there was at one time, a clan of paedophiles operating in and around Cornwall, Ontario, CANADA, with the intent to sexually abuse, molest, harass, intimidate, interfere with or other related, young people and young males with particularity.
    Furthermore, there was no “representation” asserting that allegations of cover-up existed or could have existed. In short, this “Inquiry” was totally, weighed heavily to one-side. This is what Commissioner Glaude will consider, not any opposing position or perspectives, because none existed so nothing is on the “record or in the files”; there was none.

    So, what do I anticipate from Commissioner Glaude’s study of the “record” and what do I expect from the Attorney Generals Office, Premier McGuinty et al? Well, what do you anticipate? Do you anticipate the same as what any law abiding, positive and productive member of society would expect?

    IN CONCLUSION: In this matter, I believe Commissioner Glaude et al, must attempt to save face at any cost. However disgraceful and immoral as I see it, in my opinion, “the jailing of Perry Dunlop” for over six months was an example of this coercion and the need for “the system” to save-face, at any cost, despite destroying a man and his family.

    Also, besides concluding that community authoritative and administrative individuals, groups, associations, services, etc., did not have knowledge, education or other resources to act better for alleged victims or actual victims of sexual abuse, Commissioner Glaude will recommend additional $$$, programming, seminars, training, etc., etc, to professionals and “alleged” victims in need of help and assistance.

    It is also my belief Commissioner Glaude must assign blame to Perry Dunlop and his supporters for everything but the “Holocaust”. I believe Commissioner Glaude et al most likely will apply for criminal charges to be served against “parties” who participated in the “Inquiry” proceedings and/or parties, with various explanations, did not participate.

    Finally: For whatever reasons, some acquaintances of mine have tried and tried to convince me that Normand Glaude is a fair and honourable man, respected by many.
    I do not dispute the forgoing, but, “Commissioner Normand Glaude” is a different “persona”, compelled by his private and professional responsibilities, including other convictions, to act “for the greater good”, as interpreted by the current ruling power.

Leave a Reply