A raft of the media of the day is posted. Check New to the Site on the Home page for the links. When it comes to Cornwall I don’t usually agree with much that Claude McIntosh has to say, but – the Glaude report as a door stopper? I like that 🙂 It’s certainly big and weighty enough to do the job.
The entire report can be ordered online or by phone from Ontario Service. Check the Cornwall Public Inquiry website for further info. I just checked and it looks as though the cost is $30.00 for the hard copy of the entire package – Volumes 1 to 4, or $5.00 for the Executive Summary only. A bilingual CD can be ordered for $10.00.
The Glaude report can be accessed online via the Cornwall Public Inquiry website. I will see what I can do to get it posted on theinquiry.ca – it’s a large document so I think I will have to find some special way to download it. I anticipate trouble so it may well have to wait until after Christmas. But, for now it’s available and accessible so those who have their Christmas shopping taken care of can settle in for a long long read 🙂
A few bits and pieces to pass on regarding yesterday’s press conference:
(1) Justice Glaude delivered his 75 minute speech and was promptly hustled out of the room faster than a speeding bullet. The Q & A’s re the Glaude’s Report were handled by inquiry lawyers Peter Engelmann and Pierre Dumais.
(2) Questions were restricted to media. At the close of the Q & A session a female victim took the microphone demanding that victims and members of the community be given opportunity to put their questions to the lawyers. It seemed that perhaps there may have been opportunity for a few questions, but then along came Bishop Durocher.
(3) Bishop Paul Andre Durocher sailed in on the coat-tails of the unveiling on the Glaude Report to issue – yes, you guessed it – an apology!! Durocher was flanked by David Sheriff-Scott and someone else, either a body guard or another lawyer.
Duorcher looked drawn and gaunt – truly looked like he was afraid of his own shadow. I stood by while he was being interviewed by someone – he was obviously nervous, he had apparently been asked a question regarding his statement and, with trembling hands, was fidgeting through his small sheaf of pages trying to find his exact words. Some of the pages were in large type, some were hand written with sections scratched out. Until he found and read verbatim from the page Durocher did not commit himself – just fidgeting and fumbling away.
My questions: Why the nerves?
(4) A raft of victims and their families vacated the premises when Durocher and his escorts tried to steal the show.
(5) Durocher said there have been no allegations of clerical sex abuse in the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall for 25 years. I have heard otherwise but perhaps “rumour” of the same has not reached the diocesan centre? I wonder too where Father Gaetan Deschamps fits into that time frame?
I was actually set to clarfy this with the bishop, but as soon as the other man handling him realized it was my turn to interview he took Durocher by the elbow, swung him around and, wedged between his hadlers, Durocher was marched off at a rather quick pace. No chance to clarify 🙁
(6) Many media arrive at these events with little or no knowledge of either the history of Cornwall which prompted calls for an inquiry in the first place, or the goings on in the Weave Shed for the past three-and-a-half-years. They are simply assigned to cover the event and away they go.
(7) Paul Scott (Citizens for Community Renewal) is thrilled with the Glaude Report. And well he should be. Glaude has recommended funding going in his direction. Scott can find not a word of criticism of the Report. Not one. And, believe it or not, Scott and two of his CCR members stood to give Glaude a standing ovation as the commissioner was hustled out a back door.
(8) Speaking of the hustle out the back door, this was shades of the Michael Bryant press conference announcing Justice Normand Glaude as commissioner and unveiling the thoroughly flawed mandate for the inquiry. That was nearly five long long years ago. In that instance no sooner had he fielded a few media questions than the former Attorney General was hustled out of that room via a back door. Swish – he was gone!
(9) Note the media articles – the current Attorney General Chris Bentley gave a press conference timed to coincide with the end of the embargo on the Report – i.e., after Glaude finished his speech and disappeared out the back door.
Bentley wanted to, – yes indeed, …apologize!!!!
Looks like apologies are in. They are a dime a dozen. A conflict resolution tool. Nothing more. Sheer hypocrisy when undertaken by those who refuse to acknowledge sexual abuse and/or cover-up within their own rank and file.
Bishop Raymond Lahey is scheduled to appear in an Ottawa courtroom today. Another delay in the offing? Or a decision to plead guilty and get it over and done with?
I would love to have gone but time just doesn’t permit, plus I am inclined to think it will be all lawyers and no bisops. We shall see…
Final note: I haven’t looked much further at the Glaude Report. I do see though that Justice Glaude tips his hand from time to time, and still loves to talk “rumour” and “innuendo.” If you spend some time reading please do blog your thoughts and observations as you work your way through -we can work our way through it together – makes the going a little easier :).
Enough for now,
I haven’t had the time to read Commissioner Glaude’s report in its entirety, let alone digest it. So, I am not providing a genuinely informed opinion about “the report”.
However, I must share my first impression, as it unfolded this week, because, I keep going back to it.
In short; I was comfortable and satisfied with what I saw and heard. However, I repeat, I have not studied the report; it was simply my first impression.
I am sure many people, besides me, are not shocked with some of the recommendations Commissioner Glaude has made.
Given the nature and scope of the “mandate” and/or “terms of reference” etc., I come away feeling comfortable with Commissioner Glaude’s presentation.
I am not yet certain why.
However, I was more interested in hearing his words and reviewing his “direct quotations”, without the “spin” or “editorializing” by some news media reporters, columnists or biased bystanders. I was more interested in seeing Commissioner Glaude’s demeanour, posture, character and hearing his position, in his own words. I wanted to see his behaviour, while he delivered his synopsis, specifically relating to issues such as a) “the existence or not of a ring of paedophiles”, b) “cover-up”, c) “news media reporting of the time”, d) “Perry Dunlop”, e) “rumour and innuendo circulating in the community”, f) how allegations were managed, g) how “alleged” victims were handled, among other things.
I wanted to see if he determined the “social problem” to have been caused by “individual-systemic or a combination of both (relational) factors”.
Although I agree with Commissioner Glaude, I was surprised he concluded “systemic” (as defined in the context of the intervention strategy utilized).
From my initial interpretations of his response to the above subjects, (a-f); I feel Commissioner Glaude responded exactly how I wished he would have. I believe he has addressed many or all of the controversial points, even though many of us, on opposite sides of the fence, may have wanted him to go further. Yet again, I believe some people do not yet realize how significant and supportive his “words and conclusions, in some areas” are or will be in the future.
Again, I believe the “inquiry mandate, terms of reference, etc.”, compelled him to focus on specific areas only, without applying any judgements.
I suggest we all review “his words, conclusions and opinions” as opposed to relying on the “spin” of others. “His exact words” are what count.
I believe many citizens and some news media are confused and uncomfortable with Commissioner Glaude’s report. In fact, I believe “they” wanted him to abandon his mandate and recklessly assert blame and shame on specific individuals and groups.
I believe that this is caused, in part, by the “spin” and interpretations some “very well versed” lawyers utilized throughout the inquiry. “Interpretations” presented with the better interests of their clients in mind. I believe the “mainstream news media” and many citizens relied heavily on the interpretations and representations these “crème de la crème” lawyers articulated.
Now, that Commissioner Glaude has presented his findings surrounding the facts, many of the “media”, etc. are lost, bewildered and angry. They may feel like fools!!
Because Commissioner Glaude did not succumb to pressures from various sources, many people and some news media will resort to reviving old stories that support their original publications or assertions.
From my perspective and with my first impression, good work Commissioner Glaude.
I have been leafing thru the report when I get some quiet time. However, I just came across THIS STORY….
BRACE YOURSELF EVERYONE!!!!
Quebec Cardinal’s brother buys ad to explain sex assaults
Last Updated: Friday, December 18, 2009 | 1:02 PM ET
Paul Ouellet published this newspaper ad that purportedly explains his sex assault convictions. (CBC)
The brother of Quebec’s Roman Catholic Archbishop is raising eyebrows in la belle province after he took out a newspaper ad to explain past sexual assaults involving minors.
In the ad, Paul Ouellet says he pleaded guilty to charges of sexual assault to end the ordeal, and claims his only mistake was succumbing to “advances” made by his two young victims.
Ouellet, 63, is currently serving a community sentence of 15 months in Quebec’s Abitibi-Témiscamingue region, after he pleaded guilty this fall to two counts of sexual assault against two young people.
The assaults date back to the mid-1980s and early 1990s, and involved two people who were 13 and 15 at the time. Ouellet was arrested in September 2008 after a four-year police investigation into the allegations.
Several other counts of assault involving minors brought against him after the investigation were dropped when he pleaded guilty.
Paul Ouellet’s older brother, Cardinal Marc Ouellet, is an influential Catholic leader and Primate of Canada. He has refused to comment on his younger brother’s trouble with the law.
Ad claims love for assault victims
Ouellet’s ad appeared in the Abitibi newspaper La Frontière last Friday. In it, the multidisciplinary artist says his victims loved him and he loved them — and he mentions correspondence that he says proves the nature of their relationship.
The former teacher, who lives in La Motte, Que., says all other assault allegations against him are patently false.
Ouellet’s decision to publicize his case is highly unusual, and also telling, according to a leading Quebec criminal lawyer.
Robert La Haye says he has never heard of any convicted sex offender go to such lengths, and the move suggests a lack of empathy and compassion for his victims.
“Most people won’t find any excuses in his explanation,” La Haye told Quebec network LCN this week.
This story is closed to commenting.
A 13 AND A 15 YEAR OLD BOY CAME ONTO HIM??? uh – HUH!
I TELL YOU – THIS LOT IS SICK – SICK – SICK & PERVERTED!!!
MY APOLOGIES…..a 13 and 15 year old GIRLS.
I am having a very very difficult time understanding WHAT if anything the upper hierarchy in the Catholic Church have learned from any of these scandels and/or from Glaudes Report.
Cardinal Ouellette’s brother sounds remarkably like Colin Campbell, the former Bishop of Antigonish. Back a number of years when allegations were swirling about clerical sexual abuse of young boys Campbell said something to the effect that the young boys had enticed the poor clergy.
Seems to me it takes some kind of sick Catholic mind to hanker out such pathetic ans sick excuses and rationale for sin.
I wonder what Cardinal Ouellette thinks of all of this? I do hope we hear some feedback on that.
I can’t help but wonder if Campbell is of the mind that the “alleged” young lads in Lahey’s “alleged” stock of porn are at fault too?
I have been trying to read and digest the commissioner’s report as well. But it’s slow going. Much of it is reiteration of testimony we heard, but I don’t want to skip over anything because Glaude does offer commentary at nearly every turn.
As to the ad in the Quebec paper … It never ceases to amaze me how abuse perpetrators almost consistently try to explain away the abuse. Anyone remember the case of Jean-Luc Leblanc, the Newington bus driver who sexually abused many children before he was arrested, charged, convicted and declared a long-term offender? While in treatment in prison, he said he “loved” his victims and he couldn’t understand what was so wrong about “love.” He also said he biggest regret in regards to the abuse was that it landed him in jail and he was no longer in a position to “love” children who be believes need his “love.”
He’s eligible for parole in October 2010. Scary stuff.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Leblanc remains in prison
Only man convicted under Project Truth would likely re-offend if released: board
ELISABETH JOHNS, STANDARD-FREEHOLDER
The only man convicted from Project Truth investigations was ordered to remain in prison due to his likelihood to re-offend.
Jean-Luc Leblanc, 63, was up for statutory release by law as he has served two-thirds of his eight and a half year sentence. In a ruling handed down by the National Parole Board and obtained by the Standard-Freeholder, Leblanc was ordered to remain in detention.
A three-panel board hearing determined if Leblanc was released he would commit a sexual offence involving a child.
He didn’t show up to his own hearing.
The school bus driver, from Newington, was charged with a total of 48 sex abuse charges against 12 boys and one girl. He pleaded guilty to 18 of the 48 counts in 2001. He started serving his sentence in April 2002. He has been declared a long-term offender.
When he is released from prison, he will still be under supervision by the Correctional Service of Canada for another 10 years, said Sonia Lacroix, spokesperson for the National Parole Board.
In the decision, the board members pointed to Leblanc’s participation in an intensive therapy sex offender treatment program.
In that program, Leblanc described his attraction to young people as “deep-seated” and said he only regretted his actions because it meant he could no longer be around children.
He twice underwent two plethysmographic evaluations, a test to determine a person’s arousal, which showed results testifying to Leblanc’s preference for young children, mainly boys.
Four of Leblanc’s victims testified at the Cornwall Public Inquiry. They talked about the coercive methods he would use – offering them gifts like marijuana, toys and trips – to establish relationships with them.
According to the evidence before the board, Leblanc has told his case workers he still maintains the same belief that “pedophilia is love for children.”
He had also been convicted in 1986 on two counts of gross indecency. The panel members noted when he was taking part in treatment for sex offences for two years at that time, he committed the assaults which resulted in his current sentence.
Leblanc’s case will be up again for in November 2008.
He is up for parole Oct. 21, 2010.
Haven;t had much time to read more of the Glaude tome – but doing a lot of thinking.
Yes, there are good things in the recomendations -i.e., “historical” sex abuses cases should indeed be treated in the same ‘timely’ manner as those which are current. But I can’t get beyond thinking that that there had to be a cheaper and more timely method to accomplish such recommendations. And I can’t help but thin: Mission accomplished! An inquiry commissioned in repsonse to persistent allegations of a paedophile ring and cover-up drummed out a toothless mandate which put the topic of rings beyond its reach, put same in the hands of a conflicted judge, and $60M and nearly five years later comes out with the word that there is no final pronouncement on the paedophile ring.
No surprise really. There could be no pronounclement because witnesses were not called and questions were not posed to pursue those allegations.
Had the wording of the mandate addressed the issue at hand the $60M could have been expended calling the real and “alleged” paedophiles of Cornwall – and their families, friends, neighbours and acquantances – to testify.
And there’s the mayor of Cornwall, Bob Kilger, saying that as far as he’s concerned no evidence of a ring means no ring!!! Right! Where was Kilger when concerns were being raised that the inquiry couldn’t do that job because of the mandate.
Think of it. Let’s suppose the inquiry was properly mandated, and let’s suppose that at the end of the day there was irrevocable evidence of a ring, and let’s suppose there was irrevocable evidence that the fomer Chief of Police and the former were part of the ringBishop of Cornwall were members of the ring – how then could anyone possibly conclude that there was no evidence of conspiracy between the Cornwall police and the diocese?
The presence or absence of a ring puts a different light on everything.
Without digesting the Glaude tome, tose are my thoughts – from the grassy knoll 🙂