Bad news in the family this week. A brother-in-law is scheduled for open-heart surgery tomorrow. He is a poor surgical risk so we are all concerned. And, news late yesterday morning that our son-in-law’s father had died – he had been sick, but not the kind of sick which would have caused anyone to anticipate this tragic news. Please pay for the repose of his soul.
Our daughter and her family had just moved from State to State and were in the process of finalizing the purchase of their new home. They are now heading back to arrange a funeral. A very sad and tumultuous state of affairs.
The funeral date has not been set but will probably be Saturday. If that’s the case, we will launch for the States early on Friday morning.
Yes, I am dancing around locations and so on. I really don’t like giving out information which might identify members of my family or extended family to the general public. I don’t want family to become the brunt of someone’s angst with me. I hope you understand, but do want to ask for the prayers, and also to explain why I will be getting little done on the site over the next few days.
I have posted November/December 2010 John MacDonald’s email exchange with former Supreme Court Justice Bastarache regarding ‘duty to report’ in the Province of New Brunswick. Thank you John for sharing that with us.
Scroll down first to read Section 30 of the Family Services Act of New Brunswick. Well, just a moment, I will copy and paste it right here:
30 (1) Any person who has information causing him to suspect that a child has been abandoned, deserted, physically or emotionally neglected, physically or sexually ill-treated, including sexual exploitation through child pornography or otherwise abused shall inform the Minister of the situation without delay.
30 (2) This section applies notwithstanding that the person has acquired the information through the discharge of his duties or within a confidential relationship, but nothing in this subsection abrogates any privilege that may exist because of the relationship between a solicitor and the solicitor’s client.
30 (3) A professional person who acquires information in the discharge of the professional person’s responsibilities that reasonably ought to cause the professional person to suspect that a child has been abandoned, deserted, physically or emotionally neglected, physically or sexually illtreated, including sexual exploitation through child pornography or otherwise abused but who does not inform the Minister of the situation without delay commits an offence.
It’s interesting to see that, as is the case with most provincial acts of this nature, lawyers are exempted from the duty to report (“nothing in this subsection abrogates any privilege that may exist because of the relationship between a solicitor and the solicitor’s client.”) – that would be through solicitor-client privilege.
However, Mr. Bastarche has made clear that he is NOT functioning as a lawyer in this “conciliation” process. That means Mr. Bastarache, and those who work with him, have a duty to report. That duty entails reporting when he/she suspect “a child has been abandoned, deserted, physically or emotionally neglected, physically or sexually illtreated, including sexual exploitation through child pornography or otherwise abused.” “Suspect” is the operative word here.
Knowing what we know about the insatiable appetites of sexual predators, would it suffice to deduce that when a known clerical predator is on the loose there is good cause to suspect that he may have abused any child with whom he has had contact?
Note that Mr. Bastarche says that all of the “child offenders” named in the Bathurst deal were “either in jail or have since passed away.” Why I wonder does he refer to these predators/molesters as “child offenders”? Would there be some of those predators whom he would categorize as, say, “youth offenders”?
It’s such a gentle term, is it not? “Child offender.” It seems to me that doesn’t come remotely close to depicting the horror inflicted by a “molester,” or a “predator.” But, no, they’re ‘child offenders.’
The same goes for “the affront to their dignity.” Does he mean the violation of their innocence? or, perhaps, the rape of their souls?
Have you ever once heard a victim say that his/her abuse at the hands of Father X was “an affront to their dignity”? I haven’t. Never. Is it really an affront to the dignity of the child which causes the damage? Are there not a multitude of things which might be considered an affront to a child’s dignity but which are far removed from clerical sexual abuse and the rape of the child’s soul? If a predatory priest got his dirty hand on a child of mine I wouldn’t be complaining because he affronted their dignity.
Am I quibbling here? I don’t know, there’s something about the phrase which sticks out like a sore thumb and truly bothers me. Mr. Bastarche said something along those lines in one of his recent interviews too. It bothered me then. It bothers me now. Frankly, I think it seriously minimizes the crime.
I will leave it at that for now.
On Tuesday past I sent an email to Premier Kathy Dunderdale regarding Raymond Gareth Stanford’s employ at the Newfoundland and Labrador Sports Centre. For at least two years Stanford, a convicted molester and former teacher, has been working at this facility which is frequented by children. I have been wanting to follow up on this for some time. It is so terribly wrong that that man is there, and that children have been and continue to be willfully placed at risk, and that people in positions of authority know he is there and have done nothing. I trust I will fare better with the Premier than I did with Mayor and city counsellors.
It’s late. A busy day ahead. I am calling it a day 🙂
Enough for now,