Seaway News (Cornwall)
Published on May 9th, 2010
Reader-submitted Article :
Watching our 2 little girls play outside in the sunshine is always amazing for us. Watching them run, laugh, and play with their friends, with no worries in the world is a wonderful thing to see. Our girls are 4 and 5 years old, and though they have been told not to talk to strangers, they still don’t fully grasp the concept that some people could hurt them. Imagine how my wife and I felt when we learned that there are 3 convicted sex offenders living in the same area as us. Three of them, within a block of our home, and living next to the area where our children play. In Canada the public is not permitted to see the sex offender registry. That has to change.
I understand that there is concern for the safety of these criminals, and that some people would take it upon themselves to render the Justice they believe is more deserved than what was handed down by the court. For example, they are still breathing. I understand that they may be in physical danger if their identities were known to all. But that should not trump the safety of our children. 52% of all convicted sex offenders are likely to repeat(Stats Canada). So that means at least one, possibly 2, of the offenders living close to our family are likely to attack, rape, and possibly murder a child, again. As far as I am concerned that puts my children at an unacceptable risk. And the Canadian Government believes that we have no right to be aware of that. We do not let our children go outside to play without one of us going with them. Ever. However other parents do, and we see children as young as 4 outside playing with only a slightly older sibling with them. Sometimes not even that. I am sure those children would not be free to do that if the parents knew what we do. And they will be told. It is wrong that we have to do that, and it is wrong that we were not made aware of this, somehow. Property values, money, or housing issues should not matter one single bit when considering where these Sex Offenders can live. The protection of Society and especially our children should be the first concern.
When my concerns were expressed to MP Guy Lauzon I got this as a reply,
NATIONAL SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY
The previous Liberal government spent a lot of time, energy and money trying to get every long gun in the country registered with a central agency. They believed it was more important to register long guns than convict sexual predators. Our government disagrees. We feel it is more important to protect Canadians from sexual predators than from farmers and duck hunters using long guns.
This week we introduced legislation to support our beliefs and convictions. Police services and victim’s groups have been clear: the National Sex Offender Registry must be strengthened to better protect our children and communities from sexual predators. Our Conservative government agrees.
Currently, a convicted sex offender is registered only when the Crown requests it, and a judge agrees. Our bill would make registration automatic on conviction. The legislation would also require all convicted sex offenders to provide a DNA sample for the National DNA Data Bank.Currently the police can only use the Registry to solve crimes after they happen. Our new legislation will allow police to use the Registry pro-actively to protect society from convicted sexual predators re-offending.
Another flaw in our current Registry is that sexual offenders outside of Canada are not registered. Even convicted child molesters from outside of the country are not included at present. Our new legislation will address this weakness.
I sincerely believe that the residents of Stormont, Dundas and South Glengarry are as vulnerable as Canadians living in large cities. I am especially concerned with the sexual exploitation of our children. I believe strengthening the Sex Offender Registry is a step in the right direction.
That does not address my concerns nor does it say anything about Canadians having access to it. Sure police should be able to see it, that’s a no brainer. But I also think that every Canadian should be able to see if a convicted Sexual Predator is living next door, THAT would be a bigger step in the right direction. I hope something happens to change this situation, before another child pays the price for the lack of action by the current Government.
Update: I received a call from Mr. Lauzon a short while ago and it is apparent it was not him that sent me that email response, rather someone from his office. After speaking to him about my concerns, he promised to speak with the chief of police and try and find out as much information as he could. Kudos to Mr. Lauzon for returning my call so promptly and taking my concerns seriously.
___________________________
Change is needed
Seaway News
Published on March 25th, 2010
The photographs are chilling. The look on the boys face tells the story all to well. He has been tortured, violated, and left for dead. A twice convicted (and released) sexual predator was responsible for this, and still some people are sitting on the fence when trying to decide what to do with these criminals.
“You are talking about endangering the health and safety of people, so the government has some responsibility, doesn’t it?”
A convicted sex offender interviewed by CNN said that he had done his time, and any more incarceration or treatment would not be fair. There was no sign of remorse or regret while he was speaking, and was more concerned about his freedom and rights, than what he did to his victim. No mention of THEIR freedoms, and rights. Like the right to live life without being attacked, raped, and beaten. What about the freedom from living in fear? What about the victims rights? The debate rages on concerning this topic, and whether or not they can be treated, cured, or rehabilitated. The first goal should be the protection of Society, especially our children. Period.
Our children cannot even surf the net or chat with their friends on Facebook,
without the fear that a sexual predator is trying to track them and pretend to be their friend.
It is almost a daily occurrence now that another child is being abducted, or has been found murdered. This crime is not gender specific, both male and female children are victims, and potential prey for these predators. New Laws have been passed and are helping to some small degree, but much more needs to be done after the fact to prevent it from happening again even if that means infringing on the “rights” of the perpetrators.
It can be argued that when a person is convicted for murder, that they were overcome by anger and acted in a fit of rage, not really comprehending what they were doing at the time. Can the same be said when a sexual predator tracks a victim, follows them waiting for an opportunity, and then abducts, rapes, and kills them? I don’t think so. It is premeditated, it is deliberate. Can someone explain to me what kind of pill cures that condition? What kind of therapy can change a persons mind that is capable of that in the first place?
75% of sexual predators are male and 25% are female.
Those statistics are just from the cases that are reported, and there are likely many cases that are not do to the stigma and double standard where this is concerned. That is not fair, but it is a reality.
And in Canada we are faced with another set of problems, The Liberal Party. It seems they have a different way of looking at things, and the protection of pedophiles is more of a concern to them than our children’s safety. While our current Government continues to make changes to our Justice system, the opposition continues to fight it, stall it, make it difficult. One has to wonder why. An alcoholic is not in favor of prohibition.
Perhaps the Leader of the Official Opposition should have more pressing concerns, than whether or not the current session of Parliament has been suspended. Hmm?
What do you say to that, Mr.Ignatieff?
1. Studies have consistently shown that former sex offenders have a far lower rate of re-offending than any other crime type. Of those few former sex offenders who do recidivate, the majority are convicted of NON-sexual offenses. Thirdly, treatment works: treatment at any level improved survival in the community without re-offense. Those who were in treatment longer tended to last longer in the community without a re-offense.
2. The current pardon system works: the vast majority of those who are pardoned never reoffend Thus, “automatic denial of pardons to sex offenders would unnecessarily curtail the liberties of the many ex-offenders who remain crime-free”. (http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/sum/cprs200003-eng.aspx)
3. Denying offenders the opportunity to eventually reintegrate into society may increase recidivism rates- thus making society LESS safe.
To put things in perspective let’s examine a ‘sex offender’: On June 10, 2010 a 17-year-old boy from western Manitoba was convicted of sexual assault for having consensual sex with a 13-year-old during a game of Truth or Dare (http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/17-year-old-guilty-of-sex-with-girl-13-96034564.html). If Bill S-2 comes into force, and inclusion is thus automatic, this boy would be placed on the Sex Offender Registry. The Conservative government of Canada would have you believe that the inclusion of this boy on the registry is essential to the goal of ‘protecting society’. If another of the Conservatives bills passes- Bill C-23B- this boy will never be eligible for a pardon. Are we really to believe that any of this makes society safer?
More Info: CanadiansForAJustSociety.webs.com
Tell that to the child who is molested by a previously convicted child moleter Steven. Tell that to his/her parents.
That aside, if you’re going to talk studies it really depends on which studies you choose to rely. I have come across numernous studies which do not support your theory that “few” re-offend. Here’s one which gives a recidivism rate of 24.5 to 33.3 %, with caution that the follow period for the sudy was relatively short: http://www.ncjrs.gov/app/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=202847
As for remaining crime free, it takes victims of clercial sexual abuse 20 to 40 years to come forward. Have any studies been done which follow a convicted molester for 40 years?
As for yor statment that denying offenders the opportunity re-intergate into society may increase recidivism rates. I note the MAY. There’s no proof. That’s a huggy-bear-kissy-face theory. What parents in their right mind are prepared to let their children be guinea pigs for this?
And, as for the ‘game’ of truth or dare, you tossed in a red herring there.
I’m all for tightening things up to protect the innocent Steven. It’s a small start, and it’s long overdue. Our children deserve no less.
For those wondering what has Steven so upset, here’s an external link to a Legislaive Summary of the Bill:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/LegislativeSummaries/Bills_ls.asp?lang=E&ls=s2&source=library_prb&Parl=40&Ses=3
And here’s one to a comentray on the bill from the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime: http://crcvc.ca/docs/S2_Protecting_victims_of_sex_offenders_Act_April10.pdf
Steven :
1. You have devised a poorly crafted crock of bullshit with your fabricated , bogus , unsubstantiated so called ‘ studies’. There is no such beast as a “former pedophile.” You are either a pedophile or you are not. Who would care even if we could find a way to persuade a pedophile to wait 2 days instead of 1 before he rapes another child.
2. What is the name of one pedophile that has ever been pardoned ?
3. You would feel safer with a group of pedophiles boarding with you and your family ( children ) than you do ( if you do ) without them ?
Ditto on your post Sylvia. I am glad you wrote it.
For me, “Yoon’s” post is not just about “Yoon”. It is about social engineering, social policy and coercion. So, when I say “Yoon”, I am really looking at the subject generally.
I believe “Yoons” post is simply explained. He could easily be associated with some government funded program or agenda. He could easily have an undisclosed agenda, goal or objective. Well, don’t we all?
“Yoon” appears to be educated. However, I do not believe he is naïve enough to assume his “education” and perspective represents the only “education” and perspective existing on this topic, as he seems to imply; therefore, I believe, he has some other undisclosed agenda.
As I see it, his post is purely an attempt to influence a naïve and/or ignorant reader.
Yes, public opinion forming. He is a “strawman”.
When I write “ignorant”, of course what I mean is, “not educated or truly experienced” about a topic. In this case, it is a double whammy “topic”; because it is about something most people go to great lengths to avoid confronting, ie) paedophilia, sexual abuse, other abuses, secrets, oppression in families or other systems and similar.
“Yoon’s” assertions are just the type of propaganda that sends me to the rail to puke.
“They” provide these types of representations because “they” know the general population has no knowledge or understanding. I think this is what pisses me off the most….that is, the misrepresentations or the attempts to persuade readers into believing them.
And, because people are ignorant about a topic or naïve, they believe his word is the only word. Very dangerous.
Imagine, if “Yoon” had Ph.D. after his name…gee, everyone would really think his word was, “the word”. Oh boy….another Guru to follow!!
By the way, I (this writer), as many other people, has had many Ph.D’s provide me very different perspectives, research, evidence, studies, conclusions, etc., etc., about the very same subject.
Society, including Corrections Canada and similar, will then utilize the “theory” and/or perspective that supports the political and social agenda for the next couple of decades-give or take. (enter stage left, “the Steven Yoon’s to assert the “theories”, anticipating that we “ignorant-lower lifes” will blindly follow.)
So people, be aware!
And you know what, “Yoon” and people who are espousing his “perspective” of a “Just Society”, “peace, love, understanding”, deinstitutionalization, and equality, happen to be naively, OR intentionally, destroying our society.
Unfortunately for people like me, his “perspective” is “the law” of the day…as we painfully witnessed day after day, month after month, year after year, at the “Cornwall Public Inquiry”; remember the theme, the tone, the perspectives of the “Inquiry consultants”….and remember the “Nutty Professor”….my, my, my, these misguided and misinformed “do-gooders” are naively “running the ship” aground, so-to-speak!!
Do you catch my drift, Steven Yoon?
To cut to the chase:
1) You are correct Sylvia; a multitude of studies can be discovered or written (in short time), that will support or oppose any OBJECTIVE/GOAL or idea. For example, A) While employed in a government funded agency, one day, I wrote a report/proposal, providing specific variables, statistics, theories, statements, interpretations, needs/assessments, etc., etc., supporting a need for additional government funding, “for greater success”. The next day, I provided a newly written report to a different recipient, wherein, I wrote the same statistics, etc., with some different supporting theories, and of course, very different interpretations. Yes, I had a different “GOAL”.
2) Mr. Yoon writes, “the current pardon system works”. MY REPLY: As Mr. Yoon very well knows, and as I have illustrated in #1, a manager or politician can provide statistics with interpretations, to support “ANY OBJECTIVE”; and “justice” can do the same to provide any outcome it wants.
3) In Mr. Yoon’s post, I immediately interpreted his #3, to be a veiled threat. MY REPLY: This is typical political and bureaucratic manoeuvring. So typical; the message is really, “do things the way I say or all hell will break out and I won’t be around to help you when you need it”, MY REPLY: “SCREW OFF”
FINALLY: “CanadiansForAJustSociety”. MY REPLY: Mr. Yoon; I ask, in 2010, what do “you” interpret to be “JUST”! You see, perhaps what you see as “Just”, I see as “Unjust”. Would your definition of “Just” in 2010, been applicable in 2000 or 1990 or 1969….? Have we progressed or regressed”?
….and the “annotated “case study” referenced” in “Yoon’s” last paragraph…realy-I mean really…how ludicrous; simply ludicrous.
Did you “JUST” discover this website? Did some fellow bureaucrat retain you to submit a brief “OPED”?
Reader’s, Canadians, human beings—-THIS is what we’ve come to!! This is the typical thinking and “social policy” of today’s politicians, bureaucrats and their surrogates.
Completely out-of-touch.
And by the way, “CanadiansForAJustSociety” and other “gutles pukes”, including various so-called Canadian Whistleblower organizations….where the “heck” were you when Constable Perry Dunlop and his family were sentenced “to life”…..for not providing testimony at a public inquiry? Where were you and why were you silent? Did you simply presume Constable Dunlop deserved the punishment he received? Did you “goose-step” right up behing government press releases and lawyer rhetoric? Self-preservation?
Even if Dunlop abandonned victims, as some people (not I) allege, by not testifying; was his punishment “JUST”?…..or perhaps his case was just “too hot to handle”….his punishment was manipulated and orchestrated on a daily basis, to coerce Dunlop and make an example of him. He was treated worse than killers and terorists. TRAVESTY!!
One of the greatest “INJUSTICES” in Canadian history was overlooked and misrepresented, thanks in large part to a co-conspiring, mainstream-lapdog, newsmedia. A lapdog news media, who I believe, “ENTRAPPED” Dunlop. It was Dunlops interview, that sentenced him.
This is a comment posted by Steven Yoon
comment_content : @Larry Green: \’unsubstantiated studies\’? Have you even looked at our site? Better yet, have you conducted your own examination? Obviously not since you further the stereotype that everyone\’s a pedophile and rapist. In this situation, ignorance is more of a threat than some people on the registry.
@prima facie: We\’re sorry to see that there are few coherent, logical thoughts in your entire rambling. Also, your insults and innuendo do yourself a disservice.
@Sylvia: We\’re glad to see some solid arguments, and more than happy to address them.
\”As for yor statement that denying offenders the opportunity re-intergate into society may increase recidivism rates. I note the MAY. There’s no proof\”.
If you were looking for proof you would have looked at our site before making such a statement. Take a look at this article from Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org/en/node/10685/section/9.
I’m all for tightening things up to protect the innocent”
<> So are we, but only those action which actually contributes to that goal. We are not willing to support any strategies that are known to either do nothing, or makes the situation worse. We expect our government to implement legislation that has an effect. Unfortunately the Conservative government is more interested in looking tough on crime than putting in the hard work that would actually affect crime.
_________________________________________
Look, let\’s try to suspend your disbelief and emotional bias for just a moment. We\’re all trying to achieve the same thing- to prevent offending and reoffending. To do this we really need to look at the evidence, not simply dismiss it because it goes against what we *think* is correct. At the very least look at it and determine for yourselves whether that information can be useful. And no, I definitely don\’t expect anyone to \’take my word\’ for anything on our site. Examine it, and conduct your own research off-site.
We need to be aware that not all offenders are the same; to treat them as such creates the sorts of problems that we all wish to avoid. Some offenders, sexually based or otherwise, ARE monsters (those who kidnap, rape or kill their victims, of any age, would, in my personal opinion, be executed or imprisoned for life). Individuals such as these are, fortunately, very rare and if the government did their jobs these people would be declared dangerous offenders and never released. Also, prison sentences should be appropriate to the crime; violent and repeat offenders should not be receiving a slap on the hand.
What about the rest? Let\’s assume Sylvia\’s recidivism rate of 33%. It means then that 67% of offenders never reoffend. Of those that do reoffend most do not reoffend sexually. What we want to do is allow those who never reoffend the chance to reintegrate successfully into society- to do otherwise serves no purpose and invites recidivism.
How do we concentrate on those few offenders who do reoffend sexually? We know that some offenders, depending on a variety of criteria, have a higher recidivism rate than others.All offenders, sexually based or otherwise, should be classified based on their risk level. High risk offenders should not be released while they are thus classified. Treatment and supervision resources should be conentrated on these individuals, but it is not.
The information provided on or site is not based on personal opinions. The site exists to provide information that would be beneficial to prevent offending and reoffending. Yes it would require some effort on the government’s part to implement the necessary changes, and it would require that society embrace an evidence-based strategy rather than one based on stereotypes and anger.
If the effort was successful wouldn’t you consider it worth the time it took to investigate it
Steven Yoon
Try posting now and see if you can get your comment on. If you do I will delet the one I posted for you above.
DISCLAIMER: ALERT!! This post may be time consuming for you!!
This post contains RAMBLING, insults and generalized challenges. Read at your own RISK. For your own sanity, please feel free to avoid reading it: You decide:
————————————————————
TO: “Yoon and the likes”: HA!! LOL!! LOL!!! Thanks for the attention: LOL!! Typical bureaucratic, socialism, running rampant in Canada!! Government, and its self-serving priviledged subgroups!!! “strawmen”..Ha!! LOL!!!
Just as I said… THERE is only one way to believe and one way to act AND THAT is the “Yoon” way, the way of “the ruling class”, supported by their “butt-kissing” surrogates and some civil servants-the likes of “Loon”, who have misrepresented us, victims, survivors, for decades (wolves in sheeps clothing)…..Opposing voices or voices with “alternative choices” are ostracized. The dissenting voices, blacklisted and……”CAST OUT”!!! LOL!!
At least you know who/what I am….and you, well, what are you? The “theory of the day?”
I am EASY to “categorize”…EASY to “cast out”—so what?!! Doesn’t bother me. But you, you misrepresent information or intentionally omit important facts, which could facilitate readers to think and decide for themselves. Gee, we couldn’t have that could we? So typical, so who are you? Do you even know? Perhaps a blind following, out of touch, self-serving, butt kissing, surrogate member of a priviledged subgroup who belive “they know better”. So typical.
When “your type” are challenged to be “fair and balanced”, well,…let’s just say, you were not “programmed” for that, were you.
You pukes make me sick!!
I ramble on and on…you report it, I read it-so what? I am a dis-service to myself-you report it, I read it-Big Deal. I am not in a “public opinion forming” campaign and I am not in a publicity contest. I support “the facts” and full “disclosure”. I support and expect accountability and individual consequences to be assigned and fulfilled by the guilty. I am NOT a blind following butt-kisser who has attempted to employ EVERY avenue possible (theory, intervention strategy..etc) to avoid full disclosure and individual accountability/consequences!! The theories you support DO attempt every avenue to elude and evade!!
No more Mr. Nice guy, for anyone who knows me! The gloves are off.
Oh, by the way, your data on the parole system got quite a laugh and response in my neighbourhood!!
OUT OF TOUCH-totally.
Steven Yoon :
There isn’t enough time in a life to look at every “study” that someone claims to be valid and I have to admit that I am not willing to waste my time looking through a cluster of invented statistics. I have not conducted a study on my own , it would be futile given the fact that I have a bias – I.E. I am for punishing sex offenders. You may not be aware that the collection of data and the interpretation of data collected is extremely unreliable if the collector and the interpreter have an interest in the results one way or the other.
It is false to infer that I have said everyone is a pedophile or a rapist- I don’t and I don’t even think all sex offenders are pedophiles and rapists- But you have submitted your comment to a site that is dedicated to seeking justice for child victims of pedophiles and rapists.
Our laws are universally principled but we trust in our system to deal with criminals on an individual basis I.E. remedial , corrective , particular justice. The judge – in his/her capacity as judge- is the embodiment of justice and capable of applying the spirit of the law. This has worked well in this country for many many years and it is inconceivable to even consider inserting particular laws into a system based on universal law just to accommodate the large variety of sex offenders .
@Larry Green: ‘unsubstantiated studies’? Have you even looked at our site? Better yet, have you conducted your own examination? Obviously not since you further the stereotype that everyone’s a pedophile and rapist. In this situation, ignorance is more of a threat than some people on the registry.
@prima facie: We’re sorry to see that there are few coherent, logical thoughts in your entire rambling. Also, your insults and innuendo do yourself a disservice.
@Sylvia: We’re glad to see some solid arguments, and more than happy to address them.
“As for yor statement that denying offenders the opportunity re-intergate into society may increase recidivism rates. I note the MAY. There’s no proof”.
If you were looking for proof you would have looked at our site before making such a statement. Take a look at this article from Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org/en/node/10685/section/9.
I’m all for tightening things up to protect the innocent”
So are we, but only those action which actually contributes to that goal. We are not willing to support any strategies that are known to either do nothing, or makes the situation worse. We expect our government to implement legislation that has an effect. Unfortunately the Conservative government is more interested in looking tough on crime than putting in the hard work that would actually affect crime.
_________________________________________
Let’s try to suspend our opinions for just a moment. We’re all trying to achieve the same thing- to prevent offending and reoffending. To do this we really need to look at the evidence, not simply dismiss it because it goes against what we *think* is correct. At the very least look at it and determine for yourselves whether that information can be useful. And no, I definitely don’t expect anyone to ‘take my word’ for anything on our site. Examine it, and conduct your own research off-site.
We need to be aware that not all offenders are the same; to treat them as such creates the sorts of problems that we all wish to avoid. Some offenders, sexually based or otherwise, ARE monsters (those who kidnap, rape or kill their victims, of any age, would, in my personal opinion, be executed or imprisoned for life). Individuals such as these are, fortunately, very rare and if the government did their jobs these people would be declared dangerous offenders and never released. Also, prison sentences should be appropriate to the crime; violent and repeat offenders should not be receiving a slap on the hand.
What about the rest? Let’s assume Sylvia’s recidivism rate of 33%. It means then that 67% of offenders never reoffend. Of those that do reoffend most do not reoffend sexually. What we want to do is allow those who never reoffend the chance to reintegrate successfully into society- to do otherwise serves no purpose and invites recidivism.
How do we concentrate on those few offenders who do reoffend sexually? We know that some offenders, depending on a variety of criteria, have a higher recidivism rate than others.All offenders, sexually based or otherwise, should be classified based on their risk level. High risk offenders should not be released while they are thus classified. Treatment and supervision resources should be conentrated on these individuals, but it is not.
The information provided on or site is not based on personal opinions. The site exists to provide information that would be beneficial to prevent offending and reoffending. Yes it would require some effort on the government’s part to implement the necessary changes, and it would require that society embrace an evidence-based strategy rather than one based on stereotypes and anger.
If the effort was successful wouldn’t you consider it worth the time it took to investigate it
More Info: CanadiansForAJustSociety.webs.com
Post #9 Larry Green says,” I have not conducted a study on my own , it would be futile given the fact that I have a bias – I.E. I am for punishing sex offenders.You may not be aware that the collection of data and the interpretation of data collected is extremely unreliable if the collector and the interpreter have an interest in the results one way or the other
It can also be said of people who write on this web page, including Larry. Some of their comments are directed to attack every person who says to them that they are wrong in their opinions or they are not ready to listern to others opinions and views. They always aggrevate people who oppose their views. They are happy only with people who condemn the catholic church, all it’s priests and bishops. Some of them even claim that all the priests are evil and the catholic church is evil. I do not know where did they get the information to make such general statements???. But surely they do. I have been trying to tell them that their opinions are wrong .
Steven, you and I look at the issue through different ends of the telescope. I would never ever knowingly take a chance on the safety of a child. Never.
When my children were toddlers I took the time to teach them never to put their hand on the top of the stove, not because the burners were always on, but because IF the burner was on they would get severly injured. I was not prepared to wait for them to get burned. I was not prepared to take the chance. It was my duty as a mother to protect them from harm.
When they were little my children were not allowed to cross the road. Again, I was not prepared to risk their lives when they were too young to know the potential dangers of crossing the road.
I believe we adults should be safe-guarding our children, not using them as guinea pigs to make known molesters feel good about themselves.
I have come across any number of cases over the years where assurances were given by the “experts” that a known molester was not likely to re-offend. Frequently the “experts” were wrong. Talk to the victims of these men to find out what they think of “expert” opinions. Talk to their families. Ask them if they think it was a risk worth taking.
The “experts” predicted Father Philip Jacobs was not a high risk to re-offend when he was so kindly reintegrated by Bishop Remi De Roo in teh Diocese of Victoria. I don’t know how many complainants from the Victoria area have come forward with allegations against Jacobs, but it sounds as though Jacobs was a busy man, virtually from the time he arrived in the Victoria diocese until his past caught up with him in 2002 and away he went. After he was ‘outed’ Jacobs had the following words to say:
“In view of the turmoil and anguish these revelations are causing in the parish and the diocese, and because the needs of the church are greater than any needs of any individual priest, I have agreed to resign my pastoral responsibilities.”
How very noble!
Eight years later he was charged. The charges relate to allegations of sex abuse during his six year stay in the Diocese of Victoria.
True enough the allegations have not been proven in a court of law. I and I am sure many others are watching with interest. But, my question for you and for all those who advocate such reintigration, do you believe it was worth taking the chance on Jacobs?
I don’t. Do you?
Michael,
I apologize for any aggravation that my comments may have caused for you.
I am a catholic and I am somewhat disheartened by many actions within the church . If my expression on this site conveys an attitude of aggression toward the church that offends you I am truly sorry , that is not my intent ( to offend anyone.)
I believe that the church is fundamentally beautiful in principle and is in essence absolutely necessary for the sustenance and survival of the human spirit. Most of the expressions of anger exhibited by myself toward the catholic church are in a deeper sense directed toward myself than they are toward the church for my own naiveté . I am in a process of forming new opinions and beliefs in a system that continues to reveal to me the truth with regard to its practical intent , purpose and means. I can appreciate how the defence of my own claims may appear as “attacks” but I can assure you that they are not.
Michael I have no desire whatsoever to detract from your love for the catholic church.
I respect and value your opinion Michael even if it’s different than mine.You say , -not all priests and the catholic church are evil- I believe you are right.
Thanks Larry.I understand somewhat the feelings of the victims abused( the feelings, experiences and pain varies from person to person, even in the same situations and circumstances) by some of the clergy and in certain cases the bishops in authority were resposible for their action. Again it is not all bishops or priests. In every society we see all types of people, so also in the church. It is always good to say the good things that happens in the church with the bad things. Thanks again Larry