| Author |
Message |
    
strength
Junior Member
Username: strength
Post Number: 29
Registered: 8-2007
Posted From: 67.71.23.38
| | Posted on Saturday, September 22, 2007 - 4:20 pm: | 
|
A web-site of the Attorney General of Ontario states; "Section 72 of the Child and Family Services Act imposes a statutory duty on every person to report reasonable suspicions of child abuse, including sexual molestation or exploitation, and the information upon which those suspicions are based, directly to a children's aid society. In addition, section 72 makes it an offense for certain professionals, including teachers and principals, to fail to so report." http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/robins/ch4.asp
I wrote to the Director of Brockville's Children's AID Society to inquire as to whether this law would apply to clergy.
Excerpts from his response;
"you are correct in concluding that any person who has reasonable grounds to suspect child abuse or child mistreatment as defined in section 37 must report the information forthwith.".....
"Subsection 3 of section 72 further states that "A person who has a duty to report a matter under subsection 1 or 2 shall make the report directly to the {Children's Aid} society and shall not rely on any other person to report on his or her behalf"....
"Subsection 5 states that "Subsection 4 applies to a list of professionals including a priest, rabbi or member of the clergy and Subsection 4 further states that a person referred to in subsection 5 is guilty of an offense if he or she contravenes subsection 1 or 2 and the information was obtained in the course of his or her professional or official duties." |
strength
Junior Member
Username: strength
Post Number: 30
Registered: 8-2007
Posted From: 67.71.23.38
| | Posted on Saturday, September 22, 2007 - 5:41 pm: |
|
Sorry for starting a new thread.
I posted this excerpt from the law because I read the article in the Globe and Mail, regarding the involvement of the police. At first, I was shocked. I've been thinking that our only real recourse was to file complaints with the Anglican Church. But then when I reviewed the law, I saw how the responsibility to report doesn't just rest on the shoulders of alleged victims. In fact it is up to all of us to come forward with what we know. It is our responsibility to civil society, and an issue of trust.
The issue of trust led me to start thinking about my mom. She was approaching sixty when she sent me to Grenville. My dad, her best friend, had died. Life as a widow with six kids was hard for my mom. A horrible case of glaucoma plagued her with unbearable headaches, (and has brought her to almost complete blindness now). I was a bit of a rebel, - nothing too serious, but a challenge for her on a daily basis. She wanted me to do well, so when she found the ads for this beautiful school in Brockville, she scraped together the money to send me. The school's promotional materials talked a lot about God's love and about putting children on a straight and successful path.
I've always been angry and hurt that my mom sent me to GCC. I had lost trust in her ability to protect me. On the other hand, I have also spent twenty years worrying that the truth about my experiences at Grenville would completely crush my mom, because she so wanted the school to be good for me. This dichotomy has kept the two of us apart for most of my adult life.
But this morning I had a revelation. Put simply: My mom wanted to trust too. And trust she did. My mom trusted what the school told her, what she read, and what she saw when she visited the school for an afternoon. Its as simple as that. She trusted that this group of Christians, lead by two Anglican Priests, were law-abiding and professional.
Today I looked at the law of the land. It clearly states that a professional responsibility of clergy and teachers is to report suspicion of child abuse. I am taken aback to think about what this actually means to people like me and my mom, and to many of you and your parents.
Are the people writing to Factnet the only ones who had suspicions? No teachers? No clergy? Did nobody see anything? Did nobody hear anything? Is nobody hearing anything reportable now? |
strength
Junior Member
Username: strength
Post Number: 31
Registered: 8-2007
Posted From: 69.156.1.176
| | Posted on Saturday, September 22, 2007 - 8:11 pm: |
|
"I am thankful that Grenville Christian College has not weakened her moral and spiritual stand, but instead is becoming even stronger in her determination to give teenagers firm support, dedicated leadership, and fearless correction when they need it. Parents, teachers, clergymen, let us not abandon our place in the wall. Let us not allow our children to climb up over us or push their way through us. Our Lord's Word should burn in our heart and conscience: 'Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.' Let us increase our resolve to pay the price of stout leadership"
Rev. Al Haig, GCC Newsletter, July 1978. |
strength
Junior Member
Username: strength
Post Number: 32
Registered: 8-2007
Posted From: 69.156.1.176
| | Posted on Saturday, September 22, 2007 - 8:22 pm: |
|
"In my youth a priest made an indelible impression upon my young rebellious heart. He did so by coming to the Sunday School assembly with the announcement that if we didn't give him our undivided attention we would be introduced to his friend Louie, - Louie was a paddle! I think this was my first spiritual experience. After that, I found real joy in respecting this man and being obedient to his will."
Rev. Charles Farnsworth, GCC Newsletter, June 1979. |
strength
Junior Member
Username: strength
Post Number: 33
Registered: 8-2007
Posted From: 69.156.1.176
| | Posted on Saturday, September 22, 2007 - 8:25 pm: |
|
"I believe that authority and obedience to it is the method used by God to implement the prayer, 'Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.'"
Rev. Charles Farnsworth, GCC Newsletter, June 1979. |
from_rochester
New member
Username: from_rochester
Post Number: 1
Registered: 9-2007
Posted From: 74.128.168.180
| | Posted on Monday, September 24, 2007 - 8:14 pm: |
|
I'm American, so I don't know the Canadian law, but under US law, anyone who fails to report a suspicion of child abuse is liable. This would include the journalist and newpaper owner who did not print the article back in the 1980s, any visitors who witnessed things they were unsure of -- even if the kids later told them that everything was OK. "Suspicion" is the key word here -- the law knows that children will be told by their abusers not to report the abuse or to change their stories. The responsibility does not rest with the child.
I would definately encourage all of you who had bad experiences at GCC to talk to a lawyer. Talking to a lawyer before going to the police might be helpful as well, just to help you sort out your story into a format that makes sense to people who think within the legal system.
I think that it would be great if there were some people interested or willing to start a class action against C0J, since they are the root of the evil.
This is not retaliation, this is about justice, and about preventing any further abuse. These laws exist for a reason -- to protect children! |
poormanspudding
New member
Username: poormanspudding
Post Number: 7
Registered: 9-2007
Posted From: 74.108.181.75
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 26, 2007 - 10:44 pm: |
|
I need more clarification around the illegal aspects of what happened at GCC. Sexual abuse, if it happened, is a no brainer, but the corporal punishment piece is foggy to me. Were GCCers breaking the law by paddling or strapping students? I was a student during the tough love era and as far as I can remember, all schools were doing it. I'll stand corrected if I am wrong about that. Was a law passed at some point to make it illegal? This is what I found on line:
Section 43 of the Criminal Code (Corporal Punishment)
The Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. The Attorney General of Canada
On January 30, 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in the case of Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. The Attorney General in Right of Canada, which concerns the use of force by parents and teachers to correct a child. This fact sheet provides a summary of the case. The decision itself is available online at: http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/2004/2004scc4.html.
Issue Before the Supreme Court of Canada
The issue before the Supreme Court of Canada was whether s.43 of the Criminal Code of Canada is unconstitutional. Section 43 provides that a parent, teacher or person acting in the place of a parent is justified in using force to correct a child that is under his or her care provided that the force used is reasonable in all of the circumstances.
Decision
The Supreme Court of Canada decided that section 43 of the Criminal Code is constitutional; it found that section 43 does not violate a child’s rights to security of the person and equality, and is not cruel and unusual punishment. More specifically, the Supreme Court held that section 43 ensures that the criminal law applies to any use of force that harms a child, but does not apply where the use of force “is part of a genuine effort to educate the child, poses no reasonable risk of harm that is more than transitory and trifling, and is reasonable under the circumstances.” |
hoperules
Member
Username: hoperules
Post Number: 57
Registered: 7-2007
Posted From: 99.232.69.171
| | Posted on Thursday, September 27, 2007 - 4:08 am: |
|
I believe there is a huge difference when it comes paddling a person's butt to making that person's butt actually bleed. Intentional or not, there was a desire for pain and ridicule that no student deserved.
When it comes to licking a 14 year olds neck or penetrating a 14 year olds vagina - there is no difference to her – emotionally it penetrates her all the same.
My time (that I know) was lucky, and that was not the case. Man of the freakin dish towel. I trusted them so and blah, blah, blah and whatever - barf.
I find it repulsive to this day that I have hopes and dreams for my family and that Christianity will prevail itself to me again and to my family.
While I attended through 89-91 this form of “physical abuse” was out the door. Or at least from what I saw or heard was behind closed doors. Physical abuse might have diminished and GCC seemed more intent to prevail with the emotional and psychological abuse.
I saw the students and staff disappear for no reason at all it. Physical abuse would almost be a blessing, as the emotional and physiological abuse seemed to get worse and to this day, more damaging to those involved.
At this time it was a no win situation. |
sandrabrownearly
Junior Member
Username: sandrabrownearly
Post Number: 43
Registered: 8-2007
Posted From: 162.83.61.245
| | Posted on Thursday, September 27, 2007 - 8:20 am: |
|
I wonder if our parents had to sign anything about discipline? My younger sister was called into Fr. Farnsworth's office for a completely inappropriate conversation/light session. It was just her and him behind closed doors. You aren't even alone with your dentist in today's world. This happened in the 80's. She was 13. |
tmw
Member
Username: tmw
Post Number: 64
Registered: 8-2007
Posted From: 67.71.154.80
| | Posted on Thursday, September 27, 2007 - 8:38 am: |
|
regarding our parents signing anything: As I recall there may have been a form which parents signed regarding care and control of the students, and there may have been something in that regarding discipline. However, it is my understanding of the law that it doesn't matter what your parents signed. The moment someone strikes you (paddle, fist, hand, whatever) or touches you in an inappropriate manner (ie sexually) it is considered an assault according to the Criminal Code of Canada. Whether or not they had your parents permission is a moot point. |
denise
New member
Username: denise
Post Number: 6
Registered: 7-2007
Posted From: 67.71.23.246
| | Posted on Thursday, September 27, 2007 - 11:13 am: |
|
I am a parent of a former student and I do not remember signing anything to do with discipline and would NEVER have signed anything that would allow anyone at GCC to physically punish him no matter the reason. I also would not have signed anything that would allow them to harm him in any way......so no I do not think your parents signed a form saying they could hurt you...physically or mentally
DN |
sandrabrownearly
Junior Member
Username: sandrabrownearly
Post Number: 44
Registered: 8-2007
Posted From: 162.83.61.245
| | Posted on Thursday, September 27, 2007 - 4:09 pm: |
|
Even though my parents were in agreement with the paddling (we had one at home) I can't help but think my Mom would have freaked if she knew what he was talking about with her 13 year old daughter.
I'm sure GCC would not ask parents to sign something stating that it was okay to hurt their child, but was there anything that outlined their educating/rearing style? Their thoughts on teen development and how they planned on guiding the students through their tumultous teenage years? |
strength
Junior Member
Username: strength
Post Number: 49
Registered: 8-2007
Posted From: 64.229.9.208
| | Posted on Thursday, September 27, 2007 - 5:13 pm: |
|
I have that document, its the waiver our parents signed about discipline. The problem is that my internet is down, and I'm over at a friends', away from all my documents.
I'll get back to you ASAP with the actual wording. |
|
