In my first Saturday blog posting, I’d like to draw attention back to Perry Dunlop, who has been the subject of comment since Commissioner G. Normand Glaude released his report on the Cornwall Public Inquiry on December 15, 2009.
Dunlop’s story deserves to remain in the public eye, for reasons I will explain below.
The headlines following the report’s release spoke of findings, blame and moving on. “Inquiry draws no firm conclusion on abuse ring claim”, read a Globe and Mail headline. “Cornwall moves on after child sex abuse scandal” announced the CBC.
But amidst all this talk of closure, there was hardly a word for Perry Dunlop, the whistleblowing police officer who stood up when nobody else would. Perry Dunlop, the man who sacrificed his job to bring to light child abuse perpetrated by trusted authority figures in Cornwall.
He paid a heavy price for that. He was charged under the Police Services Act for going to the Children’s Aid Society, won at a board of inquiry, then had to fight again when the Cornwall Police appealed the decision.
He won again, but his career in the police came to a screeching halt. Behind the scenes, there were rumours circulating about him – rumours that killed his attempt to join the RCMP. He lacked integrity and honesty, he was told.
There were threats, too. Calls in the night.
Finally, Dunlop had had enough. He packed his bags and moved to B.C.
But his ordeal wasn’t over. When the Cornwall Public Inquiry was finally called, it insisted that he testify. Dunlop was suspicious, and rightly so. The mandate of the inquiry didn’t include looking into the truth of sexual abuse allegations. None of the offenders would be called.
Dunlop had seen this game before. It involved him being a punching bag for Cornwall city, police and diocese lawyers. It involved his integrity being put on trial without hearing evidence about the actual assaults.
Knowing that this wouldn’t be a fair to him or his family and exhausted from years of fighting, he refused. For his refusal, he spent seven months in jail. It wasn’t a walk in the park, either: he was only allowed two 30 minute visits a week, spent much of his time in isolation. When his mother grandmother died, he was taken in handcuffs at night to view her.
When he was finally released it was probably because it was becoming embarrassing and not because anyone in authority actually thought it was the right thing to do. He has since appealed the sentence, but it’s anyone’s guess how that will turn out.
And what is said of him in papers now?
“The pedophile clan theory is largely credited to former Cornwall police officer Perry Dunlop,” wrote the Toronto Star. “His unsanctioned, off-hours investigation is credited with bringing many allegations to light, but also with fuelling the clan theory. Dunlop spent seven months in jail for contempt when he refused to testify at the inquiry of his own making, saying he no longer had faith in the system.”
Commissioner Glaude discounted the pedophile clan theory outright. This theory suggested that powerful men sexually abused boys at a cottage during strange rituals.
It isn’t hard to read between the lines: Perry Dunlop was a little bit right, but he was also wrong. And because he was wrong, he is at fault. Perhaps he even deserved the hell he went through.
This line of reasoning is wrong – in fact, repulsive – on so many levels.
First of all, he’s a whistleblower: he reported wrongdoing. How he did it, and to whom, shouldn’t matter. It’s also a generally accepted international policy that as long as a person reports wrongdoing in good faith, they should be protected – even if they don’t have all the facts, or get something wrong.
Secondly, Glaude admits that he didn’t look at evidence. He didn’t have all the facts at hand and so shouldn’t have made an unqualified judgment about the clan.
It’s interesting that he exceeds his mandate on this one point, but refuses to do it on another: “Throughout this inquiry I have heard evidence that suggested that there were cases of joint abuse, passing of alleged victims, and possibly passive knowledge of abuse,” Glaude wrote.
If that isn’t the very definition of a conspiracy, or, say, a ring of pedophiles, I don’t know what is.
But Glaude couldn’t come out and say that; it was outside his mandate. Instead, he simply wrote “I want to be very clear that I am not going to make a pronouncement on whether a ring existed or not.”
Such courage.
It’s also wrong because it suggests that Dunlop should be perfect – that he should be held to so high a standard that he shines with purity.
This is nonsense. Dunlop is human. Even if he is dead wrong about some things – and I’m not convinced he is dead wrong about anything – he deserves to be judged on the same standards as the police officers who did nothing when faced with the same knowledge he had.
Measured on that standard, he is indeed a shining star.
There’s more, too: Glaude blasts former MPP Garry Guzzo and the Project Truth website for being “reckless” and fueling “gossip and innuendo.” It’s hard to understand how Glaude could be critical of these sources when he is so aware of the gross negligence and ineptitude of the police and the Crown. “In the course of this inquiry, I have been asked to find that Perry Dunlop is a hero. And that he is a villain,” wrote Glaude, “I do neither. His is a mixed legacy.”
Glaude seems to want it both ways – to blame people who tried to force action on a critical issue of child safety, while at the same time acknowledging that the police did a bad job.
In doing so, he seems to miss the crucial point: none of this would have come to light without the efforts of Perry Dunlop.
This case underlines the need for whistleblower protection across all levels of government in Ontario, and even in the private sector. As things stand, others who have seen what happened to Dunlop can’t be blamed for thinking that speaking out on even something as important as sexual abuse will destroy their lives.
Is that what Canadians want? A society where bullies can commit any offence, confident in their power to silence people of conscience?
I don’t think it is, and I disagree with Glaude. Dunlop is a hero because he stood up when others would not. He was persistent in the face of persecution. Because of this, he may well have prevented other lives being devastated. And what thanks does Glaude give him? What thanks do Cornwallers and Canadians give him? A ruined career, jail time, and a stain on his character.
We should all be ashamed.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
To read more about Perry Dunlop and the Cornwall Public inquiry, visit “The Inquiry,” a website maintained by Sylvia Maceachern. Sylvia also has an excellent blog on the inquiry.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
