The Right to Know is the Bedrock of Democracy

The following text was posted by Dick Nadeau on his website 20 January 2001 shortly after the Project Truth sex abuse trial of Cornwall lawyer and Church canon lawyer Jacques Leduc had commenced with Justice Colin McKinnon on the bench  This is the posting which triggered Justice Colin McKinnon to officially cite Dick with contempt of court (that was before McKinnon was forced to recuse himself due to his conflicts of interest)


The right to know is the bedrock of our democracy. Four newspaper articles are published on site so that the reader can read what’s being said about my “faux-pas” and the many accusations about the site changing the course of all the sexual abuse trials. Those complaining are the police and the lawyers. It would appear that every defense lawyer is going to use the site as an excuse for stepping out of a jury trial. Is this the new strategy, to villify me and discredit the site? They did that to Perry Dunlop. Almost all of the trials to date have been by judge alone and that will continue. No pedophile wants to be tried by a jury, given the emotional nature of the testimony. That was the problem with Leduc. He earlier stated that he wanted a trial by judge and jury. His lawyers changed his mind and they had to make an application to the judge to change to trial by judge only. The Crown wanted a trial by jury but the judge showed no inclination in her direction, citing the fact that it would be difficult to find a fair and impartial jury in Cornwall, and no doubt the costs played a role if the judge was right about the numbers required for a jury pool. This occurred the day before the Defence trotted out the web site as their proof that Leduc could not get a fair trial due to “the site having poisoned the jury pool”. Imagine!

The Crown would not be successful in her request for a jury trial. She knew it the day before. Stating that it was the web site’s fault as to why she caved in to a judge alone trial, is hogwash. I don’t understand what she was trying to do. Had she won, the Defence would have asked for a change of venue and got it. The judge had already stated that it would be difficult to find a “fair and impartial jury”. She had to know that so why would she persist? They all want to move the trial out of Cornwall? Why? Shelley Hallett is the Crown. She is from Toronto and works for either the Attorney or Solicitor General. We know the Harris agenda. There’s already been all kinds of obstruction plus the failure of Bill 103. The trials have become political. How committed is she in her prosecution or is Harris talking here.

They don’t seem to have much faith in the the people of Cornwall either. Can’t get a jury!!! Because of the site??? Give me a break! Everybody is not on-line. Those who do read the site, I’m sure are quite capable of being fair and impartial given the facts. I find their remarks very elitist, condescending and insulting to the people of Cornwall. The site is being used as a red herring trying to divert attention away from the real issues. The authorities want control of all the information. Otherwise, they say, it presents problems in bringing their cases to trial. I strongly believe in the right to know. There are more than one thousand e-mails that support the site.

The justice system has not worked for us. Too few people charged and those found guilty given a slap on the wrist. Remember Garth Pelkey. Four boys charged him the first time and he got a conditional discharge. The authorities say I’m irresponsible. How about their responsibility? Who are they accountable to when a Garth Pelkey is allowed his freedom only to sexually abuse and destroy other boys. Who is responsible for the Harvey Latour trial fiasco? How come the Crown didn’t appeal? Who can we go to when we see an abuse of trust and authority and feel certain that it will be taken care of? Without information, we are powerless. We are up against a ruling class, and it makes no sense to ask them to reform themselves.

Judge Colin McKinnon is relatively new to the bench, some four years I think. He is said to be a good judge. But prior to becoming a judge, he had a successful law practice. He was in fact the lawyer for our former Chief of Police Claude Shaver. He knows all about the cover-ups over the Father Charlie/Ken Seguin affair. He knows about Cornwall’s troubles. He knows that Shaver is a pedophile and yet, had him as client. Did he check his biases and prejudices at the door?

So what does this judge bring to this trial. Am I concerned? You bet I am. Should he as the lawyers say, recuse himself from the bench? Can we expect him to be ” fair and impartial”? Leduc is a lawyer, a Church canon lawyer and thus part of the Establishment. His lawyers are pros in defending sexual abuse cases. Will the judge defer to them as was already shown in the courtroom? Does the judge understand how much life-long damage a pedophile causes to the life of a boy. Does he care? Leduc will be found guilty. The sentencing is quite another matter. No doubt there will be all kinds of character witnesses saying how good a man Leduc is. The bishop might even show up. Make Judge McKinnon accountable. There are a lot of politics at work in this trial. Find time to attend