Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

DonLever

John Furlong, CEO of Vanoc, Accused of Abuse in Schools

36 posts in this topic

Who is doing that? Maybe I missed a post, but I don't see anyone here claiming that. Other than maybe Jagermeister, but I think he was referring to the comment from Furlong's press conference when he claimed that years ago he was “advised that for a payment it could be made to go away”.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't exactly understand what type of "school" it is he worked at but if it's anything close to being a residential school that might be why he chose to omit that period of his life from his book. Residential schools are a black mark on Canadian history and having the person who was in charge of the Olympics be associated with them, whether he committed abuse or not, wouldn't go over well.

Thanks to BertuzziBabe for posting those other articles from that reporter. I don't know if the reporter's intentions were malicious but she might have just realized the inconsistency and failure to acknowledge his past involvement at the school and started digging while at the same time being stonewalled by Furlong.

This story won't go away now. I'll wait to reserve judgment on John Furlong. In any case it was a mistake omitting a five year period of his life from the book but that doesn't automatically make him guilty either.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a report from an Ontario news outlet alleging the "sexual' part.No link but that is what was on Pratt's show.

Dan Russell really put a good question out regarding Furlong saying nothing eventful happened in Burns Lake so that's why he didn't mention it.

Russell points out both of Furlong's kids were born there and he may have met his wife there. I'd think that to be memorable.

Also as to the "money will make it go aweay "bit, the reporter who broke the story says that particular complaintant was not used for the stories or affidavits.

Supposedly Bob Macken has a vid on his site of Furlong flipping out on him in regards to a question.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it quite disgusting and appaling at how people jump the gun to automatically assume the alleged victims want money.

First off, they waited this long because most of these individuals were 11 or 12 at the time and tried to suppress what happend. This is not shocking. I have a couple of friends who have done research on native individuals and what has led them to be in the Criminal Justice System as much as they are. One of the first things they say is that a lot of native people suppress bad things that happen to them simply because they do not believe they will be trusted. Especially when the incidents occur on the reserve. Thiis leads to drug addiction/alcohol abuse/etc and then crime to feed these addictions.

In addition, it is mentioned in the Georgia Straight article that these individuals did try to reach Furlong. Furlong ignored all of these gestures , except one which occured prior to the Olympics.

Third, I do not care if any journalist has an agenda. Someone doesnt write an investigative piece that clearly took months to get facts about just because they have an agenda. The owners of the Georgia Straight would not put extensive resources if they believed something was nothing more than a "personal agenda".

Four, the biggest question to ask is why did Furlong say he moved to Canada in 74 in his book when he actually moved in 1969. Also the fact that individuals who hired Furlong onto Vanoc can not answer what his employment record was and what research they did clearly brings about more questions.

Furlong can admantly deny whatever the heck he wants. However, where there is smoke there tends to be fire. I just can not logically crasp why Furlong would hide his first 5 years in Canada in his book if he had nothing to hide

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a report from an Ontario news outlet alleging the "sexual' part.No link but that is what was on Pratt's show.

Dan Russell really put a good question out regarding Furlong saying nothing eventful happened in Burns Lake so that's why he didn't mention it.

Russell points out both of Furlong's kids were born there and he may have met his wife there. I'd think that to be memorable.

Also as to the "money will make it go aweay "bit, the reporter who broke the story says that particular complaintant was not used for the stories or affidavits.

Supposedly Bob Macken has a vid on his site of Furlong flipping out on him in regards to a question.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is doing that? Maybe I missed a post, but I don't see anyone here claiming that. Other than maybe Jagermeister, but I think he was referring to the comment from Furlong's press conference when he claimed that years ago he was “advised that for a payment it could be made to go away”.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a report from an Ontario news outlet alleging the "sexual' part.No link but that is what was on Pratt's show.

Dan Russell really put a good question out regarding Furlong saying nothing eventful happened in Burns Lake so that's why he didn't mention it.

Russell points out both of Furlong's kids were born there and he may have met his wife there. I'd think that to be memorable.

Also as to the "money will make it go aweay "bit, the reporter who broke the story says that particular complaintant was not used for the stories or affidavits.

Supposedly Bob Macken has a vid on his site of Furlong flipping out on him in regards to a question.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those charges are serious criminal offenses. If they are true, why has the RCMP not launched an investigation into them? Or have the RCMP looked into them and decided not to lay charges.

The Georgia Straight claimed it has 8 affadavits from former students alleging the abuse perpetrated by John Furlong.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This story won't go away now. I'll wait to reserve judgment on John Furlong. In any case it was a mistake omitting a five year period of his life from the book but that doesn't automatically make him guilty either.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would point out that what was acceptable treatment of any student has changed over the years.

The strap was a tool used on students, and I've had chalk thrown at me along with the rare ear tweak or tug.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if the allegations were true (minus the sexual abuse part), would you reprimand someone for something that was common practice and legal in 1969? I don't know about everyone else here but I'm indifferent about the allegations whether true or untrue. I'm not going to judge someone's action in 1969 by 2012 moral standards.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually just looked up laws, apparently a teacher can still hit a student (no weapons) from the ages of 2-12.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually just looked up laws, apparently a teacher can still hit a student (no weapons) from the ages of 2-12.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SCOC was clear that the law is to be applied differently as between teaches and parents. See Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76, 2004 SCC 4

http://scc.lexum.org...4/2004scc4.html

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin writing for the majority revised legal doctrine that had lumped parents and teachers together. McLachlin wrote "corporal punishment by teachers is unacceptable," but the court nonetheless concluded that teachers could use reasonable force to "remove children from classrooms or secure compliance with instructions."

38
Contemporary social consensus is that, while teachers may sometimes use corrective force to remove children from classrooms or secure compliance with instructions, the use of corporal punishment by teachers is not acceptable. Many school boards forbid the use of corporal punishment, and some provinces and territories have legislatively prohibited its use by teachers: see, e.g.,
Schools
Act, 1997
, S.N.L. 1997, c. S-12.2, s. 42;
School Act
, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 412, s. 76(3);
Education Act
, S.N.B. 1997, c. E-1.12, s. 23;
School Act
, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. S-2.1, s. 73;
Education Act
, S.N.W.T. 1995, c. 28, s. 34(3);
Education Act
, S.Y. 1989-90, c. 25, s. 36. This consensus is consistent with Canada’s international obligations, given the findings of the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations noted above. Section 43 will protect a teacher who uses reasonable, corrective force to restrain or remove a child in appropriate circumstances. Substantial societal consensus, supported by expert evidence and Canada’s treaty obligations, indicates that corporal punishment by teachers is unreasonable.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I disagree with you but the Department of Justice website states "The parent, caregiver, or teacher using force must be correcting behaviour at the time it is happening, and the person must not use force on a child in anger."

http://www.justice.g...fo/mcb-cce.html

If what you say is true they should probably update it to not include teachers as a part of it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now, CKNW's Dan Russell is discussing the case.

One of the interesting question is why did he did not mention his Burns Lake work experience in his auto-biography. He entirely omitted it. He just talked about arriving in Canada for the first time in Edmonton.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.