The Hanoski Case: Can we hope to break the eight years of silence?

The Hanoski case outcome needs transparency to be of any tangible use to Joe Hanoski and to the Catholics in the parishes operated by the Diocese of Kingston.

by Tom Thorne

For the past month I have been attending four useful sessions about sex abuse initiated by Father John Hibbard, of Holy Rosary Parish here in Belleville and supported by the Sisters of Providence. 

The idea is to place the sexual abuse issues into a form that we can examine. The objective is to try to understand this issue and work out ways to deal with it personally and as a parish. These sessions were the result of the Hanoski versus Hamilton legal action now before the courts.

The natural inclination for Catholics is to try to heal when trust in a priest has been compromised as it was by the swift and silent removal of Holy Rosary’s last pastor Father Paul Hamilton some eight years ago.

Suffice it to say the four sessions helped refocus in a positive way the negative feelings of betrayal and helplessness that people of the parish feel about this lingering situation. 

No one would speak about a case that is and remains frozen in silence by all concerned. The silence was deafening for eight years so to finally get the issue out into an open session was useful although the issue of what happens when the Hanoski versus Hamilton legal civil case now before the courts goes to settlement or some kind of resolution is still unresolved.

The fact remains that due to the legal advice to retain silence when the case is before the courts the actual outcome of this legal process probably will entail a settlement of some kind and a call for all parties to agree to further silence. 

This will serve the needs of courts, lawyers and any insurance companies making cash settlements on behalf of the Diocese of Kingston. I suspect this will be the case if it hasn’t already happened and as a result no one, the alleged victim, the alleged abuser, or the Diocese of Kingston can say anything about the settlement when it is accepted by all parties. 

That is simply wrong. This case does not just include the plaintiff and the accused priests or the corporate well being of the Diocese of Kingston. It first includes the Holy Rosary Parish and all the other parishes of the diocese. 

The outcome of this case should be public. If guilt is established then it needs to be out in the open. If there is no proof then this needs to stated. If the parties cannot prove their case, but came to a financial settlement that should also be known.

Why is this necessary? Catholics each week contribute money to their parish and by extension provide revenues to support the centralized operations of the diocese. If the diocese makes a settlement, buys insurance for these kinds of claims, then the parishes in the diocese should have a full accounting of the costs of this issue when these cases go to trial or into settlement.

In this situation, Archbishop Brendan O’Brian needs to instruct the diocese lawyers, and likely an insurance company, that he needs transparency about the outcome. If he did this before trial discovery process things would go very differently for this case. The parties may wish to re-examine where they stand if full public disclosure is on the table. It would certainly alter the negotiations for a legal settlement.

The Archbishop needs to ask himself why do legal procedures that impose more silence trump the work of Christ?  If the Diocese works from the first principles of Christ, then truth becomes important. Silence is not an option, only foregiveness, reconciliation and unconditional love should guide decisions.

When you go to a civil legal action you enter a potentially public arena if the case goes to open court. In these type of cases the victim is not the only casualty. The parish also suffers, and everything is up for grabs.

To do less means that the participants cannot move on. If they agree to silence as an element of a legal a settlement everyone involved remains in a limbo state which ultimately tears at the fabric of the Church, the victim, the priests and aids in the work of self deception and more negative behavior from all concerned.

That is why transparency is important after eight years of silence for the Hanoski-Hamilton case. Continued silence ensures that this specific case remains in limbo and does little to resolve sex abuse in the future work of the Church.

© Copyright 2012, Tom Thorne, All Rights Reserved 

The Iran Israel war. It's probably started long ago on the secret front.

The gloomy prospect of Iran-Israel hostilities over alleged nukes looms large.

Why Israel is likely to act against Iran soon.

by Tom Thorne

The current low key civil war in Syria is ultimately the end of the Assad regime. It is only a matter of time.  The Assad regime has lost its authority and credibility  to govern by using an over the top violent approach to dissonant voices. 

Add a ham fisted approach to constitutional reform to the agenda. Finally using the army pound its alleged dissonant citizens with artillery and mortar fire. The result is a death toll of probably 8,000 people. 

The fascist Ba'ath Party has ruled in both Syria and Iraq for a long time. In Iraq the Ba'ath Party ruler was the now deceased Saddam Hussein. In Syria Ba'ath remains under the control of the Assad family. 

The strength of the Ba'ath experience is that it brought a non-religious government to the middle east but it also brought brutal dictatorships as the price for keeping fundamentalist Muslim aspirations at bay. 

Since Iraq was oil rich this oppressive regime was encouraged by the western powers to keep anti-western groups under control. As a result the oil flowed to the west from Iraq.

The ultimate weakness of the Ba'ath Party is it uses brutal dictatorships to modernize both Syria and Iraq and tamp down Muslim fundamentalism. In true fascist form these governments rule with an iron hand. There is a  stability in place until they are overthrown or undermined. 

In the case of Iraq they experienced US military might and occupation for going too far muscling the Gulf emirates. Once the dictator is disposed as in the case of Saddam Hussein, chaos reigns. That is the case for Iraq and the the US involvement. It may also be the case in Syria after Assad falls.

The experience of post dictatorship chaos is also happening in Egypt, and to some degree in Libya.  Therefore don't expect that there will be some great need for democracy lurking ready to take over from dictatorship once these regimes fall. 

In Egypt the Army remains in control even after the recent parliamentary elections. The Egyptian Army tamps down the impact of the majority received at the polls by the Muslim Brotherhood's political party. The fall of the Mubarak regime has not appreciably changed the status quo 

in Egypt.

In Libya there is a political void as Libyans try to structure a new regime. In Syria a slow boil civil war has started and although the regime is supported by China and Russia its days are numbered. 

The rest of the Middle East wants the status quo to remain. However, change keeps happening everywhere. The Arab Spring? It's more like the Arab Chaos.

That brings us to Iran. Iran is a rogue state threatening to bring nuclear weapons on line in the Middle East. Israel is not about to tolerate this change in the military status quo. Israel the only power in the region with nuclear capability. That is their security ace in the hole.

From a real politick point of view taking out Iran's nuclear abilities is now on the table. It is now a viable option because the arab world is in a lot of turmoil and  not in a position to respond very well to an Israeli attack on Iran.

The Egyptian Army could not be brought into a fight. In addition, Egypt would first have to renounce the peace treaty it has with Israel. The consequences of that decision would mean hostility with Israel. That’s not a good idea at the moment. 

The Jordanians can't do very much alone. Syria is caught up in its internal issues. Libya is also not in a position to stop or contribute to fighting Israel. 

And Israel will simply tighten controls of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank if they take on Iran.  

So this leaves Israel in a position to slow the Iranian nuclear ambitions. It is a good time militarily to knock out Iran. The downside is that Israel can do this without too much fear of attack from surrounding arab states.  For that reason it may prove the moment to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities.

If there is no military attack on Iran's nuclear installations watch for Mossad (Israel's secret service) operations against senior Iranian nuclear technocrats and engineers working for Iran's nuclear program. They will all need a high level of security to go anywhere or leave Iran for any reason.

© Copyright 2012, Tom Thorne, All Rights Reserved

New Democrats need to move to the centre with the Liberal Party if they want to defeat Stephen Harper.

The New Democratic Party leadership race dramatizes the need in Canada for a strong centralist political party to emerge to counter Stephen Harper's right wing agendas.

by Tom Thorne

When Ed Broadbent, former New Democratic Party (NDP) leader and party guru, attacked Thomas Mulcair the alleged front runner in the NDP leadership race, Broadbent's misguided actions dramatized a major need in Canadian politics. That need is for a centralist political expression to counter the Harper Conservatives. 

As much as I respect Ed Broadbent he is simply wrong if he thinks that the NDP can maintain a separate stance from others who express progressive policies in this country. 

Think about it. Thomas Mulcair expresses a more centralist agenda for the NDP. Ed Broadbent and his candidate Brian Topp represent the NDP status quo. I've got news for the NDP, had Jack Layton lived would have also faced this issue.

With the Liberal Party on the back burner, there is no strong parliamentary force to counter the Harper agenda, although Bob Rae as interim Liberal leader is proving a good foil for Harper government excesses. But it is not enough.

Earlier in this blog about the time of the last election and Jack Layton's unfortunate death, I stated quite clearly that a merger of the Liberal Party and the NDP was inevitable. If that doesn't happen both these parties will dissolve into bowl of red and orange Jello unless a new centralist party springs up to fill the void.

The reason this doesn't happen between the NDP and Liberals is simply baggage from the past gets in the way. It may take another election and another Harper win with only 38 percent of the popular vote, for the so called left and the centre to get their acts together to oppose and replace the Harper right wing agenda.

By the time this happens Harper will have put his conservative stamp on Canada and it will be difficult to undo this move to the right for some time. That is why the Liberals and NDP have to forge first an  alliance in this parliament and ultimately a new political entity that is clearly the enemy of right wing agendas before the next federal election. That would place Harper on notice.

And what are these right wing agendas that need to be opposed? More attention to privilege, more tax breaks for corporations, more doctrinaire approaches to labour settlements which are basically anti union. There will be more prisons and more prisoners serving more time. Guns will go uncontrolled. Social programs for an aging population will be whittled down, Canada on the international stage will remain the laughing stock on human rights, aid, and the environment.

That is the price for supporting separate NDP and Liberal parties. It is clearly time for Canadians to recognize that politics has been polarized in this country and to establish a vital political balance the centralist option has to have a fighting chance at the polls in the next federal election. 

Thomas Mulcair may take a reluctant NDP struggling and kicking towards the centre and that is what the Laurier Street head office NDP establishment fears most. Canadians should have anxiety about this doctrinaire view by the left because it will leave Canada with right wing view of this country.

© Copyright 2012, Tom Thorne, All Rights Reserved 

The Hanoski court action gets the Church talking...

The Hanoski court action has set off the healing process at Holy Rosary Parish. It is good to get back into the light again.

by Tom Thorne

Father John Hibbard, Holy Rosary’s pastor, has launched three sessions about sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. For the past two Wednesday evenings this topic has been candidly discussed at the parish with the third session tonight.

This is a healthy start to this hard topic. The church has to deal with sexual abuse and its clerical predators in the open. The first evening Father Hibbard dealt with the process of coping with sexual abuse when it surfaces.

He spoke of denial, reality and finally acceptance all tethered together with a sense of betrayal and anger that the predator has left with the victim, the parish members and the church in general. It is like a yawning void.

The difficulties of resolving such a crisis were discussed. The really hard part is accepting the predator but not what he did. The natural tendency of Christians is to forgive and it is a hard test of this precept to resolve this point for the parish members and the clergy who have to deal with the aftermath and acknowledge the loss of trust.

The most revealing point of the first evening was Father Hibbard’s point that pedophiles have no remorse and the complex psychopathic notions that predators have about their “relationships” with the victim makes it hard to reach them with the extent of the damage they have inflicted on a victim.

A priest who is charged with sexual abuse is removed from all active ministry. Due to legalities there has and continues to be silence which can be seen as covering up. The optics of any one of these cases is poor from a public point of view.

In addition is the financial burdens shouldered by the diocese and the ultimate liabilities when the cases go to court and guilt is established. A criminal action certainly will come with jail time if guilt is established. 

Father Hibbard told of one priest who did jail time for his crimes which was particularly hard on him personally because he had worked with this person as seminary candidate and felt that he had been let down badly. Priests he pointed out are just as human as their parishioners and he had a very difficult time with this situation.

The second week was a session with Sister Francis O’Brian of the Sisters of Providence. Sister O’Brian has counseled both victims and predators. She discussed the problem of sexual abuse as a trauma.  A trauma in your life alters the path of your life. She candidly used the example of her mother’s violent death when she fell down a flight of stairs and died alone.

Sister then took this example of trauma as the base of a sexual abuse experience. It is just as shocking and disjointing and it alters your life. If you are religious then any traumatic experience tests your faith.

She related this level of trauma to the Holy Rosary situation with Father Paul Hamilton’s removal eight years ago and the surfacing of this case in civil court this year. Sister then related this situation to anger, confusion and lack of information experienced attached to the recent case of Father Rene Labelle in Kingston who was recently charged by the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP). In short, there is no easy way to deal with a sexual abuse charge.

Sexual abuse has big effects. There is a loss of self esteem, depression, flashbacks, disassociations and even in her experience self mutilation by victims. Accused priests lose everything. They experience loneliness, they cannot work, and they remain in a silent legal limbo. Even when they are cleared of charges they remain stigmatized.

In an audience discussion afterwards trauma was seen as the best way to adequately describe the aftermath of sexual abuse. Everyone feels a certain powerlessness, vulnerability, and parents have anxieties about how safe their children are at church. 

Father Hibbard candidly answered questions about seminary screening these days to weed out sexual predators. He answered that  the Church denied sexual abuse cases the past as a gut reaction to protecting the organization. He also stated that in his time at seminary celibacy of priests was discussed but very little about sexuality. Certainly there was no course about sexual abuse. In contemporary seminaries all these topics are now on the curricula.

The sessions have been a refreshing examination of sexual abuse issues in the contemporary Catholic Church. These parish sessions go a long way to allowing the issue to surface and ultimately to be dealt with in a candid open fashion. Hopefully in the case of the Hanoski experience we get the know the outcome of that civil court proceeding. To do that the diocese cannot agree to silence after the settlement.

© Copyright, Tom Thorne, All Rights Reserved.

Hanoski case registered in Toronto court. Out of town is not out of touch.

Father René Labelle charged with sexual abuse by the Ontario Provincial Police. This is the way it is supposed to work.

by Tom Thorne

Father René Labelle was charged yesterday by the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) in Kingston, Ontario with alleged sexual assault of a teenage boy in 2004. Now this is the way it is supposed to work unlike the Hanoski case which is resorting to a civil court action to make a case.

In addition, the Hanoski civil case is launched in Toronto Ontario Superior Court which makes it difficult to get at the court documents without making an expensive 200 km. trip to see them. Any activity on this case will take place in Toronto far away from Belleville and Kingston. Perhaps the strategy is to be out of sight and out of mind? 

The Labelle case will get a plea from the defendant on 27 March 2012 in Kingston court. That appears never to have happened in the Hanoski case as far as I can discern at this time.

We need to know about any Hanoski discovery meeting and also any booking of trial time in Toronto should that be needed. That would only happen if the parties cannot come to some settlement.

As I said earlier I don't expect a trial I expect that the parties will concoct  a settlement. That can only mean that the proof of the case is poor or difficult or that there are no witnesses willing to come forward. 

The Court Rules of Civil Procedures go as follows. The Claim is made, in this case by Joseph Hanoski. The Defence, in this case probably the Archdiocese of Kingston and perhaps the priests themselves, is presented to the court by their lawyer. 

The parties must exchange all documents within 10 days and possibly go to an Examination of Discovery to figure out the nature of the evidence and to see if a settlement is possible. Then at the same time there can be a discussion of Settlement within 60 days of the Claim.

If a settlement can't be reached then the case can be set down for trial and that happens after 180 days. There is the possibility at this stage to call for Mediation of any differences preventing a settlement.

Usually the parties realize the futility of a trial and come to a settlement but if the trial goes ahead then a lot more time elapses. In this case we already have eight years of  inertia that in some ways has made any aspect of this case somewhat farcical and insipid. That is partly the reason why I expect a settlement. 

Everything has dragged on for too long. The trial route could lengthen this process by up to two years if there is a lot of legal roadblocks by the defence to prevent paying a financial settlement for as long as possible.

However, it is very likely that the Archdiocese of Kingston has some kind of insurance and if that is so then the insurance company carrying the can will make this a very hard settlement to obtain. They will keep it as low as they can and the settlement will be seen as less expensive than going to court with all its attendant costs and risks mainly for the plaintiff but actually for both parties. This is another reason why I expect a settlement. It is simply less costly.

In order to get a settlement both sides, and certainly if there is an insurance company involved, will want silence from all parties. The Insurance people will want silence because they don't need to broadcast amounts and details of the settlement as precedent for other similar cases.

Joseph Hanoski is likely to settle in silence because he will have made his point even if it remains vague and indistinct. Any settlement will come fairly soon.

© Copyright 2012, Tom Thorne, All Rights Reserved

The Hanoski Case: Keep watch for the silent settlement.

Will the gavel ever come down on the Hanoski case?

Sex abuse cases are a potential lose-lose for everyone if all you can do is launch a civil court action.

by Tom Thorne, Belleville, Ontario

An earlier statement from the Archdiocese of Kingston in Ontario about the Hanoski case confirms the following: "The Archdiocese of Kingston can confirm that it has been served with a legal action in which allegations are made by Joseph Hanoski.  These allegations have not been proven in court.  Neither of the priests named in the civil suit is presently involved in parish ministry.  Since the legal process is underway, no other information pertaining to the proceeding can be provided at this time. The Archbishop and the Archdiocese request prayers for all concerned."

When Joe Hanoski decided to bring his civil action against Father Paul Hamilton and Father Michael Reed he and his legal council must have realized that by launching this case any proof would be have to be furnished by himself. If proof had been available and clear cut before, this case would have been dealt with long ago so what can have changed?

If there are witnesses to what allegedly happened then someone may emerge who has remained silent for almost eight years.  If there are witnesses that never came forward eight years ago and they are prepared to speak now then the civil case makes some sense. If there are no witnesses or new information then it remains simply one person’s word against another.

The most pressing question is the timing of this civil action. Why have almost eight years gone by before the civil case is launched? And why was the case never been on a police blotter and if it  ever was in the police hands what happened that nothing was done or that criminal charges never materialized? I am digging further into this part of the story at this time. It is Catholic Church policy from the Vatican in such cases to report them to the police as the Archdiocese of Kingston did recently with allegations raised against Father René Labelle.

It can only be that there is no evidence that can stand up in criminal court. And so the only way for the case to surface is as a civil action which is a weaker alternative. Civil actions have a way of never getting into open court. There will be a discovery meeting and if proof or a way to resolve the issue is not forth coming then a trial could result. It is difficult to ascertain how a settlement that would satisfy Joe Hanoski can be reached. Also if the case is without any obvious merit then the judge can simply dismiss the action.

If there is any substance to the case or the parties simply want to come to terms then settlement will likely be private between the parties as I said before. The silence we have all known for the past eight years will probably continue. Since the case has not had a trial airing, the innuendos and the reputations of all concerned will remain damaged even if they are innocent. Time and more silence does not heal wounds, it simply aggravates the situation.

Let’s presume for a moment that the priests named in this civil action are innocent. Their reputations are sullied for all time unless they can show that innocence in open court or in public. Public opinion at this time is clearly favouring Joe Hanoski as an alleged victim. The public will not assume innocence for the defendants. However, the priests could always counter sue for the damage done to their reputations.

Joe Hanoski is allegedly suing for $3.5 million in damages. Who is on the hook for this money? The defendants of course but also their diocese. The defendants have no real assets, but the Archdiocese of Kingston and their insurance company does. A successful award to Joe Hanoski will be a lot less than $3.5 million in any case. However any dollar settlement is ultimately a cost to all Catholics supporting their parishes throughout the archdiocese.

How much less can the dollars involved be? A small fraction of the $3.5 million would be my guess. Then there are the costs of bringing the action and the costs for the defense . If you lose the case or it is dismissed then the plaintiff pays those court costs and the costs of any legal representation the plaintiff and the defendants may have mounted up.

If the plaintiff wins (and that means proves the case) then the defendants are subject to damages plus costs. The defendants could if proof is obtained in the civil trial also be subject to criminal action.

Joe Hanoski’s lawyer must be quite confident of winning this case to even launch a civil action of this kind. It would be foolhardy to enter into this case after eight years of silence unless there is new information or a way forward for the plaintiff. 

Just having your day in court is not enough. Going to court is always risky and going to trial even more so for all concerned. Perhaps all the participants in this exercise have not clearly thought out the implications of their actions.

Hopefully this civil court action can create a situation where justice can prevail. However justice is always blind and the results of this action may satisfy no one and the fallout may remain toxic forever. 

© Copyright 2012, Tom Thorne, All Rights Reserved.

What is happening about the Hanoski civil action? Not much to this point in time.

Justice not seen is justice not done.

The alleged sexual abuse story heats up in a flurry of speculation, innuendo and perhaps even libel.

by Tom Thorne

BELLEVILLE, Canada

Continuing my coverage of this case...

I presume that when the Quinte News Radio website publishes a comment from a certain "mike" on 21 January 2012 they can back up what he says. Mike alleges that Father Paul Hamilton and Father Michael Reed both sexually abused him when he was an alter boy at Holy Rosary. If this is not true then it is clearly libelous.

If what "mike" alleges proves to be true under oath, then the Joe Hanoski charges may have some traction.  Will this "mike" be  subpoenaed  as a witness or will he remain as an anonymous "mike" and never come forward?  Will he become yet another silent innuendo?  And so the story builds in this small Eastern Ontario town with over 51 comments appearing on the website of these local broadcasters. 

Another website styled Sylvia's Site covers the trials of alleged miscreant priests in some detail. This site, however, also contains unsubstantiated rumor about Father Paul Hamilton's alleged misuse of Holy Rosary parish funds. This rumor was denied two Sundays ago by the current Holy Rosary pastor Father John Hibbard.

Suffice it to say that Father Hibbard made it very clear that after the usual financial audits of the parish when he took over eight years ago, and after Father Paul Hamilton was placed on administrative leave, nothing was found to be wrong with the parish finances. 

Hopefully this rumor is now set to rest. It is clear that Sylvia's Site in this instance is potentially spreading innuendo if not a libel. I contacted the site yesterday asking for a comment about their sources and to this point have not received a reply.

The other website that is very pro Hanoski is one operated by a Will Samuel, a friend of plaintiff Joe Hanoski and his wife. It is very supportive of Joe Hanoski but it is in no way anything more than an opinionated view of the alleged events. There is no substantiated facts on this website that would help us get any insights about what really happened.

So that leaves us still in a limbo state. The Archdiocese of Kingston has retained a stoney silence as they have done for over eight years. Again unsubstantiated rumor has it that the Archdiocese says that they are not responsible for any outcomes of a civil trial. 

This rumor makes absolutely no sense because they are named in Hanoski's  Statement of Claim. Of course the Archdiocese is involved in any civil action launched against any of their priests while they held an office of trust in a parish operated by the Archdiocese.

And what are the other media in  Belleville doing to get at this story? Well to this point the daily newspaper has done nothing. There is a silence from the Intelligencer. They have not followed up on the Quinte News radio story.

Another aspect of this story also needs an airing. There is interesting outcome in civil law for not hearing civil cases for members of "self governing organizations". The Catholic Church and its archdioceses fall under this heading and in particular a case involving Father Brian Hart was lost on appeal when Hart attempted to launch a civil action against The Archdiocese of Kingston.

Hart lost his appeal because he was subject to processes under Canon Law. Priests and nuns are not employees in the sense that they are subject to secular civil employment law. They are subject to their own Canon Law processes. However, they are subject to criminal law.

That may account for why Father Paul Hamilton has been only subject to Canon law but those accused of alleged sexual indiscretions are by the same token reported to the police by an Archdiocese for possible civil or criminal action. That just happened in the Archdiocese of Kingston with the reported case of Father Rene Labelle eight days ago covered by the Kingston Whig Standard and CKWS TV news.

Yesterday I emailed Archbishop Brendan O'Brian in search of clarification of where the Archdiocese of Kingston stands on the civil action brought against Father Paul Hamilton and Father Michael Reed.

There seems to be two standards at work here. The  Archdiocese reported Father Labelle to the police for their potential action according to the Whig Standard and CKWS stories. Why then has Father Hamilton's case taken so long and  was it reported to the police when it happened almost eight years ago?  And if it was reported to the police back then what evidence was there?  Time to get some answers. If this civil case goes to a settlement hearing the parties will probably agree to maintain silence forever.

© Copyright 2012, Tom Thorne, All Rights Reserved