CBC :
"Father Lucien Larre said elevating Morgentaler to the Order of Canada "degrades" the award for those who believe in the sanctity of human life.
Morgentaler is best known for taking his fight to the Supreme Court, which struck down the country's abortion laws 20 years ago. He was named to the Order of Canada earlier this week."
Father Larre, on the other hand, is probably best known for being convicted in 1992 on two counts of physically abusing children in his care at Bosco Homes in Saskatchewan: slapping and choking a female, and forcing another to take pills to teach her a lesson about drug abuse.
Nine other charges including one of sexual abuse were overturned.
In 1998, Larre registered as a psychologist in B.C., but the B.C. College of Psychologists suspended his registration because it felt he posed "an immediate risk to the public."
I'm wondering why Father Lucien didn't return his OC then.
7 comments:
Awesome Alison...he he he...
Larre can criticize when the Catholic Church sells its Trillions in art and real estate to feed the poor!
Oh sweet hypocrisy. It's good for several lolz in the morning.
I agree with you entirely that Larre is a hypocrite. Just want to say, some of what you've noted about him with respect to the criminal charges are not things he was convicted of. One charge, one day in jail and a $2500. fine. He has received a full pardon, to which he was entitled, and he has no criminal record, so was clear to receive the Order of Canada. As for his suspension by the B.C. Psych Assoc., there has been no disciplinary hearing, so they are unproven. What the Assoc. said was, if the charges were true, he would be an immediate risk and that's how they determine the issue of suspension.
Still, I'm sure no skin off anyone's nose that he gave his award back. Major wev.
I've worked in a Bosco home, the type that Larre founded. They're foul places in my view and anyone who gave him the OC for thinking them up never spent any time there. Feh.
Trying this again, as blogger ate the comment the first time:
There's a good discussion going on over at The Beav on this, Alison. Thanks for posting it!
BTW, you're linked at CBC - BC on the article, too.
Good on ya' . . . . ;-)
"Just want to say, some of what you've noted about him with respect to the criminal charges are not things he was convicted of."
Hysperia : Am I using the term "convicted" incorrectly?
He was charged with the two offences I mentioned, he pled guilty, and he was sentenced.
While it would have been charitable of me to mention that he later petitioned for and was granted a pardon, a recourse available to anyone who has served their sentence out, it erases the petitioner's criminal record but doesn't mean the original offences and convictions never happened.
Thanks, WEB. ;-)
Alison, you're absolutely right in your use of convicted in this case. If you had said, for example, "...Larre, ..., is probably best known for having a criminal record ..." then you'd be wrong, but you didn't, so it's all good. A pardon doesn't change history, it simply changes what records are kept in relation to history.
Post a Comment