35 replies to this topic

[ToadBrother]

No, I'm not an executive. I am just a leader. However I HAVE seen the type the BPSA enlists. Leaders who put an entire Cub Pack at risk, and were called on it, so they quit because they didn't think the risk warrented their being called for it. They went to the BPSA who are so anxious for leaders they would take them.

Sort of like the Judean Peoples Front, bloody splitters.

[sharkman]

They were only returning 60% in our district.

Putting future young men and women into an organization that is tainted by scandal and corruption would not set a very good example. I know of a number of other scouting type groups that have managed to maintain a strictly voluntary organization. Baden Powell would be ashamed if he knew what was going on today....

Keep in mind I am a scout to this day and take my oaths and responsibilities seriously. However, there is no place for these kinds of dishonour to the scouting movement. It would be much better if we just moved on.

BTW Do you remember the Red Cross?

A tainted organization? Nothing personal, but that's hogwash. The school system is tainted. Oranized sports, clubs, daycare, the military, all tainted by scandal or corruption at one time or another. Just about any vocation, any university or any government too. Keeping one's children away from organizations tainted with scandal would condemn the kids to staying home 24/7...whoops, yet another place of scandal.


The CBC picks and chooses topics according to their badly distorted world view. Nothing new here.

[charter.rights]

No, I'm not an executive. I am just a leader. However I HAVE seen the type the BPSA enlists. Leaders who put an entire Cub Pack at risk, and were called on it, so they quit because they didn't think the risk warrented their being called for it. They went to the BPSA who are so anxious for leaders they would take them.

And how do you think pedophiles got into Scouts?

In many districts here in Ontario there are no enough leaders to keep Cub and Scout meetings going. They'll take anyone that can pass a police check.

[scouterjim]

And how do you think pedophiles got into Scouts?

In many districts here in Ontario there are no enough leaders to keep Cub and Scout meetings going. They'll take anyone that can pass a police check.

We stringently watch each other. It is second nature with long time Scouters. The case with the Scouters who went to the BPSA wasn't about pedophiles. It was putting the youth in physical danger that could have ended in serious physical harm, or even death. They ignored the rules and went ahead with what they were doing. One of their leaders was suspended, so the others quit. In my opinion, if the BPSA is willing to take them on, they can have them. The safety of the youth is PARAMOUNT!

[Spire]

We stringently watch each other. It is second nature with long time Scouters. The case with the Scouters who went to the BPSA wasn't about pedophiles. It was putting the youth in physical danger that could have ended in serious physical harm, or even death. They ignored the rules and went ahead with what they were doing. One of their leaders was suspended, so the others quit. In my opinion, if the BPSA is willing to take them on, they can have them. The safety of the youth is PARAMOUNT!

Ok guys, I'm BPSA and what I have to say is that like in any association, a minority always makes the whole group looks bad. We are all in the same boat with that CBC created "scandal" about something that happened when most of the current leaders were not even born. Let's stick together and forget that BPSA / Scout Canada / ASC feud.

BTW, I spoke with a high ranked official in our association 2 weeks ago about another issue related to the reforms hapenning in the the french "Association des Scouts du Canada" and the fact that a lot of leaders in that organisation are not happy with them and are thinking about making the switch. His answer is that we are not willing to take anyone that is leaving because he is "angry" at them without any other reasons. The feeling that I have is that we needs to build something and instead of competing against each other, all scouts in Canada needs to stick together and accepts each other without criticizing people with differents opinions.

EDIT: If I have only one hope, it is that the current crisis will help building bridges between associations as I think that we all have something to learn from each others.

Edited by Spire, 27 October 2011 - 07:41 AM.

[scouterjim]

Ok guys, I'm BPSA and what I have to say is that like in any association, a minority always makes the whole group looks bad. We are all in the same boat with that CBC created "scandal" about something that happened when most of the current leaders were not even born. Let's stick together and forget that BPSA / Scout Canada / ASC feud.

BTW, I spoke with a high ranked official in our association 2 weeks ago about another issue related to the reforms hapenning in the the french "Association des Scouts du Canada" and the fact that a lot of leaders in that organisation are not happy with them and are thinking about making the switch. His answer is that we are not willing to take anyone that is leaving because he is "angry" at them without any other reasons. The feeling that I have is that we needs to build something and instead of competing against each other, all scouts in Canada needs to stick together and accepts each other without criticizing people with differents opinions.

EDIT: If I have only one hope, it is that the current crisis will help building bridges between associations as I think that we all have something to learn from each others.

BPSA? So, you are not with Scouting then.

[cybercoma]

There is but one issue in this entire thing that I find disgusting on the part of Scouts Canada. Why did they make victims sign a contract agreeing to remain silent about the abuse in their settlements? This should never under any circumstances be the case when there is a situation involving the criminal code. These cases aren't The Crown Versus because they're laws against the individual, but they're crimes against society, settlement or not. Moreover, it kept others from finding out that their children may have been victimized, but have been otherwise unable to talk about it. I'm not going to go into any great depth about it, but I find the act of paying victims "hush" money to be reprehensible whether it's Scouts Canada or anybody else.

[scouterjim]

There is but one issue in this entire thing that I find disgusting on the part of Scouts Canada. Why did they make victims sign a contract agreeing to remain silent about the abuse in their settlements? This should never under any circumstances be the case when there is a situation involving the criminal code. These cases aren't The Crown Versus because they're laws against the individual, but they're crimes against society, settlement or not. Moreover, it kept others from finding out that their children may have been victimized, but have been otherwise unable to talk about it. I'm not going to go into any great depth about it, but I find the act of paying victims "hush" money to be reprehensible whether it's Scouts Canada or anybody else.

This happens in many cases, not just with SC. Businesses do it as well. The British Columbia Teachers Federation has for years "policed themselves" by settling cases out of court, and with confidentiality agreements.

[cybercoma]

This happens in many cases, not just with SC. Businesses do it as well. The British Columbia Teachers Federation has for years "policed themselves" by settling cases out of court, and with confidentiality agreements.

Yeah. And I find it just as awful when any other organization does it too. It's disgusting and should be against the law.

[cybercoma]

It's nothing personal against you or any individual involved with scouts. I just feel these confidentiality agreements in the case of sexual abuse victims is morally reprehensible. It's completely unethical regardless of who is drafting them. Scouts, nevertheless, is legally allowed to do this and was probably advised by lawyers to do so in order to protect its image. Meanwhile, other victims suffer in silence because a community of victims is not allowed to publically offer their support. It really pisses me off.

[scouterjim]

It's nothing personal against you or any individual involved with scouts. I just feel these confidentiality agreements in the case of sexual abuse victims is morally reprehensible. It's completely unethical regardless of who is drafting them. Scouts, nevertheless, is legally allowed to do this and was probably advised by lawyers to do so in order to protect its image. Meanwhile, other victims suffer in silence because a community of victims is not allowed to publically offer their support. It really pisses me off.

i'm no fan of this either, but I am only a small voice. However, as I said, it isn't just Scouts that does this. Minor hockey, 4-H, minor soccer, etc have all done this.

[charter.rights]

i'm no fan of this either, but I am only a small voice. However, as I said, it isn't just Scouts that does this. Minor hockey, 4-H, minor soccer, etc have all done this.

If people had spoken up during the time that Indian kids were stolen, removed to schools thousands of miles away from their communities, sexually and physically abused and some murdered, there would not the legacy we have today.

The RCMP recently admitted that they conducted 60 investigations revealing 619 victims identifying 40 perpetrators within the Residential Schools system over a 48 year period. THEY didn't see a problem. Neither did the thousands of workers that worker along side the abusers. I for one can't believe some of them didn't see or know what was going on.

However, we know that over 50,000 children from 1880 to 1995 never returned home, that many were neglected and many were murdered. Had well meaning "small voices" raised an alarm back in 1907 when Dr. Peter Bryce made his report to Parliament, or when his book was published in 1922, there would not be hundreds of thousands in generations of dysfunctional Aboriginal adults today.

The point (not to get into yet another debate about native genocide) is that when good people do nothing, and say nothing then it opens the doors for pedophiles and abusers to have their way with children.

You say "We stringently watch each other." but based on the number of occurrences that pedophiles and their victims were quietly silenced, I would suggest that you don't have that capability to identify a pedophile. I would suggest that the hundreds of Scout leaders where Ralph Rowe, a former Anglican priest and Scoutmaster ( Scouts Canada kept 'confidential list' of pedophiles) operated had no idea. Yet he is known in the many organizations he was with to have molested over 100 kids (and the total could be as high as 500) under the watch of hundreds of volunteers. Very often we hear stories about pedophiles who were outstanding leaders in the community. So "watching" each other is about as valuable as taking blood samples and then dumping them down the drain.

So pedophilia and child abuse are crimes that must be punished. Then again discovering that a child is being sexually or physically abused and doing nothing is also a crime. In my mind it is far too easy to simply to pay out the victims and quietly dismiss the perpetrators, in order to protect the Scouting Organization. Scouts (like the Red Cross was in the tainted blood scandal) should be sued into oblivion, with the Board of Directors who developed those policies facing criminal or civil penalties. We cannot let this go such that everyone believes that it is OK just to hide the truth and quietly bury the victims in money.

As I said before, I appreciate that you are an upstanding volunteer, as there are many. However, the Scouting Organization failed the victims, as well as the thousands of volunteers and parents that had trust in them. And for that they should face the ultimate penalty. Death by dismemberment.

[cybercoma]

I'm thinking there needs to be strict regulations about when a case can be settled out of court and when it can't. If a child is molested, I don't think anyone, not just Scouts, should be allowed to pay off the parents and make them all sign a confidentiality agreement. First of all, to my mind that's nothing more than prostituting out your child for a massive pay day. Your kid was molested for Christ sake and you collect a paycheck from that and sign an agreement on your child's behalf that he won't say anything for the rest of his life about it? That's unconscionable to me. But what about those that came out about it over the age of 18 and settled themselves. Shouldn't they have the choice? Again, I believe that in situations such as this where children were molested, you're giving the victim the option of making it all go away by offering them a handsome paycheck. Depending on a person's financial situation they may really need the money, so again what is being done is completely unethical. Moreover, a person that has been suffering from this abuse may not be willing to fight about it for months or years in court battles, reliving it again and again throughout the entire ordeal. The abusers have the upper hand in this situation. In other words, I don't think the victims themselves are in a position to really make this decision soundly. In any case that involves serious criminal activities, like molesting children, murder, abuse, whatever, it should be illegal for the abusers to settle out of court. At the absolute minimum, if not that, it should definitely be illegal for them to draft confidentiality agreements in those cases.

[guyser]

I'm thinking there needs to be strict regulations about when a case can be settled out of court and when it can't. If a child is molested, I don't think anyone, not just Scouts, should be allowed to pay off the parents and make them all sign a confidentiality agreement.

I am willing to bet it is kept quiet for reasons of embarassment, stress, throw in a touch of relief due to money, and perhaps inability to prove in court.

[charter.rights]

I am willing to bet it is kept quiet for reasons of embarassment, stress, throw in a touch of relief due to money, and perhaps inability to prove in court.

More likely it is to protect the institution.