Evidentia

There is often a huge gap between justice and the law, and nowhere is this more obvious than in the case of sexual crimes committed against children in the school setting. Justice would require that sexual predators of children be tried, convicted, locked up, and treated behind bars. Justice would also require that victims of sexual crimes – the distressed adults those victimized children have become – obtain some redress, in the form of public apologies, counseling, compensation and so forth.

Of course, institutional governance would require that a school be vigilant, and carefully monitor its teaching staff, and respond quickly to any signs of sexual abuse of children under its charge, in order to prevent disasters from occurring.

But the law often ends up protecting sexual predators, because the law is in the hands of lawyers, whose interest is sometimes to defend the institutions that hire them, or that accord them some gratifying public status. By defending the school, lawyers may indirectly end up shielding predators from prosecution.

I know, because I went to Selwyn House School, a private boys’ elementary and secondary school in Montreal, where sexual crimes occurred in the school community during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

Selwyn House School (Google Earth)

In January 2009, the school agreed to pay $5 million for alleged sex-abuse victims, after being hit with a class-action lawsuit. Three former teachers were named in the suit. There are dozens of plaintiffs.

One of the teachers, Leigh Seville, killed his father and then himself, when confronted with initial allegations, although the school lied to the entire school community about the case at the time, preferring to conceal what had happened. Another teacher, Jim Hill, apparently now dead, invited me to his apartment after class one day, when I was 13, plied me with scotch and offered me a joint. Since I have a touch of asthma, I have never smoked. When it dawned on me that Hill was not at all interested in my writing ability (the supposed reason he wanted to talk to me), but had other plans, I had the good sense to leave. He is alleged to have had sexual relations with other boys, however. The third teacher named in the suit, John Aimers, only started working at the school after I had graduated. He is innocent until proven guilty.

I am not involved in the lawsuit, have not signed on in any way, and have provided moral support, documents and an accurate chronology to some plaintiffs. One plaintiff even told me I was the first person who had ever validated his story, and who believed he was telling the truth.

I am struck by a number of things.

1) The terms of reference of the class action settlement mention sexual, physical and emotional abuse. That was the name of the game at Selwyn House in the 1960s and early 1970s. Most female teachers were not like that, and not all of the male teachers were. But some male teachers were walking disaster areas. I believe there were seven teachers involved in predatory behaviour – not just three.

2) I discussed a number of allegations with a school official. In hindsight, I see that the official’s main strategy was:

a) to deny the truth or even plausibility of what I said;

b) to affirm that it is virtually impossible to establish whether sexual crimes could ever have been committed;

c) to isolate me from plaintiffs;

d) to blame victims, suggesting that anyone filing a complaint was a frustrated, drunken and likely unstable individual;

e) to imply that nobody in authority at the time knew about alleged sexual crimes against children;

f) and to declare that people were just grubbing for money, which, in any case, could not compensate anyone for a crime committed against them if ever a crime had been committed.

3) After writing an article on sexual and physical abuse in the National Post, some of my former classmates sought to intimidate me, saying:

a) I was trying to profit from the problems of the school, which was committed to excellence;

b) I would be held responsible for the school’s bankruptcy;

c)  and I was quite mistaken if I believed newspapers were supposed to report important information in the public interest – newspapers, I was told, were only vehicles for advertising, and journalism was only a form of entertainment.

I suppose sex-abuse cases involving other schools, whether Protestant, Catholic, Jewish or secular, have involved similar strategies. What is the mindset behind such strategies?

In the case of my own school, I am reminded of the rhetoric in the movie If with Malcolm McDowell. Loyalty, tradition, integrity, discipline, self-sacrifice. Unfortunately, this mindset did not include self-criticism. It prevented the headmaster and the school from questioning themselves at the time, and meant that predators could have a field day in total impunity.

Then there is the claim that nobody knew about sexual abuse at the time, and everybody agreed caning (boys in my school were physically beaten, with whips, sticks, riding crops, fishing rods, etc.) was a good thing. As if boys destined to be real men, the future leaders of society, simply obeyed, bent over and never complained. That doesn’t sound like leadership to me!

Actually, both sexual abuse and caning were extremely controversial and deeply resented by students. I remember a school yearbook editorial in 1969, signed by my older brother in Form VII, using the arts of persuasion to attack caning. The school supervisor gave equal space to another student who defended caning, however.

I also remember being editor of the school newspaper, the Examiner, and questioning caning in 1970, as well as school uniforms, compulsory Latin etc. We published a sassy article by a student who quoted The Naked Ape by Desmond Morris, to the effect that caning was a foreplay ritual among male primates (including humans) and was therefore overtly sexual in nature. The school supervisor, Leigh Seville, blew up at me, and insisted on writing a caustic reply, signing it in my name, and making it seem I was defending the so-called institution of caning. With hindsight, it looks like Seville took the article personally, since he was both an avid caning enthusiast and a sexual predator, perversely interested in 12-year-old boys.

Students often made the link between sexual predators and abusive caners, and sometimes challenged the right of teachers to hurt boys. I can still hear Jim Hill’s triumphant tone of voice in class, when the words “I am going to beat you!” spilled out. It was erotic sadism. Many parents also blasted the head master in stormy one-on-one meetings for tolerating or should I say institutionalizing such physical abuse.

Some victims say the school was aware of complaints about sexual abuse at the time, but simply dismissed the complaints.

Problems have continued at the school. Earlier this year, a staff member caught in a sting operation in Virginia got a 14-year sentence for trying to have sex with a 13-year-old boy, while another staff member was charged with sexual misconduct with a minor.

While many teachers in the school are no doubt competent, I wonder whether sexual predators aren’t attracted to all-boy environments like my old school.

There is a huge gap between justice and the law. Children are the treasures of our society, and deserve to be loved and protected.