Sent to CBC re interview, Kevin Donovan, investigation into Sherman murders, Apotex
TO: The Current and to author Kevin Donovan,
The interview of Kevin Donovan has a blind spot, one commonly accorded to people/institutions of wealth and power.
I learned the blind spot through some episodes of The Current over the last months.
There is INACTION, if action MIGHT bring the REPUTATION of the VENERABLE into question.
Our society venerates power and wealth.
Institutions ruthlessly protect their ability to raise money and to save face.
Reputation is critical. Anything to save reputation, to protect wealth.
You laid out that UNDENIABLE PATTERN. . . . Stick with me a minute to see the pattern repeated in the interview related to the Sherman murders.
Questions that must be asked and answers demanded got short shrift in the following three examples, out of many.
Some kind of silent conditioning creates a blind spot that shields the wrong people.
- the Ottawa High School that countenanced decades of sexual molestation of students
- what happened to “Cleo” in the Sixties Scoop
- Harvey Weinstein’s violations with impunity
The interview with Kevin Donahue was about investigations into murder.
The investigations should be without prejudice, just as the 3 examples above should have been investigated without prejudice.
What about enemies that Barry Sherman might have, people who might have motivation to destroy Sherman and his wife? There was SILENCE on the ethical record of Sherman’s company, Apotex.
It seemed there is an ordained conclusion: a family member is the murderer, no need for hard questions that even MIGHT have repercussions for the WEALTH.
Maybe a family member IS the prime suspect. But silence about other possibilities is a shield that provides unwarranted protection. Unwarranted protection enabled decades of great harm to numerous people, in the above 3 examples.
Elaboration on one example:
The Catholic High School and Board in Ottawa that countenance teachers who are sexual predators – – for decades the teachers are allowed to inflict great harm on children. Unconscionable and unfathomable.
My take-away from the CBC radio documentary – – WHY it does not get stopped? . . . in the particular case, the Catholic High School had a very successful music programme that attracted accolades, supporters and students. The head of the Music Programme was no doubt talented, but simultaneously a lead and longtime perpetrator of sexual molestation. Unfortunately for the students he was a célèbre, the acknowledged BENEFACTOR of the School. Without him, the source of the praise for the School and its Administration would not exist. If he is challenged or exposed, the School’s reputation will take a big hit. So the Administration won’t touch the teacher. The first time that they are told about unacceptable behavior by a teacher, they become “knowers”. If they do not act, they entangle themselves with the perpetrator. They join the keepers of secrets.
Students in the Ottawa High School were thereby molested and seriously harmed with impunity. Some of the offenders were shipped “away” where they infected other communities.
The Shermans were multi-billionaires. Apotex was a significant benefactor of the University of Toronto, and other universities.
If I am aware of ONE publicized case of Apotex’s attempt to shut-down a scientist whose research documented the harm done to children who received their new drug, Mr. Sherman’s fortune might have been aided by unethical behavior? Unethical behavior usually creates a few enemies.
Scenarios to make a point: what if a child died because of a drug that got registered for use, through the bribery of officials? Large financial donations are a form of bribery. Could not heart-break and ultimately anger drive a parent to murder, when they know perpetrators get away with murder? Or, what if someone hated the corruption of the institution that comes with “he who funds the piper calls the tune”? Anger begets hate begets hateful actions.
The Blind Spot I learned from The Current: rarely will we ask hard questions and demand answers when reputations of perceived influential people MIGHT be tarnished. It’s not a written or spoken rule; it is the way things are. Once in a while a thinking person of courage takes a stand and puts forth the often thankless effort to put things right.
A terrible legacy all because we have fear of asking the hard questions of people who have power, wealth or celebrity status.
Shield the reputation of the benefactor; simultaneously shield the reputation of the recipient of the largesse. The same lesson over and over again.
Did Sherman have enemies because of the actions of his company Apotex? It is a necessary question in a murder investigation.
For your consideration,