Author Joseph Boyden ended his silence Wednesday, giving interviews on his claims of Native heritage to Globe and Mail and CBC Radio.
In both interviews, Boyden chose his interviewer. For the Globe it was Books editor Mark Medley. You can read the Globe interview here. For CBC’s q, Boyden’s interviewer was his “friend” Candy Palmater. You can listen to the full q interview here.
Boyden defended his claims to Indigenous ancestry in both interviews in a the same way: “A small part of me is Indigenous, but it’s a big part of who I am.”
Here’s some reaction to the two interviews:
APTN tweeted Wednesday it has asked Boyden on multiple occasions for an interview. Boyden has yet to take the outlet up on its requests.
Author @josephboyden is in the media responding to this story by @JorgeBarrera https://t.co/wyQ5ojPQh4@APTNNews has requested a # of invus pic.twitter.com/NXByRJTJ52
— APTN National News (@APTNNews) January 11, 2017
Robert Jago is a researcher who was one of the first to raise question about Boyden’s claims. He’s written for CANADALAND why he did. Jago tweeted as he listened to the interview starting here. His concluding thought:
@rjjago I hope this is him saying that he's not qualified to speak on native politics ever again in the future. 74
— Robert Jago (@rjjago) January 12, 2017
Adam Gaudry, on the faculty of University of Alberta’s Native Studies department, had a detailed breakdown of the CBC interview, starting here:
Sitting down to listen, now. I've researched settler Indigenization for the past few years, seems applicable here:https://t.co/gQMbh6WcNq
— Adam Gaudry (@adamgaudry) January 12, 2017
Author Aaron Paquette was not impressed:
Inconsistent, contradictory, and entitled.
In essence: I can't prove anything but I FEEL it so just trust me. No, it's not in any records
— Aaron Paquette (@aaronpaquette) January 12, 2017
CANADALAND publisher Jesse Brown wonders why CBC let Boyden use them to further his PR push:
1. So it's quite clear that CBC played ball with @josephboyden in an exchange of "exclusive" access for friendly coverage on his terms.
— Jesse Brown (@JesseBrown) January 12, 2017
5.Of course the opposite is true. An accountability intvw comparing what has been represented to what is factual would be far more "real"
— Jesse Brown (@JesseBrown) January 12, 2017
Author and educator Debbie Reese added some context to Boyden’s claims of community adoption:
In his interview, Boyden referenced Native families that adopted him. That's complicated/complex topic that gets used in not-good ways.
— Debbie Reese (@debreese) January 12, 2017
Comedian Ryan McMahon—who recently guested on Short Cuts—said:
Listening to this interview, he not only doesn't get it, he's an asshole too. Holy shit.
— Ryan McMahon (@RMComedy) January 12, 2017
Joseph boyden said he was from specific nations and communities that he knew he wasn't from. This isn't some vague BQ/identity thing
— Fancy Bebamikawe (@FancyBebamikawe) January 12, 2017
Those Boyden interviews are painful. Why would CBC & Globe pander to that? Dude, buck up & sit down with APTN. Your life & career will go on
— sarahpvictoria (@sarahpvictoria) January 12, 2017
The recent Boyden interviews by the CBC & Globe both entail some rather sizable lapses in journalistic standards. Hugely problematic. https://t.co/UukMG8GQ6S
— Ian Mosbγ (@Ian_Mosby) January 12, 2017
Christie Blatchford wrote a column, published Friday in the National Post, excoriating UBC for cancelling an appearance by John Furlong at a fundraising event.
The university had received a complaint asserting that Furlong shouldn’t be given a platform to speak at UBC, because he’s been accused of abusing Aboriginal children when he was a teacher at Immaculata Elementary School in Burns Lake, B.C. You can read about those allegations in an article by freelance journalist Laura Robinson in the Georgia Straight. You can read more in CANADALAND’s coverage, too.
As we’ve written previously, none of the allegations in Robinson’s article have been tested in court. There were two independent civil claims against Furlong that were eventually dismissed. Those suits were brought by individuals who were not written about in Robinson’s story.
Robinson sued Furlong for defamation after he said she had a personal vendetta against him. Robinson lost that suit last year.
Furlong’s lawyer, former lawyer, and speaking agent have all made the case that Furlong has been treated unfairly by UBC in the pages of the Post and the Vancouver Sun. In her column, Blatchford takes up their cause, writing UBC should never have caved to any public complaints, as Furlong had been “vindicated” following Robinson’s defamation lawsuit. You can read Blatchford’s whole column here.
What follows is Robinson’s response, which she sent directly to Blatchford. Robinson also provided a copy to CANADALAND. We’ve lightly edited it to put some of the links directly in the text, correct a typo, and add a photo to provide context. Excerpts from Blatchford’s column have also been bolded to better differentiate them from the text of the letter.
Dear Ms. Blatchford:
Please find below corrections re: your December 30, 2016 column.
“The judge said, of the purported multiple declarations from alleged indigenous victims of Furlong’s alleged abusive conduct, only three had ever been ‘even minimally tested in a way that we, as a society, believe our system of justice requires when a citizen faces such serious and devastating allegations.’” Unfortunately, Justice Wedge made dozens of errors in fact. She incorrectly connected allegations of sexual abuse by Mr. Furlong, to my Georgia Straight article, which contained no allegations of sexual abuse. Two months after my story came out Grace Jessie West spoke to me for the first time and at no time did she allege sexual abuse to me. My reference to her was in my Jan. 2013 Response to Mr. Furlong’s Notice of Civil Claim that alleges she was afraid of him when he yelled “Don’t talk Indian” and that he “kicked her bottom.” While class lists do not show Ms. West at Immaculata School, Mr. Furlong has stated he traveled Hwy 16 in that time period as the diocese sent him to a number of schools “along the corridor.” Ms. West attended St. Joseph’s, in Smithers, just off Hwy 16.
Immaculata class list, highlighting West’s name, entered as evidence in the Furlong trial. Handout/National Observer
Daniel Morice contacted me for the first time ten months after the Georgia Straight article appeared. In September, 2013, a year after my article appeared, he gave me a signed on-the-record statement alleging, amongst other abuses, sexual abuse. Not surprisingly, he is not listed in the Georgia Straight story or my Response. Unfortunately, Justice Wedge wrote that he did not attend Immaculata when Mr. Furlong was there when in fact, the school’s class list, which Father Gregoire Beaudette swore in an affidavit was accurate, shows him in gr. 2 in 1969 and gr. 3 in ’69-70. This exhibit was before Justice Wedge. I testified that in his affidavit, Ronnie West swore he witnessed Mr. Furlong abusing “Dan Morris”. The class list shows Mr. West was in Dan Morice’s class. Justice Wedge disallowed all statements/affidavits made by First Nations people as hearsay; she would not let me speak to the details of my research such as how many people gave me affidavits/statements or what they said and when they said it. In dozens of instances she made incorrect statements about First Nations people: what they said, why they said it and when they said it. I reported Justice Wedge to the Canadian Judicial Council. Unlike affidavits from First Nations people, Father Beaudette’s affidavit was accepted by Justice Wedge and she still erred in the reading of the class-list. It was common practice to shuttle First Nations children from school to school. Mr. Morice could have easily been at Lejac Residential School, which was at Fraser Lake, three lakes east of Burns Lake, in the same years he attended Immaculata. One tragedy of this story is that, despite all his years in diocese schools, Mr. Morice is illiterate. He could not read the lengthy legal documents that stated when he attended Lejac.
Beverly Abraham was the third person to sue Mr. Furlong for sexual abuse. She dropped her claim, citing family stress as a number of people had recently died and her mother’s leg also had to be amputated. Mr. Furlong discontinued his suit against me, citing family stress.
The RCMP are presently conducting an investigation into Cpl. Mackie, who was responsible for the investigation of allegations made by Ms. Abraham. In July 2013, the RCMP’s Serious Crime Unit of Division K of Edmonton made 28 recommendations about Cpl. Mackie’s investigation: 22 of them were to open new investigations concerning allegations of abuse by Mr. Furlong made by other First Nations people. The 28th recommended a polygraph for Mr. Furlong: here and here. At trial Cpl. Mackie characterized these as “…general abuse or general hardship at Immaculata School” and “…just general practices and abuse at Immaculata School, if there was any.”
“There, attached to Kirchmeier’s three-page letter, among 50-odd pages, are some of the discredited sworn declarations, including the one from the woman whose criminal case was dismissed and who consented to her civil case also being dropped. The letter itself includes an excerpt from that declaration, and Kirchmeier wrote, ‘There has never been a forum in which the allegations were tested.’ The woman’s complaint was investigated and police couldn’t substantiate it, in large part because her story shifted so often. That decision was reviewed by the Alberta RCMP, lest the B.C. Mounties had goofed.” There are no discredited excerpts in Ms. Kirchmeirer’s letter to Dr. Ono. As stated above, Ms. Abraham dropped her case for reasons similar to Mr. Furlong. The RCMP’s investigation will, in part, determine whether or not Cpl. Mackie actually followed up on the 28 recommendations made by the Alberta RCMP concerning the investigation of Ms. Abraham’s allegation. The other seven affidavits cited in Ms. Kirchmeirer’s letter were not investigated or tested in court: they were disallowed by Justice Wedge.
“The male complainant, attempting to be paid twice, was clearly riding the residential school train.” As stated above, Mr. Morice is on the class lists of Immaculata School during the time period Mr. Furlong taught there: this fact is sworn to by Father Gregoire Beaudette, in an affidavit supplied by Mr. Furlong. Records in University of Manitoba’s National Centre for Truth & Reconciliation show a significant decrease in students attending Lejac during that same time period.
“Yet there was Kirchmeier, coolly asserting that this wasn’t so, and asking, ‘Why does UBC want to associate with a man whom at least 45 people say abused children,’ and worse, far worse, there was UBC cravenly caving to her demands within days.” Many more people contacted myself or the Georgia Straight after my story ran. Some of those statements, but by no means all, were excerpted in my January 2013 Response. Forty-five is a significant underrepresentation of the real number. They have not been investigated. The Assembly of First Nations passed Resolution #34 in July . It stated in part,
1. Direct the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) to urge the federal government and the RCMP to conduct, as expeditiously as possible, a thorough and impartial investigation into the allegations of abuse brought by Mr. Furlong’s former students.
2. Direct the AFN to urge the federal government to meet, as expeditiously as possible, with the affected members of Lake Babine Band Council, Burns Lake Band Council, and any other affected former students to hear their concerns about the conduct of investigations and to discuss with them acceptable remedies.
Perhaps UBC should use the funds that were to go to Mr. Furlong towards an invitation so the First Nations people who allege Mr. Furlong abused them at Immaculata or Prince George College can speak. Their voices may help dispel the endless speculation by those who have never interviewed or listened to them.
To a growing number of newspaper and magazine pundits, the Joseph Boyden controversy is about political correctness run amok, a public “lynching,” outrage culture, a racial witch-hunt and petty literary jealousy from bitter Indigenous writers.
The rhetoric and name-calling seems to have obscured the question that must surely lie at the core of the matter: has Joseph Boyden misrepresented himself, or hasn’t he?
To answer that, let’s look at the various affiliations he has reportedly claimed over the years:
“To the best of my knowledge, I’ve never referred to myself as Mi’kmaq but in some interviews in the past I assume my Nipmuc heritage was misheard as Mi’kmaq.”
On its face this seems believable. Mi’kmaq is arguably a better known Nation than Nipmuc, so perhaps Boyden was simply misquoted, an honest mistake made not by him but by uninformed journalists.
Meanwhile, according to APTN investigative journalist Jorge Barrera, there is no record of Boyden calling himself “Nipmuc” until 2014.
What this means is that in order to believe Boyden, you must believe that until 2014, every journalist who called him Mi’kmaq was either mishearing him in the exact same way or copying and pasting from someone else who did. It also means that Boyden never took the time to correct any of these misquotes, which put false words in his own mouth about his own heritage.
This seems very unlikely — but perhaps not impossible. Then Peggy Blair dug up this Boyden quote, from a 2005 interview with New Orleans newspaper The Times-Picayune:
“[I’m] Mi’kmaq on my father’s side. They’re an east coast tribe in Canada,”
This is where Boyden’s explanation falls apart. The Nipmuc Nation is not Canadian, they are from parts of Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island. The Mi’kmaq are an east coast tribe from Canada, just as Boyden said.
This seems to prove that despite what Boyden recalls “to the best of [his] knowledge,” he did publicly claim he has Mi’kmaq ancestry, which (as he now concedes) he does not.
Here’s how Boyden explains why he has repeatedly called himself “Métis”:
“I’ve used the term Métis in the past when referring to myself as a mixed blood person. I do not trace my roots to Red River, and I apologize to any Red River Métis I’ve upset.”
This too seems credible at first glance. “Métis” is often used to describe anyone of mixed Indigenous and European heritage. But that catch-all use of the term tends to piss off members of the Métis Nation, one of the three recognized Aboriginal peoples in Canada.
By apologizing to the Métis Nation, Boyden is pleading guilty to a misdemeanour. Many people don’t know that “Métis” is such a specific and contentious term. But Boyden is not one of those people.
In fact, he’s literally an expert on Métis history. He wrote a book about it.
So it’s simply not credible that Boyden called himself “Métis” without knowing that he was claiming a connection to a Nation he has no link to.
“Wasauksing First Nation”
After APTN’s exposé, another claim made by Boyden surfaced. Muskrat Magazine editor Rebeka Tabobondung wrote about meeting Boyden at a writers’ conference and asking him what his home nation was.
“Wasauksing First Nation,” he replied.
But Tabobondung is from Wasauksing First Nation, and was in a position to easily check this claim.
“I later asked a respected community geneologist what his connection was,” Tabobondung wrote, “and she said she didn’t know.”
Boyden has yet to clarify whether he in fact claimed to be of Wasausking First Nation, and if so what he bases that claim on.
Boyden has called himself “a bit of a two-spirit person.” In an interview with Nuvo magazine, he explained the term:
“I think I’m a bit of a two-spirit person. Home for me has to be both places—it has to be New Orleans, it [also] has to be Ontario. I would be very incomplete without either of those. It might be a little schizophrenic, but it works for me.”
But this is not what “two-spirit” means, as Boyden surely knows. The term applies to gender identity — people who are neither strictly male or female.
Calling himself “two-spirit” seems to be not so much a case of Boyden misrepresenting himself as much as it is a case of him casually appropriating an Indigenous term and bending it to his own purposes and brand.
A group of high-ranking former producers and executives at CBC, calling themselves Public Broadcasting in Canada for the 21st Century, have submitted a proposal to the Heritage Ministry, calling for an ad-free CBC.
The signees include Bernie Lucht, the former Executive Producer of the CBC Radio show Ideas, and Jeffrey Dvorkin, former Managing Editor and Chief Journalist for CBC Radio, and former ombudsman of NPR Radio. Dvorkin currently runs the University of Toronto’s Journalism department. They write:
It has become obvious to many that requiring our public broadcaster to apply the practices of the private sector to its civic and cultural mission has not resulted in the creation of a large body of distinctive, informative and inspiring social and cultural capital for Canadians. While French services and English Radio have fared better, it has turned CBC English television into what its own executives have described as a “publicly subsidized commercial network.”
…we recommend that all the services provided by the CBC/Radio-Canada must be non-commercial, including its online operations.
Green Party leader Elizabeth May retweeted (but did not endorse) CANADALAND publisher Jesse Brown’s message in support of an #AdFreeCBC.
And Conservative Party leadership hopeful Maxime Bernier laid out his vision for the CBC on Wednesday. Bernier wants to severely limit the CBC’s mandate, but also want the broadcaster to replace its revenue from ads through donations from the public, in a way similar to PBS and NPR in the U.S.:
All private media outlets have had to make deep cuts and to lay off journalists by the hundreds in the past few years. Yet, after getting a head start with more than a billion dollars in taxpayers’ money, CBC/Radio-Canada unfairly competes with struggling private media in a shrinking advertisement market.
To replace its revenues from advertisement, which amounted to about $250 million last year, the CBC/Radio-Canada will have to switch to the PBS/NPR model in the US and rely on sponsorships from corporations and foundations, as well as voluntary donations from its viewers and listeners. Of course, changes to the structure of CBC/Radio-Canada will also require changes to the Broadcasting Act.
Michael Geist is a University of Ottawa law professor with an expertise in the digital space. His argument for an ad-free CBC is based on the idea a publicly funded news outlet should be competing for ad dollars on top of eyeballs.
While the CBC should be responding to its audience with a strong digital news service, it does not follow that it should also compete for digital advertising dollars. As noted in the CBC letter, its total digital advertising revenues are relatively small (and they are even smaller — roughly $6 million — for the online news service) so the foregone earnings will not have a material impact on the CBC. However, there is a market effect of having the CBC compete for ad dollars that affects news organizations of all sizes. This includes large players like the Globe as well as smaller, independent media for whom a loss of thousands in advertising can be significant. An ad-free online service would better justify the public investment in the public broadcaster, make for an enhanced user experience, and remove the concern that the CBC is harming private sector alternatives by competing for advertising dollars.
The full text of the Public Broadcasting in Canada for the 21st Century submission can be found here:
PBC21 Submission PDF
Last week, The Georgia Straight fired Colin Thomas, a theatre critic with a 30-year career. He explained what happened to him in a blog post, which he allowed CANADALAND to republish:
I just got fired from The Georgia Straight. Thirty years. No warning. No compensation.
Last Tuesday, I emailed arts editor Janet Smith telling her what shows I thought I should review. Instead of the usual confirmation from Janet, I received an email from editor Charlie Smith saying that he and Janet would like to meet with me to discuss “some things that are happening here [at the paper].”
“Jesus,” I thought. “I’m getting the boot.”
As we sat at a table outside the Be Fresh market and café on West 1st Avenue, Janet and Charlie took pains to explain that letting me go was not their decision. The pressure came from unnamed “higher ups.” They had fought the decision to release me, they said, but lost. Charlie was particularly kind about saying how much he appreciates my work as a critic. He also told me that I could be public about anything that was said in that meeting.
“Was there a problem?” I asked. They said the reason I was being let go wasn’t clear to them, but there may have been a confluence of factors.
Charlie pointed out that the paper is experiencing financial challenges and that it was probably easier to get rid of me than a staff person.
Janet said that there’s a lot of pressure on editorial to find fresh ways to do things.
Janet also said that “there have been complaints from some companies.” “What complaints?” I asked. “You know: that you never like anything,” she answered with a laugh. I replied that it’s very hard to do good theatre and that I figure, if one show in three is worth recommending, that’s a good average. Then she added that some unnamed complainants feel that I am sometimes too hard on younger artists. (There is nothing I enjoy more than championing younger artists.) She gave an example. It was one of the worst shows of the year.
Janet said she thought that the door was only closed on reviewing, that I might still be able to write previews or other articles. Charlie said that he would gladly give me a recommendation or connect me with potential employers. I asked if I could have a couple of months before being laid off so that I could have some time to adjust to the loss of income. In the meeting, Charlie said he’d ask. Two days later, in response to an email inquiry, he wrote: “As Janet indicated, the company is not going to purchase reviews.” He confirmed that I would still be welcome to pitch previews and other articles. Writing previews for the Straight has become an increasingly minor part of my job there and is no longer significant in terms of income.
But I’m not going away. I love the theatre and I love writing about it. I’ll be launching a new initiative. Watch for it. Until then, I will continue to post reviews on this blog.
See you at the theatre.
I have received a message from Charlie Smith. He remembers one part of the conversation differently than I do. Here’s what Charlie had to say: “Hi Colin, I believe I was the one who said you were sometimes harsh on younger artists. I know for a fact that I cited the play that you didn’t like. If you can adjust your post to reflect that I said this rather than Janet, I would appreciate it.”
AND FURTHERMORE: If you’d like to stay abreast of what’s happening with the new project, feel free to befriend me on Facebook. Lots of smart people started to do that before it crossed my mind that that might be a good idea.
The Liberal government has contracted a think tank called the Public Policy Group to research the possibility of providing subsidies or other considerations to the collapsing news industry.
CANADALAND accepted an invitation to participate in the research project by attending a roundtable discussion between media owners. We were also asked to provide a written statement articulating our position on the proposals discussed. Here’s what we sent them:
Dear Public Policy Forum,
At the request of Taylor Owen, the following is a statement of our position on the possibility of public policy intervention in the Canadian news industry.
I am the publisher of CANADALAND, a small digital news organization that specializes in podcasts. Podcasts drive our revenue. We sell advertising on our podcasts, and we direct listeners to our crowdfunding page largely through our podcasts.
We produce the most popular Canadian podcasts for Canadian listeners. Our shows are focused exclusively on Canadian topics, with an emphasis on media, policy, culture, and public life. We do original and investigative reporting and have broken many national news stories in the few years we’ve been around.
Increasingly, we have competition: the Globe and Mail just launched a podcast. The CBC has many and sells ads to the same companies we do. Maclean’s, The Toronto Star, The National Post, The Walrus: all of them have dabbled in podcasts or are currently publishing competing podcasts.
We welcome the competition. Canadian advertisers are still largely in the dark about the medium and there are plenty of listeners to go around. New entrants could evolve the medium and help establish podcasts as an industry in Canada, as it is now in the US and abroad. Many legacy media podcasts, most notably the CBC’s, pre-date our launch, and we rose above them by virtue of our content. On an even playing field, we are winning.
What we do not welcome is government subsidies for our competitors. Too often in Canada, tax breaks, funding and other programs intended to help small startups and innovators like ourselves get hijacked by legacy players. It’s a trivial matter for a newspaper to launch a digital lab or project for the sole purpose of tapping these funds, leveraging their brand and status to take the lion’s share of the subsidies. At this point, with their efforts underwritten by the government, our competitors could conceivably undercut us on advertising rates and push our revenues down to the point where we would no longer be profitable. We run our organization on a budget lower than the annual salary of one top Postmedia or CBC executive. As sustainable as we are, we are also vulnerable to market interference.
In short, we are asking that no subsidies or considerations of any kind be made available to Canada’s legacy news organizations.
We support the removal of obstacles preventing philanthropic organizations from practicing journalism.
We support a review of the CBC’s mandate and support a prohibition of advertising on CBC’s podcasts and other digital content.
We take no position on the creation of subsidies directed exclusively to benefit legitimately independent small digital media companies.
I will point out that we do not ask for or expect subsidies for CANADALAND.
Last week, the Financial Post published revelations about the Toronto Star’s newsroom and the suicide of Raveena Aulakh, one of its reporters.
Aulakh took her own life earlier this summer and since then questions about the Star have been circling, despite the paper’s internal investigation, which concluded that “the company provided all reasonable support and assistance to Raveena.”
Sean Craig’s lengthy article tells a different story. Over the course of his investigation, Craig (formerly of CANADALAND) spoke to over a dozen sources and reviewed emails Raveena Aulakh sent before her death.
Up until now, we knew Raveena Aulakh had been in a relationship with her then colleague Jon Filson, a senior Star editor in charge of the Star Touch project. The relationship broke down and Filson was also in a relationship with Toronto Star managing editor Jane Davenport. In the wake of Aulakh’s death, Filson and Davenport ceased working in the Star newsroom. Filson was seemingly terminated, while Davenport is still employed by the Star, who have not clarified in what capacity.
Unifor, the Star’s union, called for an external investigation of the Star’s working environment. At first, the Star resisted, having conducted their own internal investigation, but eventually agreed. The Star then once again put the external investigation on hold because it couldn’t agree on the parameters with the union.
Craig’s piece explored lingering questions about the Star’s newsroom, and what he found was quite shocking. Here are the main points:
Jon Filson had a reputation for bullying and “preying” on female colleagues
Two former interns at the Star have said they felt bullied by Filson. One described having a sexual relationship with him while he had direct oversight over her work, while Filson was married. Twenty-two at the time, the intern said she felt “bullied and trapped” by him and left the paper after both the relationship ended and the contract with the Star expired.
The second intern said the culture at the Star “was the most toxic newsroom I’ve ever worked in and eventually led to my decision to leave journalism altogether.” She said Filson bullied her, and his behaviour extended beyond interns.
Neither of the women reported Filson to management, but the second woman said she was discouraged from telling the union.
A student newspaper discouraged students from interning for Filson
By 2008, Ryerson University’s paper, the Eyeopener, heard accounts of Filson’s behaviour. General manager Liane McLarty said young women were warned against interning at the Star because of several incidents involving Filson. This, it seems, is more preventative action than the Star ever took.
Raveena Aulakh wanted to complain about Filson to senior management but her boss was unwilling
Days before her death, Aulakh wrote this her direct superior Lynn McAuley “I’m happy/grateful to go with you if I ever have to talk to [Toronto Star manager of labour relations] David Callum. Whatever you think and say, I will do that.”
It seems this was not the first time the issue came up with McAuley. A few weeks earlier, Aulakh wrote this about McAuley: “She said she likes Jane (Davenport) a lot and won’t say anything unless Jon (Filson) makes life miserable for people and Jane still protects him”.
She was also discouraged from reporting her concerns to her union
From the Post’s piece: “On May 13, Aulakh wrote that McAuley told her ‘not to say anything to the union’ about the relationships between her and Filson and Filson and Davenport.”
But McAuley knew from others that Filson was a problem
Lynn McAuley wrote this about Jon Filson: “I’m alarmed he has this pattern… Completely unrelated to your relationship with him and his preying on interns … three managers today asked me in private how he can be stopped.”
The Post said McAuley tried to provide Aulakh with support, “checking in on her regularly during her free time when the reporter was on sick leave.” Outside of formal channels, it seems McAuley did everything she could to support Raveena Aulakh. But she chose not to pull any of the levers available within the company, which raises questions about how effective these protocols are and why she chose not to pursue them.
Before her death, Aulakh reached out to people in the newsroom which she perceived as an unhealthy environment. “I used to love that newsroom, it was my refuge. Now I’m scared of coming in — I feel emotionally unsafe.”
TorStar Chairman John Honderich allegedly declined emails from a source that would implicate the Star
John Honderich is the most senior figure at the Toronto Star. A former Star employee told the Post that she emailed Honderich to offer help with the Star’s internal investigation. According to her, Honderich turned her documents away, saying that the investigation was only looking at the impact of the relationships on the work that the people involved produced. But (as she would later read in the press) the Star’s investigation was actually intended to also look at how Aulakh was supported by her colleagues, which the emails directly addressed. Honderich did not deny this allegation.
Management likely knew about Filson’s behaviour before Raveena Aulakh’s death
Aulakh sent several emails to newsroom staff, including management, about what was happening. Filson had a pattern of alleged bullying that many senior staff were aware of. The Eyeopener’s general manager said complaints regarding Filson went eight years back. Still, Filson kept getting promoted into senior positions, from features editor to, eventually, a leadership role in Star Touch.
Raveena Aulakh expressed despair over the loss of a safe workplace
Many have assumed that this tragedy was primarily about interpersonal relationships gone sour. Toronto Star Public Editor Kathy English referred to Aulakh as a “clearly heartbroken reporter.” But emails from Aulakh herself reveal that her despair had much to do with a different kind of loss. “I used to love that newsroom,” she wrote of the Star. “It was my refuge. Now I’m scared of coming in – I feel emotionally unsafe.”
Read the full Financial Post story here.