Yesterday Ana and I did an interview with Marty Klinkenburg of the Telegraph Journal. He told us before we started the interview that the story was going to be a sensitive portrayal of our children and we were pleased because it gave us a chance to talk about our sons, how much we loved them and the kinds of things that they loved to do.
We were glad to do the interview because we knew that most of the other parents had taken part in the article and felt this was a positive move for all of us, especially since so much of the focus has been on Reconstruction Report, the RCMP Report and the Coroner's Inquest, the shortcomings of the Coroner's Act [Click here to read blog from January 7, 2009. We Want Standing at the Coroners Inquest ] and more recently, the changes to Policies at the Department of Education [Click here to read blog from Thursday, December 8, 2008 Some Good and Bad, but New Policies of Department of Education Don't Go Far Enough ].
This was going to be different, it was going to be about our sons lives, who they were and what they meant to us.
We picked up the paper this morning and started to read the article. It seemed to be just as Mr. Klinkenburg said it would be: a sensitive portrayal of our sons and of the other parents and their children. Then, when I came upon the sentence that said Ana and I were "considering legal action" my jaw dropped.
WE NEVER, EVER SAID THAT WE WERE CONSIDERING LEGAL ACTION. IN FACT, THE SUBJECT NEVER EVEN CAME UP IN THE COURSE OF THE INTERVIEW.
What makes it worse is that it's NOT TRUE!!
To clarify: WE ARE NOT CONSIDERING LEGAL ACTION.
Rather, we want CHANGES to the Coroners Act so that we can have legal standing at the Coroners Inquest when it is held in the spring. [Read our previous blog on this from Wednesday, January 7, We Want Standing at the Coroners Inquest ] At present, interested parties such as family members and even the witnesses themselves cannot have legal standing at the Inquest. Legal standing would allow us to hire a lawyer at our own expense to cross examine witnesses. We have made this point abundantly clear in all our correspondence and interviews and on this website and we want people to know that we ARE NOT CONSIDERING LEGAL ACTION.
WE WANT CHANGES, NOT CHARGES
We immediately contacted Mr. Klinkenburg and asked him to print a retraction in the Telegraph Journal on Monday and to remove the offensive sentence from the on line version of the article, which he has done. Mr. Klinkenburg was very apologetic and confirmed that we never said we were were considering legal action yesterday during the interview. He admitted that he was relying on the old reports from November. We have come a long way since November and our opinions on CHANGES NOT CHARGES have been widely reported. To repeat those old reports was a mistake which he has admitted to and apologized profusely.
RECENT REPORTS CONFIRM WE WANT CHANGES, NOT CHARGES
For those who have not read the more recent reports in which we made it clear that WE WANT CHANGES, NOT CHARGES, you can listen to our press conference from December 11 on YouTube in which we specifically said to the reporters that we are NOT interested in laying charges. You can also read some of the more recent articles on this subject, including this one from Mr. Klinkenburg's own newspaper on December 16, 2008 from the Telegraph Journal, as well as another article from the Northern Light, also on December 16, 2008.
December 16, 2008 : Telegraph Journal
Pleas put outdated act in the spotlight
December 16, 2008: Bathurst Northern Light, Bathurst, New Brunswick
Mothers want answers, not to lay any blame: Van Inquest Sought
December 13, 2008
MOTHERS WANT A VAN ANGELS LAW