 |
|||
|
HOLLAND
COLLEGE • October 22, 2002
|
|||
|
|
INSIDE |
ISLAND
|
|
|
--------------------- |
|||
| Poulin’s
Fate To Be Decided Oct. 25 by Tara Hencher Although a former Roman Catholic nun has a right to practice her religious beliefs, it doesn’t give her the right to inflict pain and suffering to children, the Crown said Oct. 15 in a high-profile assault case in Charlottetown. Lucille Poulin is charged with five accounts of assault for using a wooden rod to discipline children who lived with her on a religious commune in Hazelbrook, P.E.I. In closing arguments heard in P.E.I. Supreme Court, prosecutor Darrell Coombs said the Criminal Code of Canada prevents the assault of children. “That stick, that rod, that would almost constitute a weapon,” says Coombs, “you can cause some serious injury with that weapon.” Poulin, and two other adults who still live with her on the commune, testified earlier in the trial that Poulin only hit the children with the rod for corrective purposes. But the five children who testified said most of the time they weren’t told what they had done wrong. “A lot of times we weren’t told what we did wrong,” Coombs quoted one of the children who testifed earlier in the trial. “We weren’t given the chance to explain.” Another of the children was quoted as saying sometimes they would wake up being strapped. How can Poulin claim the punishment was for correctional purposes when she just starts “whacking them,” Coombs asked Supreme Court Justice David Jenkins during a full day of summary arguments by Coombs and defence lawyer Zia Chishti. “(Poulin) was inflicting a lot of pain for what was normal activity for eight- and nine-year-olds,” said Coombs. Some children were hit for things like laughing, pulling each other’s hair and not admitting to taking a cookie. Poulin, who was wearing her signature navy blue home-made dress printed with violets and trimmed in white, white shawl and light purple canvas shoes, sat with her arms crossed and her lips pursed as Coombs talked. “Miss Poulin is calling these children thieves and liars,” said Coombs. “They can hardly be thieves when all they took was a cookie.” But Chishti said there was no evidence of harm being done to the victims and there was no evidence provided by the Crown. Chishti said evidence was needed to prove the force used to hit the children was excessive. Coombs argued the Crown didn’t have evidence from the beatings because being hit produced redness and bruising, which would clear up before the children would have a chance to see a doctor. The charge of simple assault doesn’t need proof of injury. If there had been proof of injuries, the charge would be assault causing bodily harm, he said. However, Coombs added, there was emotional pain. “Having a child bend over a chair in a public display of disipline went straight to the heart of the dignity of the child,” Coombs said. “You don’t have to be a psychologist to know that would leave emotional scars.” Chishti, after being asked by Jenkins to get to the point of his arguments, said the parents of the children and all the adults on the commune accepted the set of rules in accordance with the scriptures given to the children. “The object of the rod was for corrective purposes for the benefit of the children, to see them growing up with Christian beliefs, equipped with all the virtues of the belief,” he said. He said Poulin’s group should be considered a religious minority and be given the protection to pursue its beliefs. Chishti also said the group has a religious belief that the force used in applying the rod is reasonable. “If there should be no pain at all, then what is the meaning of using force?” Chishti asked. “If there is no pain, then what is the deterrent? “Whatever force was used has been used for the benefit and correction of the children to grow up as good Christian children, not only learning the Bible but following it also in their lives,” he said. Jenkins is expected to hand down his decision Oct. 25 at 2 p.m. |
|||