I just wanted to respond to the post below: there is essentially no Joni content,
so many of you may wish to skip over this.
I clearly do not know the whole picture here, but my post was in response to the
National Post's article and that alone, and my main objection was to the paper's
giving this difficult personal situation high profile coverage mostly - if not
only - because Kilauren Gibb is the daughter of a celebrity. Proof of point: in
the headline on the front page of that issue, Joni Mitchell is the person
mentioned by name. And I still take exception to that.
I'd leave it at that, but Louise jumps very quickly to some serious conclusions,
and I want to set things straight. Of course I do not think that 20-month-old
children should be exposed to multiple allegations of child abuse without
substantiating evidence, and for the record I respect the various media for the
role they've played to help overturn several wrongful convictions in this
country.
I'm all for magazines and newspapers printing exposis of miscarriages of justice,
so long as the cases they cite have been settled in court. Sick as much of it may
be, our judicial system, like America's, is based on the presumption that a
defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Taking this only a small step
further, I feel that using the details of a case that has not been decided to
prove an editorial point is not reporting, it's puerile gossip.
I think (naively, probably) that it's the justice system's responsibility to hold
the court responsible for its bad decisions. The media are by nature biased
(editorials are really just opinion forums) and reporters are not legally
compelled to remain impartial. Newspaper articles are also very incomplete: in
order to properly assess any case, you'd have to read the entire transcript,
which few of us have the time or energy to do.
So, I continue to think that, while I may not have the whole picture, I am
unlikely to get it from newspaper or magazine articles. And at this point in this
particular case, I don't necessarily have the right to.
As for the National Post I didn't say I was ashamed of it, I said I hated it.
Nobody I know likes it. If you want to know why I hate it, you provided the
answer: "The National Post did not cover most of the more controversial or lurid
details of this case..." Well, aren't they brave! I said I was, once again,
ashamed of the Canadian media. If I were a citizen of the U.S. or the U.K., I'd
probably be even more ashamed. It might seem that very little of the Canadian
public agrees with me, but I couldn't care less. I read the Post a few times a
week, so my opinion isn't based on one cursory perusal. If I based my taste on
what the majority of my fellow Canadians liked, I'd be on the Ciline Dion
Discussion List.
Louise, nothing you said was rude. If you want to continue this discussion, fine.
I'd like to know more in the way of facts about the charges you've made against
the family courts. But let's take it offlist.
Very best,
Roberto
Louise wrote:
> I just have to respond to Roberto, because I fail to understand why he objects
> to the exposure of the serious problem in Canada of false allegations in the
> family courts. If he thinks that 20 month old children should be exposed to
> multiple allegations of child abuse without substantiating evidence, and
> should have their entire paternal family eliminated as a result, then I just
> have to disagree with him. The National Post did not cover most of the more
> controversial and lurid details of this case, but the family courts of Canada
> are sick, and they destroy infant children like Joni's granddaughter on a
> daily basis. The reason why they got so sick in the first place is because
> the media does not hold the court accountable for its bad decisions. As for
> being ashamed of the National Post, it is the leading national newspaper in
> the country after less than three years of publishing in this country. It
> would seem that very little of the Canadian public agrees with Roberto. I
> also feel a great compassion for Joni Mitchell, as she has had to deal with a
> very disturbed situation and with no end in sight. I think she has every
> right to be falling in love with her beautiful granddaughter, who looks just
> like her, and that does not take away from the adoptive grandparents at all.
> I don't mean to be rude, but Roberto doesn't know the whole picture here, and
> it is not pretty.
>
> Louise
