The Ed Horne excuse

Last week, a 41-year-old Kimmirut man, whose name we’re not allowed to publish, appeared in court to plead guilty to 10 sex charges involving the molestation of children, and one sex charge related to an adult male.

This is not the first time this man has been brought to court for sexually molesting children. In 1998, he was convicted of molesting two boys in Kimmirut and Iqaluit, and sentenced to about two years in prison.

In his more recent past, this man has also displayed a capacity for deceit and dishonesty. He’s serving time right now on more than a dozen convictions for fraud, a crime rooted in the deception of the innocent and the gullible.

Given what those fraud convictions may reveal about his character, it should come as no surprise, then, to see him trying to sell what appears to be a phony story to the court.

This one is a standard-issue “I’m-a-victim” tale aimed at producing a lenient sentence.

Among other things, the man claims to have been a victim of Ed Horne, a former teacher, principal, and infamous pedophile, who lived and taught in Kimmirut during the 1983-84 and 1984-85 school years.

At that time, the man in court this week was about 19 or 20 — a full-grown man.

Ed Horne was a pedophile who preyed on children only. All his victims were boys. No adult has ever come forward to allege that Ed Horne sexually assaulted them. There is no evidence in existence anywhere to suggest that Ed Horne ever sexually assaulted an adult. So it’s difficult to understand why the Kimmirut man’s defence lawyer even brought this dubious claim to court as part of his sentencing submission.

It’s intent, obviously, is to portray his client as a victim who needs help. It’s effect, however, is too make him look like a pathetic liar.

So what would motivate a person to concoct such a shaky story? Because there are great benefits to be gained nowadays by portraying oneself as a victim. Our popular culture celebrates victimhood, and the therapy industry rewards it by showering victims with attention.

In 1997, an Inuit inmate at Stoney Mountain penitentiary claimed — in a group therapy session — that Ed Horne had sexually abused him. He made the claim to get better treatment — but it was a lie. Ironically, this lie led to a new investigation into Horne’s activities, which produced many legitimate victims who were telling the truth. And it also produced more fabricated allegations from men who told lies to attract attention to themselves or to gain other benefits.

The court system also rewards victims, at least, it’s perceived as doing so, whenever it imposes lighter sentences on victims who victimize others. And that likely explains why the “Ed Horne excuse” now appears to be an increasingly common ploy used by defence lawyers to obtain lighter sentences for convicted offenders.

But what’s the difference between an “Ed Horne victim,” and any other sexual abuse victim? There are probably thousands of sexual abuse victims in Nunavut, people who have been abused by fathers, uncles, brothers, grandparents, and other family or community members. Why does being “an Ed Horne victim” give you a leg up in the victimization game?

And unlike most sexual abuse victims in Nunavut, Ed Horne’s victims have benefited from a financial compensation package, which includes healing and therapeutic activities for those who want it. So if anything, being “an Ed Horne victim” should be deemed an aggravating, not a mitigating factor in sentencing. It should get you more, not less time in jail.

Judges in Nunavut have an extremely difficult job, and producing appropriate sentences to fit the offender, and the offence, is perhaps their most difficult task of all. That job will get a lot tougher if they don’t beware of con artists making phony claims to attract sympathy. JB