I have just finished reading the character reference letters that were submitted to the judge in the Cameron Ortis case. There are 26 of them in total. They are written by family members, friends, some going back to high school days, academic supervisors from UBC, fellow students from his time at different Universities in Canada, acquaintances of his family. None were contributed by his former colleagues at the RCMP, with whom he worked for over a decade.
The letters have in common a portrait of Ortis as a distinctive individual, a bit of a loner, without close ties, smart and talented, and a man of high integrity. If there is anything they share above all else it is the credit to Mr. Ortis’s personal integrity.
Many expressed surprise and shock, even disbelief, at the charges he was convicted of.
One example might suffice. The writer said:
“We are all perplexed by some of the choices he made. But the suggestions that he may have been motivated by financial gain or an intention to undermine colleagues or the Canadian state simply don’t ring true.”
That the wormwood of betrayal and treason could have entered Ortis’ soul is something none of the letter writers can contemplate. The word “ego,” so often a driver of betrayal, is never once mentioned. That Ortis had any ideological leaning that would take him to the dark side is rejected.
None of the letters brings us any closer to the mystery of why Ortis engaged in the security breaches and crimes he has been convicted of.
What they do, in various ways, is plead for mercy for Ortis, for “Cam.”
The most remarkable, in that vein, is the letter provided by Michael Kovrig. Mr. Kovrig explains that he knew Ortis only briefly during his own time with Global Affairs. He wasn’t a personal friend. Kovrig expresses no view of Ortis’ charges and conviction. The gist of his letter to Justice Maranger is to remind the judge of the hell that is prison confinement. Kovrig calls it “raw suffering…a scarring experience for any human soul.” These are words from deep experience. Kovrig spent over 1000 days in solitary confinement, and not in a Canadian jail, but in a Chinese detention centre, where his fate could never be known.
Michael Kovrig urges the justice system to be creative in its sentencing, to set aside the standard legal principles of deterrence and “retribution,” to avoid the impulse to just let Ortis “rot” in a prison cell, and instead think about forms of restorative justice, where Ortis could use his talents to pay back his debts to society and his country.
The Kovrig letter is deeply compassionate and impressive. It assumes that Ortis is a man undamaged by the acts he performed and undamaged by his lengthy time in detention.
There are hints in the other letters, from those who knew and interacted with Ortis, of an undamaged man. Ortis regularly corresponded with many of his character references while in pre-trail detention and his letters impressed. He was by all accounts meticulous about keeping to his bail conditions when he was allowed bail. He gave his police monitors no trouble. He was a runner, and no doubt relished the opportunity to return to his running while out on bail, but always did so in a stadium setting where one of his sureties could have him in sight at all times. He made sure that his electronic ankle bracelet was always fully charged. This is no raging criminal.
Defence counsel did not refer to any of the letters in the sentencing hearing, which strikes me as surprising. Nor did Cameron Ortis offer any statement at the close of the hearing when invited to do so by the judge. An opportunity was missed to raise the issue of compassion.
Ortis did not plead guilty, did not express remorse for his crimes, something Crown counsel emphasized in its sentencing submissions. His story about his actions failed to convince the jury. He did not seed the ground of sentencing leniency in any of those ways. That, of course, is his right.
The dark mystery of Cameron Ortis’ motives may ultimately weigh against him, may undermine the appeal to compassion so eloquently expressed by Michael Kovrig.
Motivation for an insider threat is varied and rarely static. Like Snowden, narcissism could have predisposed him to betray.
Lyrical post. Will we ever know why? Maybe not.