I've never met Raveena Aulakh, environment reporter at the Toronto Star since 2008, but I recently learned she took her own life the weekend of May 28. She was only 42 years old.
I've read a great deal about the sordid circumstances surrounding her suicide, first in Frank Magazine, and most recently in the National Post.
If you're curious about what may have contributed to Raveena's most final decision, you'll have to click those links. I'm not interested in repeating the salacious details here. I've spent the past few days curious as to why the Toronto Star did not publish a word about Raveena's death.
Not only has the @TorontoStar not published a word about @RaveenaAulakh's passing, but her bio remains unchanged pic.twitter.com/zDF3h9xHyQ— Toronto Mike (@torontomike) June 6, 2016
Today's article in the National Post sheds some light on why no obituary was published in the Star.
Sources confirmed to the Post that Aulakh took her own life. She left a note in the newsroom, which was discovered by colleagues.
Aulakh requested that no obituary be published in the paper, and sources confirmed that the Star and its staff are honouring her request.
That's fine, but as of last night, Reveena Aulakh's biography on the Toronto Star website was written as if she was alive and actively working. Every time I read this bio, it upset me.
Then, moments ago, I paid another visit to Raveena's bio. It had finally been updated.
Updated, but for some reason, it doesn't mention that she's passed away. It even has her email listed, as if one could still write her.
According to a memo obtained by the National Post, Unifor Local 87-M has made a request to the newspaper’s management to organize an independent, third-party investigation into the Raveena's death. Something smells here, and we owe it to Raveena to get answers.
