WHATEVER THE MERITS OF THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ONTARIO TORY LEADER PATRICK BROWN, THE MERE ACT OF MAKING THEM WAS ENOUGH TO END HIS POLITICAL CAREER. THIS IS ALL IT TAKES NOW.
Presumption of innocence, due process ignored
For all the other moments #MeToo has wrought, the Patrick Brown story is seminal: A political leader is cut down like a sapling in the forest in a matter of hours, and none of his colleagues, in and outside of the Ontario Conservative party, and including the Ontario premier and the prime minister of Canada, have one word to say in the defence of fair play or the presumption of innocence.
This — not the anonymous allegations of Brown’s accusers from the shadows — is what is shocking and disgraceful about this story.
Kathleen Wynne spent nearly 18 minutes in front of the TV cameras at Queen’s Park Thursday. Only one journalist even bothered to ask her about due process.
“These are allegations. He’s not had a chance to defend himself. Are you in any way concerned there is a bit of a public trial going on and is that fair?” the reporter asked.
“Again, I’m not going to comment on the specifics of the situation,” Wynne replied. “I do think that it was brave for these young women to come forward. I think that it was a hard thing for them to do, but the point I’m making this morning is that — we always, there will always be due process and there should be due process and there is a legal process that has to be part of this …”
And then she went on to urge Ontarians to get out their “own little flashlights” to “shine a light” into their own lives and to work together to “create safe spaces for everyone” — you know, except for the accused.
As for the PM, from Davos, Switzerland, Justin Trudeau saluted the women “for their courage and their leadership.” Ahh, what a fine fellow he is: It wasn’t so long ago his heart went out to the little Toronto girl whose hijab had been cruelly slashed by a man in a hate crime. Er, wait.
Andrea Horwath, the leader of Ontario’s New Democrats, was predictably even less circumspect.
Saying she was “pretty disgusted” by the allegations, she, too, fielded a question about the dangers of a trial in the court of public opinion.
“I really have two words about the justice system: Jian Ghomeshi,” she said, and went on to say the “justice system is failing women … so let’s not pretend that we have a justice system that’s actually protecting women and making sure that women see justice.”
News flash: The justice system isn’t meant to protect women — not to mention, not all of us need protecting.
And Ghomeshi was acquitted in a fair trial, with rules and order and an appeal process, and he was acquitted not because the system failed women, but because his accusers failed women: They variously lied, colluded with one another or failed to tell the truth to police and prosecutors.
Let it be perfectly clear. The point is not what Brown allegedly did.
The point is not even Brown, though spare a minute for him, that poor, lonely castoff. No wonder he raced to hold that impromptu press conference Wednesday night; very likely, it will be the first and only opportunity he ever has to defend himself in public.
That his senior staff deserted him immediately is no reflection on the strength, or lack of it, of the allegations made against him. Political staff are the human equivalents of blowflies; they’re the first to recognize a corpse.
The point is that purely on the say-so of two women who claim he sexually assaulted them, another prominent man has been ruined. One of his accusers alleges he asked her for oral sex (her words, according to Glen McGregor, the CTV reporter who broke the story Wednesday night), the other was a former staffer who alleges he plied her with alcohol, took her to his bedroom and kissed her, his erection against her, until she protested and demanded he drive her home, whereupon he ceased and did just that.
Whatever the merits of their accusations — and how is anyone to know? — the mere act of making them to a journalist was enough. This is all it takes now.
It means every man in the world is vulnerable, not because he has necessarily misconducted himself, but because a woman may say he has. The truth of the alleged misconduct — did it happen? Were there mitigating circumstances? Does the accuser have motive to lie? — is incidental, if not irrelevant.
If reporters are to be the new detectives, and media the modern court, then let there be some rules.
Perhaps journalists should be required to video their interviews with accusers, as is the gold standard for police; the entire interviews can then be posted online, so viewers/jurors know what questions were asked, and what weren’t, and see for themselves the body language of all.
Perhaps “investigative” journalists should have to take the same courses cops do, in how to interview people without leading them or suggesting the answers they want.
Those are facetious suggestions. Here’s one that isn’t: Reputable news organizations should swear off anonymous allegations of sexual misconduct unless there is a substantial body of evidence and an overwhelming public interest imperative.
Despite the mountain of horse manure from the likes of Wynne, Horwath et al Thursday about the courage of the two women, I can think of almost nothing that requires less fortitude than accusing someone else of wrongdoing when your own face, name and identity are hidden.
That this all comes five months before the next Ontario election means only one thing, as my wise muse put it: “#MeToo is shaking the foundations of our democracy,” because fundamental to a democracy is — was — the right to face your accuser and make full answer in defence.