Reign of terror in matters of sex tempts backlash
Orwell’s 1984 still stands as a warning, says Julius H. Grey.
It is disheartening to see most of western society approve the new reign of terror against alleged sexual delinquents and the termination of careers on the basis of bare accusations, all in the name of a new culture of gender equality.
Gender equality is undoubtedly one of the greatest ideals of recent decades, but what is happening now is more akin to the excesses that all revolutions, even positive ones, tend to bring about and which are not conducive to enhancing equality. In fact, most excesses ultimately provoke an unpleasant reaction in the opposite direction.
This is what we are risking now.
The first argument against ending careers on the basis of unproved accusations is a legal one. The rule of law is not compatible with punishment before trial. It is true that in certain cases of very dangerous people, immediate action is justified in the interest of safety, but this is very much the exception. In other cases, punishment before trial is a trend to be resisted, especially in a period when accusations spread like wildfire on the internet and cannot be fully erased even by subsequent acquittal. The presence of multiple accusers does not change this, as we cannot exclude copycat accusations or cabals, even if they may be rare.
Second, the wave of accusations seems to conflate very serious matters, like rapes, physical assaults and systematic blackmail, with ones of a very different character, like lewd looks and sexually charged conversations at work or at universities. The real crimes can be punished by criminal courts or compensated by civil courts, but the misbehaviour is very difficult to sanction without casting a chill on normal human behaviour. When does a look or a remark or even a hug become “inappropriate” and punishable? Further, is it not likely that there are more people who enjoy banter and flirting even at work or study than those who choose to complain?
These minor categories of “offences” punished by immediate and seemingly irrevocable disgrace of the accused leave no man safe and inevitably create stilted, formal relationships between men and women in the public sphere.
Third, the denunciations ignore history. We suffer from “presentism,” the view that our current attitudes constitute the final version of wisdom and can be applied retroactively. Yet, clearly sexual and other attitudes change over time. It is unfair to turn remarks or gestures that were normal and not criminal at the time they occurred into a career-ending catastrophe. If bawdy Christmas parties were common 30 years ago, we should not point fingers at participants today. Retroactivity is always very dangerous and can be turned against every one of us in a few decades.
Finally, it is highly questionable whether a “sexless” work or study place is possible or even desirable. All experiments to modify basic human conduct have failed, both the Communist and the religious ones, and sexual repression in particular has never lasted. The 17th-century Puritanism and the 19th-century Victorianism imposed harsh penalties on sexual transgressors, but ultimately those systems imploded.
In many ways, our society is coming to resemble that of George Orwell’s 1984, with the ubiquitous recording and tracking devices. We must remember another aspect of 1984 — its anti-sex propaganda and repression.
We would be much better off to punish only conduct that is criminal or constitutes a clear breach of trust, such as insisting on favours for promotion or grades.
It should go without saying that those narrow categories would be punishable only after a full hearing.
One final question: Is the lack of serious criticism or resistance to the denunciations and dismissals a sign that people are afraid to speak out?
Once again, Orwell’s 1984 casts a large shadow on our world.
Julius H. Grey is a Montreal lawyer.
Is it not likely that there are more people who enjoy banter and flirting even at work or study than those who choose to complain?