City councillor deserves reprimand
Cambridge city Coun. Mike Devine must be brought into line.
It would have been seriously wrong for any man to say what Devine did to a woman at the Hespeler Village Market on two occasions last summer.
To call the female vendor “a sexy gramma” not once but twice and to tell her she is “f-ing hot,” as he admits to doing, would be crude, rude and constitute verbal harassment coming from any man.
But this behaviour, which includes being publicly intoxicated, was even more inappropriate and is now in need of censure because Devine is an elected official.
He is a municipal politician who wields power, and that power can be intimidating to ordinary citizens.
He is a representative of the public who should behave at all times in a dignified manner deserving of the public’s respect.
What he did in Hespeler last summer was completely unacceptable, both for the man and the politician.
On Tuesday night, Cambridge city council should let everyone know this is so.
Devine’s council colleagues have many options for expressing their displeasure. There are three things they should keep in mind.
First, the basic facts in this case are uncontested. Devine admits to saying what the complainant said he did. The city hired the Toronto firm ADR Chambers to act as its integrity commissioner, and the firm’s report pulls no punches.
Devine violated two sections of the city’s code of conduct by failing to behave with decorum and by harassing someone, the report declares.
The report adds that Devine “was inebriated when interacting with the public in his capacity as a councillor.” Fairminded people can conclude from the report that the councillor’s actions were egregious, offensive and must be addressed. He must be held accountable.
Second, it is worth noting that Devine has apologized and taken full responsibility for what he did.
He did not dispute the complainant’s version of events. He did not argue he was misunderstood or joking. He owned up to his wrongdoing and deservedly received a lot of embarrassing publicity. Council should take this into consideration.
Third, women everywhere are rightly and understandably pushing back against this kind of loutish male behaviour. The complainant in this case was genuinely offended by how, according to the report, Devine “disrespected her, her husband, her customers and her business.”
Words matter. Unwanted words laced with sexual innuendo hurt, frighten and anger women far too often. They should not have to tolerate such language whether in private or public.
The men who haven’t learned this by now — and, incredibly, there are still lots of them — should smarten up. Devine’s experience and what happens to him next might contribute to this necessary education.
On Tuesday, Cambridge council should make its condemnation of Devine’s behaviour clear to everyone. He should be officially reprimanded, told to write a formal apology to the complainant, and asked to take counselling.
After that, it will be up to voters in the next election to pass their own verdict on this politician.