Sandy Supposes....

Not In Canada!

PROMPT: "Scandal intrigues us." Is this the case for you too? What recent scandal caught your attention and why?

         At the moment here in Canada, a former radio personality, Jian Ghomeshi, is on trial for sexual assault. Long before this trial, he was fired by the CBC, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and vilified in the press. For the most part, he seemed to have been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. If he was accused and his employer terminated his employment, he must be guilty. He himself posted that he engaged in and enjoyed 'rough sex', but all of his encounters were consensual. In some respects, this is probably what most of his naysayers object to; a public figure admitting that he had particular sexual tastes. Not in Canada!

         Three women have testified in court about their alleged assaults; two chose to remain anonymous, and one fought for the right to be named. This is a he said, she said case. Who would prove to be more believable? The defendant opted for trial by judge, so he does not have to convince a jury of his peers that he is innocent of the charges. This seems to be a good decision because of all the pre-trial and current publicity. Who could possibly be unbiased?

         The accusation that Jian likes to slap and choke his partners is the stuff of tabloids. The scandal is that these three adult women only had a passing relationship with their so-called abuser. They testified that it was a date or two at the most. He was not in a long-term relationship with anyone; he was a player, and they knew this. After their brief encounters, these women continued to correspond with him; they sent numerous texts, e-mails, and photos. They were not coerced to do this, they chose to communicate and pursue him, and they initiated this contact. They were not dependant upon him; they had their own homes and their own careers.

         If Jian was dangerous and abusive why did these women continue or try to extend some kind of a relationship? These allegations are several years old. Why are they being addressed now?

         What's become apparent is that anything sent or posted electronically is never completely lost. All correspondence floats around on the world-wide Web waiting to be re-discovered. The writer may forget about it. The writer may deny it exists. The writer's memory may be faulty or altered by time and distance. The internet is a very public forum. Companies exist that specialize in retrieving electronic data. The women seem to have never considered this possible. They also corresponded by texts and e-mail messages with each other. This could be construed as colluding.

         Now the women are themselves being tried and convicted via the court of public opinion. They seem to have an agenda, a plan, perhaps revenge? Their conflicting testimony and continued efforts to stay in touch with their alleged abuser have served to belittle genuine sexual assault victims. Facing one's attacker is already difficult, but now, perhaps more than ever, a victim will struggle to be seen as credible.

         A corollary scandal involves a so-called friend posting anti-Jian comments on-line. This professed pal is an M.P., a member of parliament, an elected government official. As a government official, he is not encouraged, expected, or in a position to comment publically about a matter before the court. He now claims that everyone knew Jian was dangerous, but did nothing about it. As a friend, why did he do nothing? Is he pandering for votes from those of the female persuasion?

         Obviously, no one knows the whole story. Four people have exposed themselves in an unforgettably public manner.