The formal portion of Jian
Ghomeshi's trial is over. That is, the trial in front of a judge, in full view
of the public is finished. The only remaining bit of work to be done is for the
judge to decide whether or not the evidence clearly proves his guilt or was
insufficient to do so. If it had been a trial by jury - the decision would have
been reasonably quick. No jury would take a month to decide. But the judge,
presumably because he has other trials to preside over, apparently needs that
much time.
There were,
of course, two trials occurring simultaneously. One was to determine Ghomeshi's
guilt or innocence, the other to determine if the women who brought forward the
information that lead to the charges were telling the truth or not. On the surface,
the trial started from the same perspective regardless of the fact that those
perspectives are diametrically opposite. It, by law, was assumed that (1) Ghomeshi
was telling the truth and was therefore innocent, and that (2) the women were telling the truth and he was guilty.
In the best of all worlds, the judge's ruling will clearly state who was honest
and who was not. But it is not that simple.
Rightly or
wrongly Ghomeshi was, by the public at large, judged to be guilty almost from
the first published hints of alleged wrong doing. While there may of been a
myriad of reasons for doing so, his bosses at CBC wasted little time firing him
when the news of his alleged sexual assault became known. His guilt was so wide
accepted that he has not worked since. It strikes me that it is unlikely,
regardless of the judge's ruling, that
he will ever in the foreseeable future have a job as prestigious as his
previous one . One wonders if he will be employable anywhere else other than on
some AM talk late afternoon show.
The women on
the other hand, were assumed to be telling the truth. The current thinking on
such allegations is that it is so painful for women to talk about sexual assault,
that they would only do so if there was some truth behind their statements.
Regardless of the judge's findings, those women will always be believed by the
vast majority of feminists, if not a significant proportion of the general
public. While both their personal and
professional status may not have been enhanced by their disclosures, they
certainly have not been diminished. But at the very least they have exposed
themselves to public scrutiny and the resultant shame. The emotional/psychological
damage may be long standing.
The
presumption of innocence, while it may be a cornerstone of our criminal legal
system, is sometimes quite simply garbage. They are some people who are clearly
guilty and lying when they say they are innocent. Similarly there have been
enough cases in the past 18 months (see for example Rolling
Stone withdrawal of sexual assault story) to question as to whether or not
people are always telling the truth when alleging sexual assault. Our present
legal system allows the defence to attack the credibility of a witness; to look
for and to pick away at inconsistencies. And rightly so. But we are wrong in assuming
that if a witness is inconsistent or if they tell facts out of order, or even
forget some, that they are lying. Our
presumptions of guilt or innocence; of truth or lies are based on gut feelings.
Our legal system is based on the assumption that we (the judge or the jury) can
always tell who is honest.
I, of course,
have no way of knowing as to whether or not Ghomeshi is guilty of the offences.
My gut says that the women are telling the truth and that some sort of assault
did occur. But I freely acknowledge that that perspective has been shaped by my
liberal education and my general inclination to be on the side of the oppressed
and the abused.
For the life of
me - I cannot see any real winners in the process
No comments:
Post a Comment