My Facebook news feed has been full of mostly critical,
perhaps even outraged comments as to the outcome of the Jian Ghomeshi trail.
That is not surprising. A lot of people had invested a lot of emotional energy
in their conviction of his absolute
guilt. For Judge Horkins to rule that Ghomeshi was not guilty of the
charges feels, to many people, as if the justice system had betrayed them. I
can understand people feeling that way - but I think they are wrong.
In my blog of February 15/16, I suggested that there were
two trials happening: one as to whether or not the victims were telling the
truth and (2) whether or not Ghomeshi was guilty. The judge's ruling was quite
clear. He did not believe all of the stories that the women told. In fact in
his judgement he stated "Each
complainant demonstrated, to some degree, a willingness to ignore their oath to
tell the truth on more than one occasion"( Horkins as quoted by Macdonald
of the CBC). That does not mean that Ghomeshi was innocent of the charges -
just that the it was clear that the victims had not been truthful all of the
time while giving evidence either to the police or to the court. It is, I would
suggest, a fundamental truth of any legal system that if you get caught in a
lie - your credibility drops down to zero. If they lied in court about one
thing, how could the judge believe them on what else they said?
So what happened? How did this guy, who by all accounts is
an arrogant SOB and who may act as if it is his god-given right to dominate any
environment or any person, get to be walking around as if he had done nothing
wrong? We expect our judges to make their rulings based upon the law and what they
hear. Judge Horkins had no choice but to rule as he did (read his judgement).
Did someone else mess up?
I think two separate groups could have acted differently. In
our holy and righteous anger at the news of Ghomeshi's behaviours both at home
and at work (and perhaps our sense of being betrayed by a newly minted cultural
icon), we all felt as if the resolution
to the case was obvious. Our total
acceptance of one truth and our inability to see that there might be another
side to the multi-faceted story that was leaking from every conceivable source
allowed the players involved to assume a greater importance than perhaps was
merited. I would never suggest that my condemnation of Ghomeshi's behaviour
allowed or encouraged the women to embellish or ignore parts of the narrative.
On the other hand, no one did anything to slow down the bandwagon as it sped
down the hill. In hindsight one should wonder if our immersion into this case
had anything to do with North America's fascination with the failings of its
celebrities. Did this enthusiasm to
watch on the sidelines, like a modern Madam Lafarge, in the taking down of
another icon lead the criminal/court systems to do less than a stellar job?
Did the police recommend charges because of public pressure
and expectations? Did they investigate thoroughly?
Why did the Crown Attorney appear to be lost when it became clear that the
victims had changed their story or at the very least left out some of the
interactions? Why did they not know all
of the facts before putting these women on the stand? Why was there no testimony
presented to the court that would have provided
some explanation for the women's behaviours after the incidents? All of us who
have spent time supporting women who have been abused by their partners know
that sometimes their behaviours appear to be counter intuitive. We all know
that the relationship between the abuser and their victims can become extraordinarily
complex as the victim struggles to understand what has happened and why. The
judge in his judgement alluded to this possibility but the Crown appears to
have done little to provide testimony that would explain the inconsistencies.
The victims appeared to have not been adequately prepared to give testimony. Given
the trauma that they had faced, it is clear that the Crown's office needed to
do more.
At the end of the day nothing has changed. There are so many
negative lessons to learn from this case. Women who have been abused have once
again been reminded that even if they do come forward, they may not be
believed. Nothing has happened to suggest to those who abuse or at the very
least believe that they can bully or dominate others around them that it is
both morally and legally wrong to so. It has been confirmed once again that if
you have money you get a good lawyer.....if you are the victim you may get
nothing. But the outcome of the trial
does NOT suggest that the system is broken or that abusers automatically get a
free ride. Rather than blaming the judge - perhaps we should look deeper to see
what could have been done, and still needs to do to ensure that that there is
not a next time.
I ended my last blog on this issue by stating that " For the life of me - I cannot see any
real winners in the process". I still don't.