Ghomeshi should be forced to testify

jian-ghomeshi-goes-to-trial-620x349

Jian Ghomeshi, and others accused of sexual assault, should have to testify and face cross-examination.

It flies in the face of a basic tenet of law, and there’s a section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that will prevent this from happening, but Ghomeshi should really have to go on the hot seat. He is the one on trial, after all.

Instead, the women who have accused him of sexual assault are the ones facing rigorous cross-examination. Some would say they are being grilled by Ghomeshi’s lawyer, Marie Henein.

It’s all well and good to have a fair trial and make sure you don’t send an innocent person to jail, but we have a problem in Canada.

An estimated 90 per cent of sexual assaults go unreported and of the 10 per cent that are reported, only 25 per cent lead to a conviction. That’s an alarming failure rate and it’s not because women are imagining they’ve been raped or sexually assaulted.

What can the federal government do to turn the tables? They could pass a law that would force those accused of sexual assault to testify and be cross-examined. Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would normally prevent someone from being compelled to testify in a case in which they are the accused, but there is a trump card the federal government can play.

If Justin Trudeau’s new Liberal government is serious about solving the problem of unsolved and unreported sexual assaults in this country, it should pass a law forcing accused rapists to testify and have their comments and personal histories sifted through and torn apart. The federal government could do this if it invoked Section 33 of the Charter. Also known as the Notwithstanding Clause, it would allow such a law to stand for five years at a time at which time the federal government could let it lapse if it’s not working, or renew it if it is.

When you’re faced with a problem that has reached such epic proportions, you need to get creative and you need to get serious. How much would such a measure help? I don’t know, but it won’t hurt. It would certainly wipe the smug look off a lot of faces and knowing they’ll have to sit in the hot seat could act as a deterrent.

The other solution is to teach men not to rape, but that only works on the nice guys, so let’s roll out the Notwithstanding Clause and use it to fix a problem.

Advertisements

Believing: it’s important, but only the first step

Lucy DeCoutere and Reva Seth accuse Jian Ghomeshi of assault and sexual assault.

Lucy DeCoutere and Reva Seth accuse Jian Ghomeshi of assault and sexual assault. The separate incidents are both alleged to have occurred more than 10 years ago.

Journalists often face tough ethical decisions. To decide what to do, we often follow guidelines or policies – founded on principles. One such principle is that you don’t use anonymous sources unless a person’s life or job is at risk if you identify them.

That’s a good policy and normally I would agree with that. I’m a big believer in saying what you mean, meaning what you say, and putting your name to it. However, in the case of the Jian Ghomeshi allegations, The Toronto Star knew the names of four women they interviewed, but didn’t print them and that was used by some to undermine the credibility of the women. Three women say that the former CBC radio host assaulted them while a fourth accused him of making lewd remarks and groping her.

If it was a 1 vs. 1, the Star probably wouldn’t have gone with the story, despite the reputation Ghomeshi had. But Jesse Brown was willing to investigate the story after getting the first call and got similar stories from four women. Amazingly, Jesse Brown said on Twitter that this story still wasn’t going to run and was dead in the water until Ghomeshi’s now infamous Facebook post on Oct. 26 gave the Star “what it needed to publish.”

That four vs. one justified protecting their identities because it was clearly a story about a pattern that had to be told. When it was told, it became an 8 vs. 1, with someone willing to be identified, then 9 vs. 1, with two willing to be identified, and now we have two women filing a complaint with the police. Do you see how this is trending?

We were at the edge of a cliff, looking across a narrow gorge to another cliff. It was a place we had to get to and the only way to get there was to jump. But no, we have a policy of never jumping off cliffs. You know what policies can be sometimes? Not merely guidelines, but excuses to avoid making important decisions. This is life, there are no absolutes, so saying you always have to follow a policy or a guideline is the easy way out.

Every day, the way we treat other people is an important step in improving the world. But there are times when all of us – not just journalists – are going to be presented with an opportunity to make a greater impact on the society or world we live in. Often, it will present itself as an option between doing the right thing or following a policy.

When faced with that decision, consider the implications and ask yourself these questions. What kind of world do I want? Do I have to chance to make this a better world –– not just for yourself, but for others? Clearly, the status quo needs some improvements. When women like Lucy DeCoutere and Reva Seth can experience what they went through and don’t come forward because they don’t think their allegations will be taken seriously, our society has a serious problem. A problem that won’t go away if we leave it to others to change. Awareness and moral support are great, but acting when you get a chance to make a difference is what we really need.

Like when reporter Jesse Brown believed that woman. Then three more joined her and were brave enough to share their story with the world.

Now, Toronto police are investigating Ghomeshi.