Of course it’s not. In the legal sense, #MeToo is vigilantism. As expected, the victims of this unfairness are starting to strike back. “Not fair!” is the headline. “Nothing proven,” is the injured cry. Important men lose their positions on the unverified word of a woman or two, without ever getting their chance to prove their innocence in court. And now the less obviously guilty cases are starting to show up.
The Steve Paikin case is a perfect example. He is accused of an isolated incident, and is getting a lot of support from mainstream media.
Our criminal courts are designed to be as fair and equal as they can be. Courts are supposed to be above the influence of vigilantes and members of elite groups.
What’s that? Court? You mean that government institution created by men and run by men that treats women who bring complaints as if they were criminals? Oh, yes. That court.
The fact is that the court system has failed people who are harassed, and it goes far beyond female rape victims, although they are the most affected. The harassers are usually members of the class that the courts were created to protect. They use that protection cleverly when they commit their harassment, and the court system protects them under the guise of being fair.
But an increasingly large percentage of the population finally sees that system as unfair to victims of harassment. We know there was no access to fairness when the perpetrator used social pressure, position and gender to force the victim to submit. Now we realize that in court the same thing happens. But what can anyone do?
The Solution
Human groups have a talent for finding ways to cope in the short term. When totalitarian governments try to control the economy, a black market springs up. When governments boost taxes, the underground economy booms. And when courts fail the victims of harassment, it is fine poetic justice that the perpetrators, who used their social, political, and economic position to further their abuse, find that the hoi polloi can use the very media the harassers think they control to remove those powers at the snap of their grubby communal fingers. Will a percentage of innocent people get burned in the fallout? Of course they will, but nothing near the incredible percentage of victims who got no justice under the old system. Which goes to admit that unfairness exists. The perception of unfairness – it doesn’t matter to whom – should be a force for change in the judicial system.
The Long-Term Solution
There are two types of leadership: the gung-ho types who forge ahead and hope society will follow, and those who look over their shoulders and make sure they are leading in the direction society is already going. It’s probably a good thing that the courts fall into the latter category. So hopefully the courts (and the parliamentarians who make the laws) will realize from the media and from public outcry that their system isn’t doing its job. They will then tune up the court process so that it fulfills the needs of a larger segment of the population, and is not so biased towards another segment.
On a Similar Topic
The recent acquittal of Saskatchewan farmer Gerald Stanley for the murder of an aboriginal youth will be decried as another instance of unfairness in the courts. I’m not wildly happy with the verdict, myself. According to the story the newspapers reported, a bunch of young idiots got drunk and invaded a farmer’s property, made a lot of noise and tried to steal his ATV. He fired some warning shots with a revolver he kept for shooting varmints. When they continued to threaten his family and property, he went down to their truck and tried to reach in and take the keys. His story is that the gun had a malfunction, and there was a fired round in the chamber which had not gone off. When he reached in the car, the gun went off and shot the boy. The judge deemed that the farmer was within his rights to fire the warning shots in the air, and the death could have been caused by the accidental malfunction of the gun. Reasonable doubt. Not guilty.
My Opinion
I personally can’t see why the jury didn’t convict Stanley of manslaughter. Okay, it’s fine to shoot a couple of times in the air from a distance. Yes, when you get drunk and disorderly you must accept the consequences of your actions. But likewise, the decision to fire a gun carries certain responsibilities. When Stanley went towards that truck with his gun in his hand and his finger still on the trigger, he stepped over the line of proper use of a gun. “I didn’t know the gun was loaded” is no excuse. Using old ammunition is a bad choice. Accidents don’t happen; they are caused, and a lot of the cause was the general attitude of Mr. Stanley to the use of a gun. And as far as his story goes, try to picture the scenario where a man reaches into a car to take the keys and ends up shooting the driver in the left hand side of the neck by mistake. Am I way out on a line by saying that the most likely scenario was that he reached in, put the gun against the kid’s neck and reached for the keys with his other hand? But that’s only my personal opinion. I didn’t hear all the testimony.
Was the Verdict Fair?
As far as the victim was concerned, I think it was. He and his friends were drunk and acting in a violent and irresponsible way. Young men get killed every year in situations like this. When you’re a long way out on the “stupid limb,” it only takes a small accident to knock you off: car accident, ATV accident, hunting accident, drowning. In this case the accident was a pistol that hung fire. Well, maybe.
As far as the aboriginal community is concerned, it was not.
Their main argument is that the court process (here we go again) is flawed, because the lawyers for the defence were allowed to toss out any jurors who were aboriginal, without giving any reason. Just like for rape victims, the process seems to be flawed in favour of the powers that be (In this case, white landowners). Once again, it’s time for the system to be fine-tuned.
So I think I’m pretty safe in suggesting the laws and the court system need a tune-up. But that’s not all.
In the Longer Term,
While searching for an appropriate image for this post, I was dismayed that most of the female images for “fear” were highly sexualized: revealing black leather outfits, heavy makeup and the like. Searching image sites for “brave woman” turned up disappointingly few pictures. We have a long way to go in removing the use of violence towards women as accepted entertainment.
And it takes all of us to do that.