I'd like to preface this by clarifying that I have nothing at stake in the outcome of the Jian Ghomeshi trial. Neither verdict will offend me, I have no hopes or expectations. I am not threatened by Mr. Ghomeshi, or those like him, and my sense of ethics is entirely dependent on whether the actions I take today allow me to look in the mirror tomorrow morning - and little else. I'm not anti-social-justice, but I tend more toward the anti-hysteria, anti-hypocrisy camp.
When the news about Mr. Ghomeshi broke, it meant nothing for my weekend. I wasn't a disappointed fan, and felt that too much of the case had to do with private exchanges, was plainly aware that we weren't being told the whole story by anyone, and frankly a complete stranger's *hm* preferences are none of my business. I had no opinion, and continue to have no opinion on the facts of the case. It's not my place to have an opinion. Quite honestly, who am I to judge?
But I spend a lot of time waiting in line in court offices all over southern Ontario, a lot of time on the road listening to the news (traffic on the ones!), and Twitter makes a good time-killer, so I looked up the trial and started following.
It's much more colourful than I thought it would be.
My impressions so far:
1. I serve legal documents for a living, and later wait around for hours at a time to file them at the courts. I've read hundreds of Statements of Claim, Defences, Motion Records, Facta, Divorce documents, small claims documents, etc. I've seen how nasty people can be to each other, and I hear, on a daily basis, how upset and frustrated litigants can get when the procedure gets confusing or when the consequences of missing a step or failing to comply creates hardship or inconvenience. I've stood next to vengeful people, telling anyone within earshot about the punishment they intend to exact. I've knocked on strangers' doors in the poorest and richest neighbourhoods, had people physically run from me, squared off in case the angry guy behind the door should start swinging, served in hospitals, detention centres, psych wards, and staked out fraudsters. I've seen people pursued by so many creditors they're afraid of their shadows, and I've seen people completely blindsided by being sued. I've seen families brutally biting into each other over pennies, had people cry on my shoulder on their doorstep in the dark, been invited into homes to hear about their most recent ventures. I've seen people I've served in other cities parked outside of my Mississauga mailbox.
When you see a lot of antagonism, you learn pretty quickly to reserve your judgment and not take anything personally or get too involved. A versus B, the truth is almost always somewhere in between, and more often than not, neither party is completely innocent. It's not victim-blaming, it's humanity.
So here I am watching this trial play out, and I'm aware - very aware - that there's plenty within the facts of the case I don't know. I don't count on the media to tell an objective truth, and for all the circus, it won't be over until the judge releases his decision. I'm okay with that. Knowing that nothing I think is going to impact the situation is refreshing. It gives me the leisure of sitting back and watching.
2. The tacks the Crown and Defense are taking are interesting to me because I haven't dealt with much criminal law. This is a learning experience. It's like watching a tennis or chess match. I find the commentary online by other lawyers useful. The more insight, the better. I wonder about what each side is concerned about at any given time, what everyone in the courtroom might be thinking, what the intended outcomes of their strategies might be.
3. I specify that I appreciate the online commentary of lawyers, because almost all of the other commentary is coming from third wave feminists. Yes, I know, it's Twitter and we can pretty much say anything we want (I repeat: pretty much!). But seeing the rabble rousing out there is dizzying, particularly when it's so entirely out of touch. See, when I think of the art of persuasion, I'm thinking of things like ameliorating oneself to the target, appearing agreeable and respectful, allowing everyone involved to save face, knowing when to cede, remaining non-hysterical, and offering space for positive, solution-oriented brainstorming, with a desired outcome mutually beneficial to all parties. Like an effective sales pitch. It's nothing new. (As a side-note, how is Dale Carnegie not mandatory reading in elementary schools?). But the popular trend I'm seeing is rather the opposite, which is also nothing new. There is significant outrage out there over the thought that accusers may need to answer painful questions. That's what happens when you effectively are the evidence. The hatred being spouted for defense lawyer, Marie Henein, and also for defense lawyers in general, is impressive, but misplaced. The general call is to lower the barriers for conviction in sexual assault cases, and never question the verity of victim statements. It's like the masses have all decided to turn off their intellect and let their mouths (and fingers) keep going. That's sad, because the procedure really isn't that complicated.
Complicated, however, is not the point for these warriors. They're not interested in justice - they're out for blood, and are bitter that anyone should need to sing for that supper. They're watching for any and every questionable turn of phrase, any comments that strike them as "other" than their own point of view, they're complaining about being triggered (which is ironic, because they are actually seeking out their triggers. Like masochists), and they're crying. What do they want? They want a man to spend the foreseeable future in jail, on claims that should be believed by virtue of the gender of the claimants alone. (Can you imagine the witch hunts that would follow if we gave anyone that much power? Yeesh!)
Don't get me wrong. I have no genuine hatred. What I'm seeing here is a lot of people hurting. It's easy to feel insignificant when the powers that be appear utterly uninterested in you. It's easy to lose touch when there's a cozy community not too far out of reach telling you there's a purpose to this fight and you're invited. Some of us spend a long time finding our place in the world. Others are happy to belong anywhere at all.
4. A note on language: words like "victim" and "survivor" seem prejudiced against the defendant in a situation where the accuser, again is the evidence. The spirit in which they have been used suggests (a) innocence (on which I have already opined), and (b) having risked or faced death in the ordeal (which remains to be demonstrated, to my mind). Using these words insinuates a situation in the same sense as when I say I was violently attacked by my kitchen to describe being scalded by spilled boiling water or getting in the way of a falling blade.
Correct me if I'm wrong. This is a learning experience for me.
5. Marie Henein is absolutely fascinating. I wonder how many community leaders are secretly jealous of her. Under different circumstances, she is exactly the woman we'd be celebrating. She's climbed to the top of a difficult and unsavoury profession that requires a hell of a backbone. Her intellect and skill are the cornerstone of her reputation. She has enough charisma to control a room by her mere presence (that charisma may have everything to do with being able to inspire fear, but truth be told, I don't think too many would actually be offended by the way that kind of power plays out). She is notably the "lawyer that lawyers call." Mother. Wife. Ambitious. Accomplished. Rich. Unaffected. And I'm just going to say it - smoking hot. Isn't this sort of the feminist dream?
I had never heard of Ms. Henein before yesterday, when a specific demographic of online gawkers suddenly got triggered and mass hysteria set in. I'm glad I looked up what the fuss was about. Marie Henein is absolutely fascinating. I'm fascinated.
