It is a movement which, for the moment, has not obtained a hashtag. No #balancetonporc or #MoiAussi. But that will not be long in coming, because the number of cases is enough to make the trend. Our Governor General, Julie Payette, had to leave her post after an internal investigation revealed that a hundred testimonies spoke of the “climate of terror” that the ex-astronaut was reigning at Rideau Hall. Marie-Ève Proulx had to give up her post as minister of the CAQ after ten of her employees slammed the door, due to “toxic management” of staff. MP Marie Montpetit was kicked out of the Liberal caucus after her leader learned of harassment complaints that Anglade said left her with no choice but to dump her friend. Pascale Nadeau, the brilliant animator with the angelic face, disappeared from our screens following complaints about apparently too abrupt behavior, particularly towards her young collaborators.
Mmes Payette, Montpetit and Nadeau say they have nothing to be ashamed of and cry injustice. Marie-Ève Proulx admits to having “wrongs, but not all wrongs”. At least, Ms. Proulx and Ms. Payette were able to give their version of the facts during the internal investigation (Payette) or mediation (Proulx). But Marie Montpetit and Pascale Nadeau would have been deposed without ever being able to know the nature of the allegations. For Ms. Montpetit, no legal or paralegal process is underway. Ms. Anglade dismissed her without even allowing her to give her version of the facts in private.
This is a major problem of natural justice, a procedural inequity that cannot be tolerated. Protecting the confidentiality of the complainant cannot justify the accused’s inability to defend herself. At present, criminals and sex offenders see their rights better protected by the procedure than those suspected of psychological harassment at work. Since these causes will become, it is obvious, more and more numerous, a major change of direction is necessary and must come from the legislator.
A historical injustice
However, I want to draw attention to an even greater injustice. For millennia, men of power have been able to deploy their intransigence, their arbitrariness, their bad character without striking a blow. Quarrels, anger, assault and battery, unjustified dismissals, characterized discrimination, not to mention of course the sexual exploitation imposed on subordinates, including in the Church. I was informed during my lifetime that the ashtray was still practiced by at least one press patron.
In short, toxic men have had millennia to crack down. Why is it necessary that at the very moment when women reach positions of power, they are forbidden to bloodshot? I am not saying that these behaviors are, or have ever been, acceptable. I am only observing an inequality of treatment. We can argue that the rise of a just intolerance towards these working climates is precisely consubstantial with a feminization of power, therefore with a way of being appeased, less seasoned with testosterone. I’m willing to admit that, in equal numbers, the proportion of toxic bosses is lower than that of toxic bosses. Still. These have had their moment of impunity. These, no.
In retrospect, we are reduced to being able to count only on the fingers of one hand the toxic women who have been entitled to impunity. In the modern era, Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990, imposed her authority on her ministers (all of them males) by berating them without restraint. To resist one of his tirades was a mark of bravery. François Mitterrand said of her that she had “the eyes of Stalin, the voice of Marilyn Monroe”. A joke of the time sums up the mood: Preparing the meal that would be served at a cabinet meeting, Mrs Thatcher says she wants steak. “What about the vegetables?” »Asks the chef. “The ministers,” she replies, “will also eat steak. “
The anger of Indira Ghandi, Prime Minister of India from 1980 to 1984, was also famous. Also leading with an iron fist a male Council of Ministers, she was considered “the only man” of the group.
But we find no trace of toxic behavior in Golda Meir, Prime Minister of Israel from 1969 to 1974. Nor in Benazir Bhutto, President of Pakistan from 1993 to 1996. Corrupt, yes. Angry, no. Michelle Bachelet, in Chile, and Angela Merkel, in Germany: placidity made women. And I can attest to the infinite patience of Pauline Marois.
All this to say that, in terms of the reign of terror, women of power have not abused their position at all over the ages. Now that their number is growing exponentially, it would have been normal for us to observe a catch-up. But the irascible will not have this possibility.
It would have been necessary to decouple in time the generalization of the seizure of power by women, on the one hand, and the pacification of labor relations, on the other. A gap of a century or two, it seems to me, would have been a minimum. I know there is no cure for this historic injustice. But it had to be said. It is done.
[email protected]; blog: jflisee.org