I don’t know if I should say thank you to The Press, because the article in one of November 16 left me a long torpor. Until now, it was in silence that I observed the backlash happening and coming back to us these days, just in time for the fifth anniversary of #MeToo.
Under the guise of nuance and supposed neutrality, the sensational journalistic article (which does not cite the opinion of any expert on the question of sexual assault) focuses, without ever naming them, on ambivalence and feelings of guilt ( very real and documented) experienced most often by whistleblowers of misconduct and sexual assault.
I am surprised to have to repeat it again: an attacker is most of the time a person with whom we have an emotional bond, and not a stranger who assails us with a weapon at the bend of an alley. I saw it too, the (very good) movie die loudbut it’s time to get out of this cliché…
As lawyer and professor at UQAM Rachel Chagnon said in an interview on ICI Radio-Canada Première, in reaction to the article: “We are faced with relationships on several levels with complex emotions, so our vision of what is is past will change over time, will evolve and even fluctuate […] It could very well be that if you contact again in a year or two [les victimes présumées], they have again changed their minds and opinions. Maybe they will even go back to their original idea, because our relationship to these things is complex. [et] also, our vision of what sexual assault is is so tinted, constructed; there are a lot of stereotypes and prejudices at play [et donc] it is difficult to have a vision that remains constant. »
Fragile gains and setbacks on the horizon
This backlash antifeminist movement that I have observed for several months takes the form of a return to reason and common sense. However, it is not. What we are witnessing is quite simply the status quo coming back to the fore, like the viscoelastic foam of a mattress resuming its shape, despite all the efforts made by citizens for greater social justice and equality. .
In fact, as the author and semiologist Marie-Christine Lemieux-Couture explained on Facebook, we are concerned and we now talk more about the culture of cancellation than the culture of rape; in other words, compassion seems to go more to the aggressors than to the victims.
Of course, all is not black or white, that a person who commits reprehensible acts does not lose his humanity. No one is entirely good or entirely bad. Everyone knows that, it’s obvious. Only, certain acts must be denounced where, before, there was total impunity.
However, in the article by The Press, Lacroix complains that two years is too long for the faults he has committed and, again, he attributes his deleterious acts to his difficult childhood and his substance abuse problems. Tell you the number of people who have had difficult lives and substance abuse problems that I know who have never assaulted anyone! It doesn’t necessarily go together or by itself.
That said, the question of rehabilitation is essential. Now, since we were still there, before this wave of backlashin the early stages of the end of impunity for misconduct and sexual assault, it is reasonable to believe that we will still need time to find all the answers collectively… But one thing is certain, this n It is certainly not by victimizing the aggressors that we will get there…
Trivialization of attacks
Moreover, in this same article of The Press, one of the alleged victims, the ex-spouse of Lacroix, claims not to “feel” like a victim, and this is her strictest right. His feelings belong completely to him and it is not for anyone to speak on his behalf.
Having said that, a few notions of law: when a person admits that his consent was not respected, that he wanted to interrupt a sexual relationship and that the partner continued, with regard to the facts and the Criminal Code, I’m not making this up here, this technically constitutes sexual assault. What differs from person to person is how the behavior is experienced. But that does not change the very definition of sexual assault, which is not established on a case-by-case basis.
Moreover, what is wrong with the article is the angle chosen, the fact that the list of problematic acts remains the same, but instead of focusing on the potential exaggeration of “punishment”, it tries to act as if Lacroix had done nothing wrong.
As my friend Mathieu Poirier wrote on Twitter, the article “implies in its approach, without really demonstrating it, that these accusations were based on wind, as if [le] repeated refusal to [Lacroix] worrying about the consent of others was benign and not worth encountering obstacles”.
There it is, the hindsight.
I would have much preferred to occupy my time today with what I had planned to do, but it is impossible for me to concentrate and I no longer want to be silent in front of what is happening. Let’s not be naive and naive, this setback is real. As Lily Thibeault, author, actress and ambassador of the Marie-Vincent Foundation, said in an Instagram post on Wednesday, “we have no idea to what extent such an article can invalidate the words of many [survivants et survivantes] and can make it difficult, if not impossible, to speak out/denunciate”.
I couldn’t say it better.