Last year, Quebec Court Judge Joëlle Roy found herself at the heart of a heated controversy after acquitting an accused in a sexual assault case. Why? Among other things, because the victim had kept her eyes closed during the touching, she could have gotten dressed if she felt uncomfortable, and the gesture was quick.
Yves Boisvert strongly criticized it in The Press and listed the many verdicts of Judge Roy that were overturned on appeal. Judge Roy reacted in open court: “It is no longer the judge who is being attacked, but the woman […] Yves Boisvert’s article was very violent towards me. The kind of violence that we unfortunately see in court every day.”
In other words, Yves Boisvert’s column, according to Judge Roy, is potentially a criminal act committed against a woman.
Having received a complaint, the Judicial Council must determine whether Judge Roy failed in her duty of reserve by making such comments in the courtroom when she was to preside over a sexual assault trial.
At the end of August, before the investigation committee, she stated that if she had to do it again, she would not do it in the same way, while reiterating the violence of the attack of which she claims to be the victim. (Shaken, she had taken leave and the file was hastily transferred to another judge to avoid a stay of proceedings.)
But what are we talking about?
Is questioning a judge’s competence a violent sexist crime?
Other judges have been criticized for making comments similar to those made by Roy. Alberta judge Robin Camp resigned before being removed from office for asking a victim why she didn’t “knee together.” In the documentary The perfect victim by Monic Néron and Émilie Perreault, Judge Camp expresses deep regrets and recounts his process to better understand the victims.
Which brings us back to Judge Roy, who consciously uses the ultimate weapon: you criticize me because I am a woman!
End of discussion. Nothing more to add. The case is heard. The blow of the hammer.
This is a clever way to avoid debating the issues and fundamental questions.
The Interprofessional Health Federation of Quebec uses the same method. When Gaétan Barrette and Luc Lavoie, on LCN, criticize the union rigidity and dogmatism of the FIQ, the response is predictable: here are two old men attacking women’s rights.
However, Sonia LeBel, President of the Treasury Board, says essentially the same thing and I do not believe she is sexist or misogynistic!
When Christian Dubé says that in health, “Quebecers don’t get value for their money,” it’s not an attack on women who occupy more than 50% of positions in medicine. It’s an observation that opens the door to debate.
I am walking on slippery ground and I am very aware of it because women in public spaces experience hatred, violence and vulgarity on a daily basis.
I think of Valérie Plante and Marwah Rizqy and how many others who have to shield themselves against the words “slut” and “whore.” Longueuil Mayor Catherine Fournier is absolutely right when she talks on Instagram about women’s paths in politics: “Where we make a mistake is to think or insinuate that it is an easy path. Yes, we are moving forward, yes, we are progressing, it is important to note that, but there is still a lot to do to achieve real equity.”
Every gain carries the potential for setbacks. What is gained for women, such as the right and access to abortion, can disappear more quickly than we think.
In the United States, a survey by New York Times shows that more and more young men (18-29 years old) support Donald Trump because he is a virile leader. They feel threatened in their masculinity and Trump embodies traditional values.
How many Americans will not vote for Kamala Harris because she is a woman?
Who would have thought that in 2024, a candidate for vice president of the United States would attack childless women, saying that they are deeply unhappy catwomen who want to destroy the country?
There are still men today who believe themselves superior to women and many others who hate women who assert their power and independence. This is obviously as unacceptable as it is retrograde.
But the more they occupy strategic and decision-making positions, the more their decisions and statements will be scrutinized. They will be criticized and challenged, and it will not be because they are women.
I feel like there is sometimes willful blindness in the media, not saying things so as not to give ammunition to the reactionary movement. Nobody likes to be called sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic or racist. It is easier to attack the right than to target the left. So, we keep quiet, we look the other way to avoid controversy.
Criticism based on facts should always have its place, whether it is aimed at a man or a woman.
It’s all in the choice of words.