Sex misconduct allegations shake up scene
Anyone following local Twitter feeds and other sources will be aware that a wave of anonymous sex misconduct allegations has been rippling through Quebec, displacing, among others, the head of Ubisoft and others in its management. I’m already seeing people online (not from here) advising each other to shun Ubisoft products.
steph 09:42 on 2020-07-12 Permalink
what’s the instagram account?
Kate 10:11 on 2020-07-12 Permalink
I didn’t mention an instagram account in this post. If you mean the mayor’s instagram account, it’s linked in the post about that topic.
EmilyG 11:42 on 2020-07-12 Permalink
There is an Instagram account about local sex misconduct allegations: https://www.instagram.com/victims_voices_montreal/
Kate 12:03 on 2020-07-12 Permalink
Thanks, EmilyG.
EmilyG 12:41 on 2020-07-12 Permalink
Also, on Facebook there’s a list of potential aggressors.
Some famous names on there.
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=104036198055270&id=104007051391518&__tn__=-R
Kate 14:19 on 2020-07-12 Permalink
That’s a very long list.
So far, the only person I’ve seen deny the implied accusation is Julien Villeneuve – Anarchopanda. I don’t know him personally, but I’ve been following his Twitter feed and other writings for years, ever since he became prominent in the student protests of 2012. For what it’s worth – and it may be worth nothing, since I’m a nobody myself – I have always had the impression he’s an honourable guy.
But I realize two things: a list like this has to generally be believed, because false accusations are extremely rare, and you cannot always understand from a person’s artistic or literary output how he behaves in sexual situations.
Alison Cummins 15:36 on 2020-07-12 Permalink
> “you cannot always understand from a person’s artistic or literary output
> how he behaves in sexual situations”
Very pertinent observation. Jian Ghomeshi’s on-air politics were very pro-woman. His off-air behaviour… didn’t match.
So I can easily accept that someone has different personalities and behaviours depending on the condition of their genitals. They might not notice when they are abusing someone: they might “just assume that if [person they are abusing] wanted anything, it was their responsibility to try to get it.” Or they might notice, and that might be thrilling in the moment even if not congruent with who they think of as their real self.
No excuses.
• You can’t trust even the nicest guy not to be a dick. Not that all men are dicks when aroused, but you can’t take it as a given. Pay attention, trust your gut and don’t blame yourself for misreading.
• Just because something is making you happy it doesn’t mean your partner is happy. You genuinely might not think you need it, but practicing explicit consent will make your sex life better. (It will definitely make it more consensual.)
• A warning to people who know X personally to be a really nice/fair/progressive person: unless X is into you sexually, your opinion that they couldn’t possibly be an abuser counts zilch. Unfortunately.
EmilyG 16:11 on 2020-07-12 Permalink
Oddly, Jian Ghomeshi is on the Facebook list, and I thought it was a Quebec-specific list.
Unless he’s moved out of Ontario?
Kate 17:19 on 2020-07-12 Permalink
Alison, that’s quite the core dump. Do you mind if I edit it?
Alison Cummins 17:46 on 2020-07-12 Permalink
Kate, please do.
Kate 18:33 on 2020-07-12 Permalink
EmilyG, you’re not the only person to notice Ghomeshi on there. I would doubt he’s moved here, but have heard nothing about it either way.
[I’ve edited Alison’s comment.]
EmilyG 21:44 on 2020-07-12 Permalink
I got curious, and looked him up. He has some sort of new podcast this year, but it’s not well-known, I didn’t know about it before today, and I don’t know if it says anywhere where he’s doing it from. (Probably Ontario?)
So it’s pretty odd that he’d be on a Quebec list unless there’s more that isn’t known.
Michael Black 23:17 on 2020-07-12 Permalink
But just beause there’s a list doesn’t mean all that much. We don’t see accusers linked to the the accused. Do we know who is actually keeping the list? What’s the criteria for being on the list? Even when there is legit complaint, it can cover a wide territory, someone being touched to something more blatant. The fact that Ghomeshi is on the list may be an indicator of the list rather than that he’s now in Quebed. It would be easy to add names of people already known, rather than new accusations from people actually affected.
What kind of world do we want? Where mob rules? If cop behaviour is bad, them deciding certain people are criminal by the way they look, then isn’t there something wrong with this list, ignoring rules but assuming they are all guilty because there name is here?
People talk about laws that protect criminals. But they are actually there to protect the innocent. If cops could be certain, there’d be no reason for judges etc. But we can’t trust them. This list (not whatever complaints are behind the list) is as bad as a cop swearing at me, or thinking it’s okay to illegally search me or threaten to beat me up because they’ve already decided I am a criminal bevause of the way I look.
Kate 09:38 on 2020-07-13 Permalink
Michael Black, you ask the key question. Where does virtue lie? It’s a principle in our jurisprudence that a person shouldn’t be anonymously accused. One purpose of a trial is to bring the accused to face his accusers in court. Another principle is that no one should be condemned without an examination of the evidence. Both principles are being openly flouted here and those, like you, who say there should be limits on this trial and condemnation by social media are likely to be accused of siding with the status quo, which has enabled abusers.
Good people, virtuous people, are signalling their assent to this new kind of conviction by public pillory. Careers will be ended by this, there will be suicides and other bad outcomes, and will society be improved?
Blork 09:44 on 2020-07-13 Permalink
If the troublesome people at Ubisoft have already left, then there’s no point in boycotting Ubisoft. All you’re doing then is punishing the victims (i.e., the employees who were the victims of this bad behaviour).
Kate 10:11 on 2020-07-13 Permalink
Blork, isn’t there an argument that part of the problem is structural, is embedded in the culture of the company? Something along the lines of systemic racism?
MarcG 10:21 on 2020-07-13 Permalink
I don’t think it’s fair to compare the people who contributed to and compiled this list to cops. The police are listened to and trusted; the reason this list exists is because victims are not. Women have kept lists of the names of abusers in the community in bathrooms before, now it’s just gone digital like everything else. @Kate: Will society be improved? If it means that there are fewer cases of sexual abuse because people know they’ll be held accountable, I would say yes.
Blork 10:37 on 2020-07-13 Permalink
It could be argued that the problem is embedded in the culture of the company, but we don’t actually know that. More likely the problem is embedded in a few of the higher offices, and those people have been removed, and it’s quite likely the remaining execs are both relieved they’re gone and anxious to turn the page and make it a better company.
After all, the main point of a boycott is to force change in a company. But if the company has already forced its change, then why boycott? Thousands of people work at Ubisoft, and hardly any of them are greasy executives, especially now that the worst offenders have left.
Kate 11:12 on 2020-07-13 Permalink
Blork, in a way you’re demonstrating the weakness of this new form of justice. No, it may not be fair that Ubisoft and its workers will take a hit from this incident. The people I know online are not going to follow this story in fine detail – what they learned is “shun Ubisoft” and that idea is now out there, fair or not.
Since there’s no formal trial, a person or a business cannot clear their name. The smirch remains forever.
(I say this as someone who still can’t bring herself to buy a South African wine, after years of boycotting them in my frabjous youth. Some things stick, fair or not.)
Blork 11:31 on 2020-07-13 Permalink
I still have a distaste for Granny Smith apples, for the same reason.
I was asking rhetorically I suppose. My biggest lament for the times we live in is the shallowness of the public’s thinking and actions. (Some will dispute that, to which I say just because YOU think things through doesn’t mean other people do.)
There’s a lot of talk about cancel culture happening right now and I’m very torn on the issue. On the one hand I like that people are aware and engaged, if that’s what it really is. But there’s a fine line between that and mobs with pitchforks.
I have no problem calling out and boycotting companies who engage in practices that I strongly disagree with. Nestle is one of them. Protesting and boycotting a company over it’s business practices can send a strong message, and if the company changes its practices then the protesting and boycotting can end.
I’m not so sure the same applies when the distasteful practices are entirely internal. A company can have slimy management and 90% of the employees are not even aware of it (whereas 100% of the employees of Nestle are aware of their business practices). Even then, the purpose of a protest and boycott is to signal your disapproval and presumably your call for change. So when change happens, the protest ends.
All this depends on people understanding WTF they are thinking and doing, and that’s where it all falls apart. The norms and practices of social media have merged into mainstream culture, at least among younger people, so things like boycotting and protesting are now mostly about expressing indigence and signalling virtue than they are about the hard work of forcing change.
OK I’ll shut up now. :-/
steph 21:23 on 2020-07-13 Permalink
The instagram account has taken down their posts 🙁 . I hope they return.