La Presse defends publishing Rozon
Patrick Lagacé defends his paper’s decision to publish a letter from Gilbert Rozon with the argument that the paper has a tradition of allowing people criticized in its pages to respond. The item, Je ne suis pas cet homme, was posted Thursday.
Blork 12:55 on 2025-07-18 Permalink
I agree with Lagacé. It’s not about defending Rozon, or “giving him a platform.” It’s about the principle of the right to reply.
It is not the job of La Presse (or any media outlet) to judge, and they have provided no shortage of commentary on the topic. If they deny Rozon the right to reply – even if, as seems obvious, he is clearly guilty – then there is nothing stopping them from denying the same to you or me, whether we are guilty of something or not.
Sadly, principles like this (such as Voltaire’s famous “I may not agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it) are fading into the past as social media’s embracing and empowerment of judginess takes over the zeitgeist.
Ian 17:46 on 2025-07-18 Permalink
I find it interesting that it’s a rapist being given this “opportunity”.
I guesss rape isn’t as serious as, say, Richard Henry Bain’s attempted murder of Pauline Marois, since La Presse deeclined to give him the same liberal-minded benefit of the doubt.
I can’t wait for the op-ed from Karla Homolka.
Blork 19:36 on 2025-07-18 Permalink
Ian, bear in mind that Rozon is going through a civil lawsuit, not a criminal trial.
Ian 20:10 on 2025-07-18 Permalink
Do you think that this distinction is sufficient to stripping a person of their “right to reply”? I don’t see how defending oneself in the court of public opinion is specifically tied to civil vs criminal, and I’m opretty sure Voltaire wouldn’t either. Maybe we could limit Homolka’s letter to explaining away her culpability for rape and leave out the murder part. Bain of course was prosecuted for his actions, his opinion surely deserves a fair audience under the philosophical standpoint of utterly unbiased equity that you propose?
Blork 23:21 on 2025-07-18 Permalink
All of those cases you mention are of people who are convicted. Rozon is not convicted (yet). What I am opposed to is the idea of muzzling people who are accused but not yet convicted. Anyone who is in favor of doing so should consider moving to the MAGA U.S. or some other fascist state where they will surely be happier.
Blork 23:33 on 2025-07-18 Permalink
And FWIW (not much, but not nothing) there’s also the matter of Rozon being something of a public figure, whereas those convicted criminals were unknown to the public before their arrests. Why that’s a (bit of) an issue is beyond the scope of this comment, but in general public figures are already part of the public discourse, so it is natural to provide them an opportunity to state their case no matter how ridiculous, because of that public discourse. Whereas some random criminal who isn’t part of the discourse doesn’t really have the same level of public interest. And it’s not about one person’s “rights” over the other; it’s about the media’s right to continue to engage in that discourse with firsthand testimony from the accused.
Ian 09:04 on 2025-07-19 Permalink
Nobody gave Bain a chance to reply while he was on trial, but whatever. I’m only using these as debating points, I ams willing to concede the point in those cases. But hey, in fascist MAGA USA they let a rapist pedophile become president and we hear his “side” all the time, lol. Maybe a more relevant example would be Jian Ghomeshi who totally assaulted a pile of women, got to tell his side a whole lot, and managed to escape conviction thanks to a very persistent and tenacious lawyer… and still thinks he’s the victim in all of this.
I don’t disagree that if someone has been throughly dragged by the media they should get a chance to respond, but I don’t think free speech absolutism does anyone any favours either. I don’t doubt for a second Rozon did it – do you? The condition of his soul is of no concern to me.
MarcG 09:21 on 2025-07-19 Permalink
Would the same courtesy be given if the crime was different, or is this just another illustration of how society belittles women?
Blork 10:27 on 2025-07-19 Permalink
@MarcG, I have a feeling the same thing would happen if the issue were anything that fits into the so-called “culture wars.” If the accusations were about racism or homophobia, etc. I think we’d see the same (assuming the person were a public figure who has been in the spotlight the way Rozon was since long before the accusations).
I think it’s interesting and even useful to see a public figure expose his clearly delusional side of the story. As an armchair psychologist, I find it fascinating to see such a mind at work. It helps people understand the psychology of wealth and entitlement and to see that it’s not always as simple as “rich = evil,” that sometimes these people are not even aware that they are doing harm. It’s instructive to see the extent to which people can buy into their own mythology.
MarcG 11:34 on 2025-07-19 Permalink
I’m not sure I understand your “culture war” point… your list seems to be groups who are victims of discrimination? Are you saying that if Rozon was being tried for assaulting employees who were BIPOC or LGBTQIA+ that he would still be provided with this megaphone, and that if his victims were white cis men that he wouldn’t?
Blork 13:25 on 2025-07-19 Permalink
No, I mean that La Presse’s decision to publish that piece was likely because of how it sees its role in public discourse, particularly about “hot-button” issues such as “me too,” trans issues, etc. (the so-called “culture wars” topics). It’s not specifically about “belittling women.” If he were accused of simply beating up white cis men then the whole matter probably wouldn’t be taking up as much cultural space and therefore La Presse would probably not be as inclined to give it such extensive coverage. (That probably also wouldn’t be the various op-ed pieces, so the whole conversation would be at a much lower pitch.)
MarcG 14:14 on 2025-07-19 Permalink
By that logic, if he was on trial for shooting up a synagogue or mosque he would have been given the same grace, which I don’t think is true.
Chris 16:10 on 2025-07-19 Permalink
Well said Blork.
It’s just words folks. Feel free to ignore them, rebut them, mock them, or whatever. You needn’t choose to let the words offend or enrage you. .
Blork 16:33 on 2025-07-19 Permalink
@MarcG, no, because that would be a criminal charge. It’s different when it’s a civil lawsuit.
Blork 16:37 on 2025-07-19 Permalink
Also, bear in mind that what Rozon is “defending” isn’t his guilt or non-guilt; it’s about his perception of whether or not he did any wrong, and how his character has been portrayed by the media and the people who brought the lawsuit. (Personally, I think he’s full of crap and needs to get over himself. His article is basically just standard blah blah from an old white guy who feels done-in by wokeness.) But that’s a whole lot different from being given a platform for claiming you’re not guilty of serious criminal charges.
Ian 16:54 on 2025-07-19 Permalink
Another take via Urbania : Rozon is not a Victim
https://urbania.ca/article/derniere-heure-gilbert-rozon-nest-pas-une-victime?
EmilyG 09:15 on 2025-07-21 Permalink
Response by Léa Clermont-Dion in La Presse:
https://www.lapresse.ca/dialogue/opinions/2025-07-17/la-mauvaise-blague-a-assez-dure.php
EmilyG 13:14 on 2025-07-21 Permalink
I think anyone who defends Rozon’s right to have published that piece in the newspaper, should read The Rover’s piece on how they feel about that.
https://therover.ca/lettre-de-rozon-dans-la-presse-a-qui-profite-cette-fausse-neutralite/