Thursday morning, Patrick Brown resigned as leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario over allegations of sexual misconduct.
Wednesday night, Brown called a hasty news conference to deny the allegations. “These allegations are false,” Brown fumed. “Every one of them. I will defend myself as hard as I can, with all the means at my disposal.”
If he wasn’t being honest, he was a damned good actor.
Don’t misunderstand me -- I am not defending whatever Patrick Brown did or didn’t do. Or, for that matter, what any of the other host of men brought down by the #MeToo revelations may or may not have done.
The parade of big names knocked off their pedestals grows daily. Senators Al Franken and Cliff Hite. Representative John Conyers. Would-be Senator Larry Moore. Orchestra conductor Charles Dutoit. Judge Alex Kozinski. Storyteller Garrison Keillor. TV host Matt Lauer. Actor Kevin Spacey.
But by my reading of news reports, Larry Nassar, former medical doctor for USA Gymnastics, is the only one who has actually been tried and convicted.
All the rest have been toppled – whether fired, demoted, resigned -- by unproven allegations. Some have come from women who chose to remain anonymous.
Kudos to #MeToo
I celebrate the freedom that #MeToo has given women to denounce their harassers. Whether the offence was criminal, supposedly innocent teasing, or casual flirtation, their experience has obviously festered for years. Even if the perpetrator didn’t take his actions seriously, the victim did.
I rejoice that women are finally being believed when they describe incidents of sexual exploitation or harassment. For far too long -- for centuries, yea, for millennia -- the victims have been blamed for leading men into wrong acts.
And like Justin Trudeau, I assert that no woman -- and no man, for that matter -- should have to put up with unwanted sexual advances.
But I am concerned that the present climate now makes it possible for any woman to destroy almost any man’s career and reputation. For any reason.
It took just two allegations to depose Patrick Brown. Two, to remove Kent Hehr from the Trudeau cabinet. One, to dump Nova Scotia premier James Baillie.
I’m not suggesting that any of the current allegations could have political motivation. But surely it crossed your mind that Brown’s abrupt departure could affect the coming Ontario election, didn’t it?
The fundamental principle of “innocent until proven guilty” seems to have been abandoned.
Three operating principles
It seems to me that three things need to be asserted.
First, that anybody wronged has the right to accuse their offender.
Second, that an accused has a right to a defend himself. Or herself.
And third, that accusers should not remain anonymous.
Newspapers generally apply that third principle to their Letters to the Editor page. Anonymous letters, letters signed with a nickname or a nom-de-plume, go straight into the shredder. Writers may request that their names be withheld, but first they must identify themselves to the editor.
I believe that the same standard should apply to sexual harassment allegations. If you won’t put your name to it, don’t make it.
I recognize that expecting accusers to identify themselves could undo some of the gains of the #MeToo movement. It could invoke the power imbalance that led to the sexual harassment in the first place. It takes a lot of courage for a lowly file clerk to accuse the president of grabbing her crotch; for a secretary to denounce her boss for peering down her cleavage.
They’re not just tackling an individual. They’re also taking on the system that put those men in positions of power.
Retaliation can be vicious. And instant.
Negotiation, compromise, changed attitudes, are harder to achieve retroactively.
Uneasy lies the head….
Imbalance of power lies at the root of all the current allegations. Someone used his position to coerce someone with less power.
But without identification, how is an accused person to know who, or what, he may have wronged?
The other night -- perhaps after watching too many newscasts about people tripped up by past indiscretions -- I dreamed I was being investigated. For stepping over some line, somewhere, sometime. But I couldn’t remember what. And no one would tell me what I had done, or to whom.
I woke, thrashing the blankets in frustration.
Fortunately, I have no reputation that can be destroyed. Once I realized it was only a dream, I slipped easily back to sleep.
It may not be as easy for some of those who have now been hauled before the court of public opinion.
*******************************************************
Copyright © 2017 by Jim Taylor. Non-profit use in congregations and study groups encouraged; links from other blogs welcomed; all other rights reserved.
To send comments, to subscribe, or to unsubscribe, write jimt@quixotic.ca
********************************************************
YOUR TURN
I didn’t intend last week’s column to blast Tim Hortons specifically, although I used them as my primary example of the injustice of the minimum wage. But quite of few of you read it that way, and a few more saw it as a diatribe against small businesses in general. Okay, you’re entitled to your view too.
A correspondent signed only as T. Allen wrote a long letter which began, “This commentary was the second I have read of yours which essentially attacks Tim Hortons franchise owners and makes it clear to me that you are uninformed about the realities of running a restaurant or even a small business.”
After citing the costs of leasing space, and the difficulties of dealing with municipal regulations, he noted, “So the one component of running their business they have any real control over is the cost of labour -- and yes, they will decrease hours and staff, demand more of their staff, automate if possible, and do more of the work themselves. They have no other choice if they want to be profitable!”
Steve Roney also wrote a long letter explaining why raising the minimum wage actually hurts workers, rather than helping them. I heard the same argument from the Fraser Institute in 1983, and I don’t agree, so I’m not going to print it here.
Heather Richard made her objection more personal: “I find it interesting how many people cry for an increase in the minimum wage, but don’t consider the full ramifications of it. Economics is a closed system – one action will affect another, and so on. For a business owner, an increase in minimum wage means an increase in expenses. Often labour is the largest expense for a business, so an increase in labour expense is significant. For many businesses, it can mean the difference between making a profit or incurring a loss. And even for businesses like Tim Hortons that have a healthy profit base, there are still investors to consider. If they’re not getting the returns they’ve come to expect, they may withdraw their investment and move it to another business.
“The logical answer is to either cut other costs or raise prices. As you pointed out, costs can only be cut so much before there’s nothing left. So you raise your prices. Simple, yes? But who pays those higher prices? Not just you and me, but also the people making the new minimum wage. At the end of the day, what was the benefit of the higher minimum wage, if the cost of living increases as well? A short-term gain, and then a return to the status-quo.
“Please don’t think I’m insensitive to the plight of the minimum-wage workers. I feel they do deserve better. But I don’t think mandating an increase to the minimum wage is the answer – it’s just a way to say “look what we’ve done for our constituents, please vote for us again”. The answer (which I admit I don’t have) is more complicated, and has to consider the full economic cycle.”
One more letter of disagreement. Rachel Prichard wrote, “I don't think you are being at all fair to franchisees. My son and daughter-in-law are Dominos franchisees in Ontario and so I can speak for them.
“Don't you know that your local Tim Hortons and Dominos etc. are small businesses and not large corporations? The local franchise owners are your next-door neighbours who have worked at less than minimum wage for years to get their business off the ground. The Tim Hortons franchisees that have been slammed in the press recently have generously paid for their employees' breaks and uniforms out of the kindness of their hearts. This is not the law, and 99% of businesses do not do this.
“This minimum wage hike in Ontario equals or exceeds small business profits; if they are a new business starting up it will make them go under. This hurts not the [parent] corporation but the local business who pays a percentage of SALES -- not profits -- to the corporation. So SUPPORT and do not boycott your local business and THANK them for supporting your local soccer and baseball teams and for being good neighbours and valuable members of your community.”
On the other hand, Mary-Jo Rusu liked the column: “Thank you for writing your frank and enlightening analysis of the perils of Tim Horton's approach to paying its workers. I especially liked your point about how minimum wage would perhaps only support a single boarder.
“We need more voices to raise an alarm about the poverty being created for workers.”
Dan Barr wrote as a former business owner: “I never paid staff members minimum wage because that staff member would put out less than minimum effort. I found that respecting the employee, and paying a decent wage, and sharing the profits kept the staff happy and me making a profit.”
Dan ended sardonically, “Good luck to Tims and their employees and to their customers.”
“Well said, Jim,” wrote Tom Watson. “An interesting twist this week is that some of the franchises have launched a campaign to have their employees not vote for the current Ontario government who brought in this, in their view, ‘ill-timed’ minimum wage increase. I guess it's never the right time for people who can't possibly survive on minimum wage.”
Bill Franzman had mixed views: “I no longer have any respect for the Tim Hortons franchises having cut wages/time for their employees, and no longer go to Tim Hortons.
“If the minimum wage increases and the owners increase prices, then the minimum wage is back where it started in relation to purchasing power. Let’s face it, million-dollar owners don’t like to share profits even though it’s only pocket change to them.
“Raising the minimum wage is great, providing the cost of living does not increase. Otherwise it is only a game we are playing.”
Laurna Tallman is fed up with Tims: “Our local Tim Horton's almost sidelined the local eateries in our little village-on-the-highway when it arrived. The items on the menu [then] were within the means of an impoverished population as well as the endless stream of visitors travelling the transcontinental highway. It became a business that helped to ‘normalize’ life for those who really couldn't afford more than coffee and a donut. We were glad to see local folks serving customers, helping to make ends meet. It provided one of the few places around here to get away for private chat in reasonable comfort.
“We noticed a few changes with the Brazilian takeover, but not enough to impact our occasional visits. [But a] few weeks ago I was shocked to find that the cost of a dozen donuts had tripled and that the menu was laden with expensive, substantial meals. The variety of donuts had plummeted to match the price hikes. Thickly frosted and gaudily decorated concoctions were offered for ridiculous prices. For sure, no one made these changes on the basis of any market research in our part of the world.”
Mary Margaret Boone focused on the boycotts some customers organized: “The problem with boycotts is essentially that the workers get hurt, not helped. I have never been a fan of Tim's coffee so I didn't have to make a decision about boycotting them, but the bottom-line question remains: are any of the other coffee/fast food franchises any better than Tims in their policies and practices?
“This raise is long overdue for all workers. As consumers we need to support a living wage and that is above what current minimum wage rates are now!”
Isabel Gibson thought I might be exceptional – “in the sense of being willing to pay more for coffee so someone else can earn a decent wage. After all, there's a reason that WalMart is so huge: Most people do, indeed, choose low price over other considerations.
In discussing minimum wages with my father back in the 1970s, I remember him saying mildly that not every job could support a family. I think of that when I see calculations of annual earnings on these minimum-wage jobs, assuming full-time employment.
“I don't know what the answer is. Maybe more people willing to pay more.”
Bob Rollwagen: “I know a number of franchise owners and I would say, as a very experienced financial professional, that they have invested millions in their personal pension, are able to enjoy lavish vacations, own multiple residences and seem to retire early, maybe in their 50's. I guess this is the entrepreneurial risk reward you mentioned.
“Entitlement is a word I hear a lot in business circles these days. Over the next ten years, the largest population boom will have moved into retirement. If demographics hold to normal trends, part of this group will be the largest group ever to need social assistance and have to live on the Canada Pension without benefit plans for an average of 10 years longer than past generations.
“Now that is a good conversation to have over a donut and coffee!”
********************************************
TECHNICAL STUFF
If you want to comment on something, write me at jimt@quixotic.ca. Or just hit the ‘Reply’ button.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send me an e-mail message at the address above. Or subscribe electronically by sending a blank e-mail (no message) to sharpedges-subscribe@lists.quixotic.ca. Similarly, you can un-subscribe at sharpedges-unsubscribe@lists.quixotic.ca.
My webpage is running again -- thanks to Wayne Irwin and ChurchWeb Canada. You can now access current columns and five years of archives at http://quixotic.ca
I write a second column each Wednesday, called Soft Edges, which deals somewhat more gently with issues of life and faith. To sign up for Soft Edges, write to me directly at the address above, or send a blank e-mail to softedges-subscribe@lists.quixotic.ca
********************************************
PROMOTION STUFF…
To use the links in this section, you’ll have to insert the necessary symbols.
Ralph Milton ’s latest project is called “Sing Hallelujah” -- the world’s first video hymnal. It consists of 100 popular hymns, both new and old, on five DVDs that can be played using a standard DVD player and TV screen, for use in congregations who lack skilled musicians to play piano or organ. More details at wwwDOTsinghallelujahDOTca
Ralph’s HymnSight webpage is still up, http://wwwDOThymnsightDOTca, with a vast gallery of photos you can use to enhance the appearance of the visual images you project for liturgical use (prayers, responses, hymn verses, etc.)
Wayne Irwin's “Churchweb Canada,” an inexpensive service for any congregation wanting to develop a web presence, with free consultation. <http://wwwDOTchurchwebcanadaDOTca>
I recommend Isabel Gibson’s thoughtful and well-written blog, wwwDOTtraditionaliconoclastDOTcom
Alva Wood’s satiric stories about incompetent bureaucrats and prejudiced attitudes in a small town -- not particularly religious, but fun; alvawoodATgmailDOTcom to get onto her mailing list.
Tom Watson writes a weekly blog called “The View from Grandpa Tom’s Balcony” -- ruminations on various subjects, and feedback from Tom’s readers. Write him at tomwatsoATgmailDOTcom or twatsonATsentexDOTnet