Free speech, but not necessarily the right decision

By Jeremy Appel on September 29, 2018.

An alleged rapist in on the verge of being confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court and one of Alberta’s newspapers of record thinks he could be the victim.

The same week disgraced comedian Bill Cosby was declared a violent sexual predator and sentenced to three to 10 years in prison, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 11-10 to move forward with the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court after Dr. Christine Blassey Ford testified he had locked her in a room and sexually assaulted her at a party 35 years ago.

The vote occurred on strictly partisan lines, with Republicans voting in favour and Democrats against.

After Friday’s committee vote, Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake — who the day before said he would vote to confirm Kavanaugh — changed his tune, calling for an FBI investigation into the nominee’s conduct before the Senate vote takes place.

Ford has repeatedly called for an FBI investigation, while Kavanaugh has rejected the call.

An investigation, given the green light Friday, will delay the vote on the Senate floor.

This isn’t the first time a Supreme Court nominee has faced allegations of sexual impropriety during their confirmation process.

Clarence Thomas, who still sits in the top court, was accused during his 1991 confirmation hearing of sexually assaulting law professor Anita Hill.

Much has changed in the 27 years between the Thomas and Kavanaugh hearings, with public figures — like Cosby, Harvey Weinstein and Canada’s Jian Ghomeshi — falling into disrepute based on allegations of serial sexual impropriety.

But one thing that hasn’t changed, and has in fact gotten worse, is the fierce partisanship in Washington, D.C.

Another important distinction is that Kavanaugh faces two other allegations of sexual misconduct, which would indicate a pattern of behaviour on his part, underscoring the need for an impartial investigation.

A columnist at the Calgary Herald didn’t see it that way, claiming that Kavanaugh was being persecuted for youthful indiscretion.

As a result the paper has received a ferocious and justified backlash.

A Wednesday column headlined “Kavanaugh doesn’t deserve this. What happened in high school stays in high school” by Naomi Lakritz likened the #MeToo movement, from which our heightened consciousness of sexual misbehaviour from men in power stems, to the Salem Witch Trials.

Two Calgary city councillors — Jyoti Gondek and Druh Farrell — are refusing interview requests from the Herald until it issues a retraction and apology.

Herald editor-in-chief Lorne Motley defended the column on the grounds of free expression, but having the right to express a particular point of view doesn’t mean it has to be given a mainstream platform, particularly when i’s being echoed in the corridors of power.

In a statement to CTV Calgary, Lakritz said she wasn’t weighing in on Kavanaugh’s guilt or innocence, which is precisely the problem.

She appears to be arguing that even if he is guilty, his behaviour in high school shouldn’t stop him from serving on the top court in the U.S.

True, many people are wild as teenagers before settling into adulthood, but most aren’t accused by multiple people of sexual assault.

The Herald column was undoubtedly insensitive, particularly at a time when someone accused of serious misconduct is on the precipice of being on the U.S. Supreme Court for the rest of their life.

Nobody is entitled to a Supreme Court position.

Did the Herald have a right to publish the column? Absolutely, but having a right to do something doesn’t necessarily mean it was the right decision.