Social Outcasts

Jian Ghomeshi wrote an essay about what his life has been like since he became a pariah. In the piece for the New York Review of Books Ghomeshi admits some stuff and ignores other stuff but mostly just explains how his life has changed. It’s a rare and fascinating character study. 

But social media reacted as if reading the essay was tantamount to protecting him or hiding him in my basement. Or disbelieving his accusers. It’s none of those. Are we not allowed to be curious anymore? And since when does a person have to believe everything they read? I’ll ask anyone who’s outraged: have you ever read a first-person article or book or watched a movie about a serial killer? HOW DARE YOU! Those people are murderers! Why, you must be some sort of sicko!

#sarcasm

The Editor of the NYRB is no longer with the publication which seems awfully heavy-handed. Social media outrage demands that every article, movie, TV show etc. has to be fully balanced and comprehensive or it’s slighting someone. This, in my view, is utter bullshit. Ghomeshi’s article is just that: his. He’s (insert pejorative here) and it’s naive to expect him to paint himself as a pure villain. Yet, the outrage industry would suppress anything that doesn’t fit its narrow narrative. This worries me. It was the same type of unrealistic criticism that followed a profile of Soon-Yi Previn in New York Magazine last week. The 47-year-old talked about her life and her husband. No one should expect the piece to be objective and sensitive to those who accuse Woody Allen of sexual assault. That wasn’t its purpose. And yet, that’s the analysis we are force-fed.

Tweet by @jesshopp: Stunned that that New York Review of Books would commision Jian Ghomeshi for a cover story. Ghomeshi faced trial for 4 counts of sexual assault and 20+ women come forward w/ accounts of abuse, forcing a reckoning w/in Canadian music and media bc EVERYONE KNEW HE WAS A CREEP.

The following is about a fictional film, but its description illustrates an important point. Joaquin Phoenix is about to star in a Joker prequel. The untitled movie, set in the 1980s, is an “exploration of a man disregarded by society” who becomes one of Gotham City’s biggest criminals.

A man disregarded by society. Studies show that a pedophile or other heinous criminal released from prison is more likely to offend again if they’re under extreme stress. This is why the pitchforks-and-torches vigilante approach to driving child molesters out of villages fails miserably and can actually inspire the opposite to its goal.

Ghomeshi wasn’t convicted of anything. Yes, he was an egomaniac, a self-centred pig and he physically and emotionally abused several women. As a societal outcast, he’s paying a price. His life as he knew it is over and he’s a pariah, or a hashtag, as he puts it. So, what’s enough? How much of his life should be ruined? Should he be forever unemployable and friendless, even if he expresses remorse and attempts to become a better person? I don’t know the answer to those questions but second chances seem to be in awfully short supply in the world of #metoo.  At what point is someone worthy of one? After five years of being completely shunned? Ten? Twenty-five? Actor Shelley Malil was just released from prison after eight years; he was convicted of trying to stab his girlfriend to death. So, is eight years right for Ghomeshi? Perhaps he doesn’t deserve a second chance; I’m not advocating for one. But it worries me that the possibility of any sort of redemption doesn’t seem to exist for anyone at all.

Tweet by @ThatsMrNeil: Poor Jian Ghomeshi, who knew that being a serial abuser of women had consequences? He can’t even go to karaoke without being judged? Poor him. If I were to say how I really felt about Jian Ghomeshi and what consequences I wished he faced, I would be banned from Twitter. #cdnmedia

I don’t know whether they still do it, but when I lived in Hamilton there was a small group of nuns that had a different approach. (Again, we’re talking pedophiles.) When the offender was released from prison, the nuns would find him an apartment and furniture, help him get a job and visit him regularly. Instead of shunning him completely, they gave him someone to be responsible to. Because the alternative is for him to live out his life without any human contact. How is it better to make him an outcast? That tells him it doesn’t matter how he behaves.

I’m not suggesting we offer big, warm hugs to those who have done awful things. But how are they supposed to redeem themselves or recover if the rest of us tell them they’re entirely worthless? Those who say “they should be put to death” or “they should have done what was done to them” are just making noise. That’s simply not going to happen. So let’s deal with what is. And please, let’s remember that reading an article is not the same as giving someone a free pass for their past transgressions. A closed mind is a terrible waste.