Parliament Hill harassment horror stories risk rousing mob mentality

If there's one thing we've learned over the last few weeks, it's that virtually everyone who has spent time within the orbit of Parliament Hillhas at least onestory of sexual or, at least, sexuallycharged harassment to tell.

• How Parliament Hill harassment exposed me to the dark side of power
• Police process horrible, sexual assault survivor says
• MP harassment allegations fall through cracks of Hill's murky rules
• Parliament 'back in another decade' on harassment

There are first-person accounts of behaviourthatseems to runthe gamutfrom eyebrow-raising inappropriatenesstoborderline (or beyond)criminal sexualassault. There are cautionary tales or self-deprecating confessionalsshared in confidence by friends or co-workers, or offered as advice to a new arrival or, indeed,recounted dispassionately, even offhandedly, as just anotheranecdote of life on the Hill.

There arethehalf-remembered rumours and speculation long since retired from the precinct rumour mill that suddenly, retroactively, seemhorribly plausible.

But as thecollective catharsiscontinues toadd new chaptersto the public record chronicling the dark even dangerous corners of Parliament Hill,the steadily growing list of claims presents a particular challenge tothose of usobliged tocover the fallout.

Many unanswered questions

In virtuallyany other scenario,allegations of misconduct not precisely specified, but sufficiently serious to move Liberal Leader Justin Trudeauto suspendlong-serving MPsScott Andrews and Massimo Pacettifrom caucus on the spot, would requireif not necessarily evidence, at least some basic claims that could be confirmed.

• Harassment on Parliament Hill: 6 unanswered questions

In this case, however, even pointing out that the two NDP MPsbehind those claimshave thus far chosen to remain anonymousis viewed by some as"revictimization" and denounced accordingly.

No one wants tocreate an atmosphere where victims facea binary choice: stay silent or sacrifice your privacy.

At the same time, journalists and, indeed, anyone within the blast radius of last week's explosive allegations have at least some responsibility to consider the context, which, in this case, includes a whole lot of unanswered questions.

That would, of course, include Trudeau, who has been under fire from all sides.

• Liberal harassment allegations: NDP MPs angry with Trudeau's handling
• NDP MP Sylvain Chicoine accused of sexism in lawsuit
• How widespread is sexual harassment in the workplace?

The New Democrats have condemned Trudeau's decision to handle the situation by formally sanctioning Andrews and Pacetti without so much as giving notice to the two NDP MPs who lodged the initial complaints.

That action ensured the general nature, if not the specific details, of the alleged misconduct would become public, which, we've been told, goesagainst the explicit wishes of the two complainant MPs.

Others questioned Trudeau's move tosuspendtheMPs reportedly without informingthem, oranyone else, of the exact nature of the charges against them.

The Liberals have argued,not unreasonably, that the instant Trudeau became directly, personally aware of the complaints,he had no choice but to take action. But it gets trickier totraversea minefieldseeded with pointed butnon-specific allegations.

In an incendiarycolumn published intheHillTimes this week, former Liberal ministerSheila Copps said she had been sexually assaulted by a colleague during her tenure as an OntarioMPP at Queen's Park. Based on her description of events, it wouldn't be difficult for someone with access tothe provincial committee archivestoproduce a short list of potential attackers.

No going back

Copps also claimed that"more than one former Speaker" it's not clear if she means House, Senate or both has been the "subject of a complaint" in the past.

While likelynot technically defamatory, at least in a legal context, such a charge has the effect of retroactivelytarnishing the reputation oftherelatively small number of former parliamentarians to servein that role at the past.

And it is sufficiently vague to leave little discernible grounds to mount a defence for any who might wish to do so on their behalf. (One former House Speaker whose term overlapped with Copps's tenure on the Hill has passed away.)

No one well, no one worth heeding would ever propose going back to the chummy, clubby culture of secrecy that allowedthe halls of Parliament Hilltobecome a hunting ground for sexual predators. We also don't want to discourage those who believe themselves to have been victimized by those same sexual predators from speaking out.

At the same time, given the complexities involved and the many still unanswered questions, it would be wise to avoid a rush to judgment until we're satisfied the whole story has been told.