Punishment

Once upon a time, I went to Teacher's College.  There I took a mandatory course called Teacher Law, where they taught us the laws regarding teachers.  They also focused on the Constitution on how it applied to teachers, Canadian Constitution.  And they talked about Residential Schools and the treatment of Native people.  It was bad, very bad.  Imagine something bad, it was worse. 

This year a Native group focused their attention on schools that were named after Canada's first prime minister, John A MacDonald, and suggested that we needed to remove his name from those schools because under his watch, Residential School first began.  The said that his friend got him to push through the legislation that allowed Residential Schools to be created, and so his name should be stripped from our schools as punishment.

I disagree.  I disagree because as part of the aforementioned Law class, I read the original mandate and goal set forth by the people by the creators of Residential School system.  It was draconian compared to what we now know about teaching people, but pretty standard for the time.  You know during the time that they punished children that wrote with their left hand and summarily executed punishments in the class to misbehaving students.  I mean it was draconian by today's standards, but standard by theirs.

Their goals were to make Native people productive members of society.  They wanted to take children and teach them trades and send them back to better the community they came from.  They wanted them to leave the Reservation system and enter into the greater society as a productive member, they were looking to assimilate them.  Which is what happened to every immigrant to Canada at the time.  It was standard.  It was done with good intentions.  You know what they say about the path to Hell, it is paved with good intentions.  

Residential Schools had good intentions, but horrific results.  John A MacDonald started the process, but did not abuse or beat any native person any more than his legislation caused horrors for anyone else.  He was no more good or bad than other people of his generation.  Should the schools be forced to change their names because of this legislation that he helped pass?  Or should his name be allowed to grace schools because he was the a principle mover for Canadian peaceful succession from the United Kingdom and first Prime Minister of Canada?  My answer: we should keep his name on the schools and then teach the controversy in the proper context.  When the students are taught government in grade 4 they should learn about the Confederation process and when they learn about Natives Peoples in grade 5, they should learn about the Residential School System and in grade 7-8 they should debate the rights and wrongs of his life and whether we should whitewash our history or keep it the cruddy gray that it is.

#MeToo:  Woody Allen.  Kevin Spacey.  Bill Cosby.

First, I know too many people who have been hurt, raped, abused, beaten by men, who had power over them.  One is too many, I know more than ten; I knew more than 10 before #MeToo. I know women who's response is to tell those women to deal with it, it happened, you can't make it unhappen, so don't let it define you.  Those women are correct and wrong.  They are correct because you can let it define you, and you don't want to let it define you, but it is a trauma that can be very defining too.  When someone reaches out and breaks the illusion that you are strong and invulnerable can be crippling.  It can be a defining life event.  Many of the people I know were abused as children and that can set a pattern in life one that creates a person who is waiting for it to happen again.  It is a horrible thing that should never happen to anyone.

But I ask you, when it is revealed that someone was an abuser what is the appropriate response?  The first appropriate response is that the perpetrators should be charged.  Arrested and charged, because it is a serious charge and should be treated seriously and credible claims need to be taken serious.  

Second they need to face charges in court, either civil or criminal; however the courts chose to pursue the charges.  And then we must scourge the public records of any mention the person from history.  Anything they did must be expunged from society and any work that they did must be destroyed.  Clearly, this is the correct response.  But it isn't.

Bill Cosby is a bad man who allegedly preys on women by drugging women and sexually assaulting them.  And he is a funny comedian and a African American role model.  

Kevin Spacey allegedly sexually abused women he worked with and created an unsafe work environment, and he was an actor that entertained millions of more people than he damaged.

Woody Allan beat his wife and children, maybe more making him a bad role model of married life, but his movies defined a generation and entertained millions.

William Shakespeare, lived in a time where people did not focus on people's non public life, but if it were uncovered that he sexually abused women and beat his wife and children, would we condemn his life's work? Today, we would.  I am not saying that Bill Cosby, Woody Allan and Kevin Spacey are the Shakespeares of our time, but I am saying that bad men can do good things and that we should not throw out the good with the bad.  

There are punishments that we can put on public figures that do wrong things.  We can tell them that they can act and they can tell jokes and make make movies, but their royalties and their pay for making a public living will be forever changed and they will not beable to run for public office either.  

If I committed a crime as a teacher, I would be barred from doing teaching, because I would have broken the perception and the trust that the public has placed in me as a teacher.  Teachers are public officials.  Politicians are public officials, committing a crime as a politician free of mental instability, is and should be a death sentence for that public career.  A teacher, a police officer, a Doctor and, a politician, have inscrutable quality that breaks when it is tarnished because it carries a power of public trust.  Nescessarily breaking that trust ends that career.  Donald Trump and Roy Moore can't be politicians and have broken the public trust.  Teachers are suspended until they are proven innocent, not proven guilty, because public trust does not accept ambiguity.  

Entertainers are public figures that play flawed people on stage, on the screens.  I am not saying that they do not have a public image, but I am saying they do not have public trust.  They are people that seek to entertain and they play flawed people in public.  And they don't damage people's perception of actors and entertainers by being flawed people.  Their punishment should be different.  When they make money from their trade, that money needs to divided and part needs to be used to make people's lives better: the ones they hurt and the people that are hurt daily by other sexual predators.  

If actors and entertainers are convicted of any abuse of power crimes they should be allowed to continue doing their trade, knowing that what they did was known to the public and that they acknowledge that they did wrong and are paying for it.

For the record, public figures entertainers include sports figures and athletes.  Should athletes who use performance enhancing drugs be banned for life?  Should their past accomplishments be removed—yes, but if they become clean, they should be able to compete again after years of being clean— a fallen hero who rises again is a different kind of hero.

I am not saying that anyone gets a free pass.  I am saying that after they have been charged, prosecuted, and sentenced, they should be allowed to earn a living doing something they can do well and for the honour of doing what they did, public entertainers, be out there rectifying what they did publicly.  Politicians and professionals that hold public trust, can't get a second chance because doing so damages their profession.