CKNW Editorial
for November 1, 1999

Have we in this province any idea what we’ve done with this Human Rights Tribunal … which, incidentally is not a tribunal at all but a tribune … in the case of Professor Donald Dutton one politically correct feminist? What we’ve done is create a brand new crime the conviction for which will cost the miscreant about $80,000 plus his reputation. The crime is called "creating a sexualized environment"! Roll those words over your tongue for a moment … "creating a sexualized environment" is now a quasi crime for which you lose everything. Now bear in mind that this "crime" has no bodily contact involved, no whispering of sweet nothings in the ear, no clean sheeted playpen in full view, no threats or anything like that. No it has music and the availability of wine. For creating this atmosphere for a 32 year old female student who lied through her teeth, stole from the government and threatened another professor with a "racial discrimination" charge if he didn’t pass her, Dr Donald Dutton is a ruined man - apparently without the resources or the stamina to appeal.

The one woman tribunal took 17 months to listen to the music Dr Dutton played and listen for some provocative conversation recorded on the music tape and found no provocative conversation but that the music was sexy.

I was thinking about this the other day after my colleague Bill Good did a program on this issue … it occurred to me that when we interview women we must be very careful that the Green Room, where guests wait, not have elevator music in the background and wine be anywhere near the coffee machine or we could be toast. I jest of course … but as Bill observed to me the other day as I was notified that I had a libel writ on the way … it is indeed better to be sued for libel – by far - than have a complaint made under Human Rights Legislation.

While we’re at it, we might as well bring up the Blencoe case although in deference to the poor man I hate to do it. There a man, admittedly a cabinet minister, shared a number of drinks with a mature woman in a bar where, amongst other things they discussed a government grant. The woman, after the evening’s drinking had ended, went up to the minister’s hotel room for a night cap. He French kissed her and in that moment – apparently it never occurred to this woman that after a night’s drinking accepting a visit to a hotel room might have this consequence – in that moment Mr Blencoe’s ministerial career was over, his political career ended - and he was forced into exile where the story pursued him, ending a menial job he had taken. He is now a guard with a security company.

What does this say about the modern woman who claims liberalization? Is the modern woman so feeble, so lacking in sophistication, so vulnerable to the wiles of seductive males that she must be protected when she goes up to a man’s bedroom after a night of drinking or she goes to a man’s home searching for some help? Is that the new woman the long struggle for equality has created?

Is the Dutton case what this human rights legislation was supposed to accomplish? To take social gaffes, judged by the politically correct mores of the most sensitive and militant of feminists, and destroy careers? A man would be less ruined by stealing a couple of hundred thousand from his employer than to steal an unwanted kiss or have music on when an adult female comes to visit.

This was the point I was trying to make – I believe unsuccessfully - with Mary-Woo Sims, the Chair of the Human Rights Commission. The penalty paid for running afoul of this modern day Star Chamber is out of all proportion to the so-called offence alleged.

What this legislation was supposed to end was the time dis-honoured custom of the "casting couch" where, mostly, women were clearly taken advantage of by men in a superior role. It was then and remains wrong for the boss to advance an employee for sexual favours or refrain from advancing her for want of them or any similar conduct. What the legislation has accomplished is to place in the hands of unscrupulous women a weapon whereby they can blackmail and ruin a man for "creating a sexualized environment."

Are we serious here? I often take attractive ladies out for lunch. It is one of the pleasant perks this job provides. If the music is subdued and sexy, a candle appears on the table and wine comes with the meal am I guilty of "creating a sexualized" atmosphere? I must confess that when you’re as old and grey as I am my appearance provides all the defence I would need but the point is this – taking advantage of someone is one thing and should be discouraged. But surely to God there must be some evidence of someone being taken advantage of. In the Dutton case there was no such evidence. None. All Dr Dutton did was create a "sexualized atmosphere" where that could have happened – something created every day by a bus crowded with commuters.

Yes, in this politically correct charged atmosphere we have produced Dr Dutton was a damned fool. But Dr Dutton is a ruined man – financially, academically and socially. Is this the price society now exacts for foolishness?

Someone – hopefully the BC Civil Rights Association will take up the cudgels on his behalf. In the meantime we have in place pernicious, oppressive, blackmail producing legislation the dealing with which should be a high priority item with this government or any that takes its place.