Several readers wrote to me following Julien Lacroix appeared on the show The world upside down at TVA, to ask me if my opinion of the comedian had changed.
However, my opinion has never focused on Julien Lacroix himself, but on a principle: that of the presumption of innocence in a state of law.
And in this case, the interview on Friday evening only confirmed my convictions: the people’s court will never replace the justice system.
SHE SAYS, HE SAYS
Before, during and following Julien Lacroix’s interview with Stéphan Bureau, social media went wild. Everyone had an opinion on the guilt or not of Lacroix, on his right or not to a second chance, on the credibility or not of his accusers.
“I believe him! », shouted some. “I believe them! shouted the others. Like Nero putting his thumbs up or his thumbs down in a gladiatorial arena.
- Listen to Anaïs Guertin-Lacroix’s cultural segment broadcast live every day at 6:35 a.m. on QUB radio :
However, viewers were not invited to a trial. Nobody asked them to be a member of the jury at the Cathodic Courthouse.
Lacroix was given a platform to talk regarding the human impact of journalistic investigations.
“It’s beautiful, we were thirsty for blood, we were thirsty for names, we wanted heads to roll, we wanted a show, but for a lot of people, including me, this show is my life” , said Julien Lacroix, shaken, to Stéphan Bureau.
In my columns and on the radio, I have never “defended” an individual. I have always defended a certain conception of justice.
At the risk of repeating myself, I will reiterate this: the only way to definitively “close” the Lacroix file is for the accusers to file complaints which the police can investigate. That the DPCP lay charges. That the parties have the opportunity to present evidence in Court. That the accused have the right to make full answer and defense and to a fair trial. That the complainants have the opportunity to present their version of the facts. And let a judge give his verdict.
Other than that, everything else will be guesswork, gossip, rumors and hasty judgment.
AND NOW ?
The question now is: will the comedian be able to move forward and turn the page, as he wishes?
As long as he has not been condemned by a Court, I do not see why he should receive a sentence of professional death, internal exile or boycott.
Those who feel “discomfort” with the mere presence of
Lacroix in the same room as them just have to avoid it. But in the name of what would they prevent him from exercising his profession in front of an audience that wants to hear him?
While the real convicts, those who have served their real sentence and who have “repaid their debt to society” are entitled to reintegration programs, would Lacroix be treated as an outcast?
What a strange society that treats those who have been found guilty in good and due form less harshly than those who have never had the chance to defend themselves in due form.
It’s the world upside down.
