The “Say His Name” whistleblower list melted down to two-thirds

Tristan Peloquin
Tap

The controversial denunciation page created in the wake of the #Metoo movement was launched on Facebook last August with the aim of “starting to question society” and “freeing the voices of victims”.

The names of 1,565 people who qualified as “suspected abusers” – including the names of public figures – were found there, and the victims anonymously denied their allegations to the site administrators.

A man named Jean-Franకోois Marquis appeared on the list, bringing a lawsuit for $ 50,000 for punitive and moral damages against Page and its administrators. Mr. Marquis has nothing to be ashamed of and does not know the identity of the man who condemned him or what he is accusing.

When the Court of Appeal examines the first example judgment this Thursday, the page’s administrators are required to send Mr Marquis all the anonymous accusations they have received so that he can prepare his prosecution, leaving only 590 names on the list.

“Following the court ruling, nearly 1,000 names have disappeared from the list,” he said^E Pierre-Hughes Miller, attorney for Jean-Franకోois Marquis.

“Administrators need to explain this situation, because in our opinion there are a lot of people who find themselves on this list when there is no evidence of sexual harassment allegations.” The lawyer believes.

Om^E Miller wants to get these allegations to assess whether minimum checks were made before the names were revealed. The Supreme Court ruled in February that “considering the seriousness of the accusations leveled against him by including his name in the list, Mr. Marquis is entitled to verify the process and the guidelines developed by Dis son Nom”. However, the court ordered that the names of the convicted victims be changed back to August 2020.

Former Judicial Illustrator Delphine Bergeron, one of the two administrators of the page who voluntarily revealed her identity last September, declined to comment as the case is before the courts. The other administrator, known as “AA”, is appealing an order from the Superior Court ruling that Mr. Marquis is required to disclose his own identity so that he can cross-examine her in this case.

In their written argument submitted to the court, the two administrators who mention his name promise to keep “a process and guidelines” that will guide the operation of their anonymous whistleblower page. Only accounts of events coming directly from the victims were accepted and they were systematically rewritten for these complainants to “verify”. [leur] Lived and for [leur] Demonstrate empathy ”.

“The approach chosen: trust the victims and do not question their experiences,” reads their defense document.

“Our argument is that verification did not take place,” he said^E Miller interview at Tap. Like many people their names are on the list and with whom we spoke, Jean-Franకోois Marquis never got a call from anyone. ”

Tap He also spoke with Montreal, who appeared on the list in August, before being fired for not giving information in recent weeks. He believes his name appeared incorrectly on the list due to conflicts with another person. “I agree 100% with the allegations of sexual harassment, but Mr and Mrs are doing this using social networks that can turn anyone dirty anyway. That’s the best solution.”

“The fact that there are a large number of sexual abusers in our society is a good list to say his name in opening the eyes of the population, but it was mismanaged,” he added, adding that the lawsuit brought by Jean-Franకోois Marquis had nothing to do with it.

In their appeal, which will be heard this Thursday, the two administrators oppose the accusations they received through the Dyson Nam site, as well as the conversations they had with the complainants being sent to Jean-Franకోois Marquis. If the Court of Appeal rejects this request, they want to at least change back any information that allows them to identify the victims facing these allegations.

Attorney Pierre-Hughes Miller confirmed that he had no intention of testifying to these anonymous plaintiffs and that he had a priori. “The goal is not to stigmatize the victims in any way,” he stressed. We are suing him to say his name because the names were published on a hearing basis, in a way that is not allowed in our legal system. We don’t consider it necessary to comment on such fabrications. ”

“For therapeutic purposes, I can say to the victim of sexual harassment, ‘I believe in you,’ and we have no problem with that. But when you want to make public allegations against someone beyond that, there should be minimal company audits. You cannot damage one’s reputation on the basis of “I believe in you” and repeat all the gossip in the public square. That doesn’t work, “said the lawyer.