Several readers wrote to me after Julien Lacroix appeared on the show The world turned upside down at TVA to ask if my opinion of the comedian had changed.
However, my opinion has never focused on Julien Lacroix himself, but on one principle: that of the presumption of innocence in the rule of law.
And in this case, the interview on Friday evening only confirmed my conviction: the People’s Court will never replace the judiciary.
SHE SAYS, HE SAYS
Before, during and after Julien Lacroix’s interview with Stéphan Bureau, social media went wild. Everyone had an opinion about Lacroix’s guilt or not, about his right to a second chance or not, about the credibility of his accusers or not.
“I believe him! » shouted some. “I believe them! shouted the others. Like Nero showing the thumbs up or the thumbs down in a gladiator arena.
However, viewers were not invited to a hearing. No one asked her to be a member of the jury at the Cathodic Courthouse.
Lacroix was given a platform to talk about the human impact of journalistic research.
“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, shocked. to Stephan Bureau.
In my columns and on the radio, I have never “defended” a person. I have always defended a certain notion of justice.
At the risk of repeating myself, I would like to repeat the following: the only way to finally “close” the Lacroix case is for the prosecutors to file charges that the police can investigate. That the DPCP press charges. That the parties have the opportunity to present evidence in court. That the accused have the right to a full answer and defense and to a fair trial. That the complainants have an opportunity to present their version of the facts. And let a judge make his decision.
Other than that, everything else will be conjecture, gossip, rumor, and hasty judgment.
AND NOW ?
The question now is: will the comedian be able to move forward and turn the page as he pleases?
As long as he has not been convicted by a court, I see no reason why he should be sentenced to death, banishment or a boycott.
Those who are made to feel “uncomfortable” by the mere presence
Lacroix in the same room as her, just gotta avoid it. But in what name would they prevent him from practicing his profession in front of an audience that wants to hear him?
While the real convicts, those who have served their real sentences and “paid back their debts to society,” are eligible for reintegration programs, would Lacroix be treated as an outcast?
What a strange society that treats those found guilty in good and due form less harshly than those who have never had a chance to defend themselves in due form.
It’s the world upside down.