Jack Layton's Bawdy Massage - Gerry Caplan & Media Betray Themselves

I condemned the Toronto Star over the Giambrone affair and argued the pro-disclosure media should reread its statement of principles. I was pretty much the only person in the country to defend Helena Guergis when no-one did, in the middle of the storm. I'm very wary of intrusions into public figures' private lives, and one is innocent till proven guilty. But the Jack Layton Bawdy Massage was a real, legitimate matter of public interest, as per the "Statement of principles and ethics guidelines – Investigative journalism" of the Canadian Association of Journalists.

The Jack Layton Bawdy Massage was, as Chris Selley noted, a legitimate story to pursue, once it was broken. However, it should not have come to light unless Layton wanted to reveal it himself, as he and the police should have 15 years ago. And even if it was of public interest, it should not have been broken in the middle of an election campaign, where it might have the most prejudicial impact, positive it seems, though it might easily have been negative.

How is this story of public interest? Warren Kinsella's analysis from all sides was widely praised, and one can easily imagine that if the story had come out in 1996  - "Sweep of bawdy house turns up politician, no charges, innocent" - no-one have doubted that aspect for a second. But as there were no charges, and the story was never revealed, how can it possibly be of public interest in 2011?

Kinsella hit on one aspect : "Two, the bigger scandal, here, remains unaddressed: at the time he was detained, Jack Layton was a city councillor on the City of Toronto’s budget committee, which has power over the police budget. The cops knew who he was, they knew the power he wielded over them. So what did they do? They walked him to the back door, and let him pedal away. Were the other men found at that place given that kind of treatment? If not, what happened here is a bona fide scandal, one that Toronto taxpayers need have probed, the passage of time notwithstanding."

Cosh and then Blatchford hit on another possible aspect, as regards legitimate public interest, hypocrisy in a matter of public policy, with Blatchford linking it to a pattern of hypocrisy throughout Layton's career. And once one considers the details provided and acknowledged by Layton, many are led to wonder: How naive can he be?

It seems as though the farther people are from Toronto and Ottawa and unconnected to the system, the more skeptical they are of Layton's and the political media's behaviour, as expressed by David Wylie, night editor at The Daily Courier in Kelowna: "It's probably just me, but it seems the media's letting Layton off pretty lightly on this bawdy house thing... Imagine if it were Harper!" and Marcus Hondro, off on an island in the Georgia Strait. Quite a few people, in particular women, seem outraged by the actual bawdy house massage, given what they perceive as the exploitative nature of the situation, as exemplified by this blogpost: Famous "john" : Jack put the LAY in Layton.

My views when the story broke were:

a) The police notes are confidential, should not have been leaked, and whoever is responsible should be caught and punished.

b) QMI was wrong to run with the story in the middle of an election campaign, especially four days from the actual vote, given its prejudicial nature, and the difficulty for the public to absorb the story, and distinguish the legitimate questions of public interest from the illegitimate.

c) Once the story had broken, the media, not able to put the genie back in the bottle, should err on the side of underplaying rather than overplaying the story until the election had taken place, given the worst-case effects of the impacts of overplaying - a material effect on Canadian politics, government and society - outweighed the worst-case impacts of underplaying, namely Canadians voting in the election with a false impression of Layton's character, about which the media might have been hiding or downplaying relevant facts. Since in our parliamentary democracy Canadians are supposed to be voting for their MPs* and a party's ideas rather than leaders, the Layton character question could wait till after the election, was my view, when the media would have more time to explore the story fully, and the public more time to absorb it. *(NB. one reason the NDP's possible nomination fraud in Quebec is so wrong)

d) The first question of public interest is whether the police's awareness of Layton's status affected his treatment in 1996, implicitly or explicitly. The media would have to interview Layton and the relevant officers about the matter to gain an idea. Both the police's and Layton's handling of the incident seem a shambles, beginning to end, from the looks of it. If there had been a statement at the time, a lot of later problems would have been avoided.

e) The second question of public interest is whether there was any identifiable change in the Layton-police relationship after the incident, was Layton's conduct toward them the same, worse or better, did he vote differently, and can any of that be attributed to the non-arrest? That can only be verified by reading through the public record to judge if the dynamic changed.

f) The third question of public interest is with regard to Layton's character, notably his judgment. He is the son and grandson of professional politicians, he had been a city councillor for 14 years at the time, one would assume he knew, and knows, how things work. How is it he lacked the wisdom to make a statement as soon as possible after the incident? Did he, who knows the nature of politics and society, really think the incident would remain secret forever? If he was planning on continuing in politics, why didn't he get it cleared out of the way, as would have been prudent? Upon entering national politics, did he not think his past would be examined, that it could remain secret? The possible motives for non-disclosure seem one or all of naivete, guilt, fear, or narcissism, Clinton-complex, feeling one is so special one can commit follies or crimes and never suffer the consequences. The first three possible motives have laudable elements within them, indicating a residual sense of morality or innocence, except that fear and guilt would indicate there was something to feel fearful and guilty about, though it might just be like when the security beep goes when one has bought an item but not had the security tag properly removed - one feels guilty even though one has done nothing wrong.

The question of hypocrisy did not occur to me, as there were no charges, so it would be difficult to claim there had actually been any untoward conduct. Now, I don't deny that the idea that one needs to be naked to receive a Japanese shiatsu massage from a young Chinese woman who is new to the country and has only started working as a massage therapist at that establishment that very day, and who is observed dumping "wet Kleenex into garbage", seems hard to credit, especially since Layton couldn't explain why he was naked. But for me, no charges mean no charges. Cosh, Blatchford and many others make the leap from appearances to illegal actions, and say that given Layton's moralistic stance on lap-dancing at the time, there is a public interest case for condemning Layton for hypocrisy. I expect I hold the same suspicions as many as to what actually transpired in that room before the police arrived, and I consider Layton a hypocrite generally, but I don't think you can say he was hypocritical in this case unless you take as a given he was engaged in illegal sexual activity, which, as he was never charged nor convicted, leads us back to the police-Layton dynamic.

Those would have been my observations and conclusions except for the media's and others' unwitting ability to not just make a mess of things but, I consider, to be creeps.

You, reader, and I, we are both almost certain that Jack Layton did not simply receive an innocent shiatsu massage on January 9th, 1996, at the bawdy house the Velvet Touch. We both suspect he paid for a sexual service from a poor young woman, newly arrived from China. We both suspect that Diva Rachel was right when she evoked the possibility that the young woman had been exploited into such a situation, and was being exploited a second time by a rich, old white guy, descendent of a long line rich white Canadian elites, that is to say, that there was one very empowered person in that room, and one very disempowered person.

Since there were no charges and no definitive proof, the media should not play up this angle, in my view, hence my reluctance for them to play up the hypocrisy angle, even if everyone suspects it's true. Determinedly blinkered, perhaps, but you have to draw a line somewhere.

However. However.

Two mistakes have been made since the story was broken, and they reflect badly on the media and some outside commentators.

1) We can't know what assignments have been given in the nation's newsrooms, but it has now been a week since the election and the public interest angles have not been explored in any depth: a) Layton-police dynamic at moment? ; b) public policy consequences of Layton-police dynamic? (his subsequent votes, positions on police?) ; c) Layton's judgment/character in not revealing incident asap, as one would expect any experienced politician to do.

2) Those members of the media and other commentators who are so shameless, so immoral, so as pretend that it was quite innocent, when they are old enough and wise enough to know better. It's one thing to have the good grace to stick to the public interest aspects, or choose to ignore the story altogether, though that would mean being wilfully deaf, dumb and blind. But to go out of one's way to pretend that Layton was not indeed engaging in the sexual exploitation of a poor, powerless immigrant woman is despicable, doubly so for those who have long blared how sensitive they are to such issues, what feminists they are.

A cursory review of media coverage leads me to condemn the following for their willingness to effectively excuse the probable sexual exploitation of a poor young woman migrant by pretending, contrary to their own good sense, that nothing untoward happened. There may well be others, but this is an upsetting enough sample, as is. It's one thing not to mention it, or only focus on the public interest aspects, it's another entirely to claim that what probably happened didn't happen, falsely, knowingly. You'll note, reader, that none of the coverage has been about the girl, it's all been about protecting Layton, and no-one, as far as we know, has tried to find the girl and find out HER story.

Stéphane Baillargeon : Médias - Bouette et désinformation

Mireille Silcoff: Here’s the rub on massage parlours (in your neighbourhood)

Susan Delacourt: Trading Places I've always respected Delacourt, but her casual lumping together this story with others, given the context, is perhaps her worst hour, especially for one who assumes such a righteous feminist stance so often: "Last night, Jack Layton got a taste of what it's going to be like if he does end up as the official opposition leader, and the relentless, negative attacks that will ensue. Discouragingly, there's nothing he can do to prepare himself for the onslaught either, because when his rivals run out of actual, random events of Layton's past, they will then start making things up. This is how it goes in Canadian politics, circa 2011."

Judith Timson: Are you suffering from PMS? (Post-majority stress, that is) Like Delacourt, casual dismissal, no reflection on seriousness of context, implications of disempowered female vs. powerful male politician. Again, one thing to review public interest aspects, or remain silent, but to pretend nothing happened? That it's an unfounded "smear", that it's NOT "stunning", that it's just a bit "shady"? Some feminist.  - "Then there was the last-ditch smear against Jack Layton by the new Sun Media television and the Toronto Sun, which brought us the “stunning” news that some 15 years ago, Mr. Layton was questioned by police but not charged when he was found in a registered, albeit shady, massage parlour."

Carol Goar: Exciting end to corrosive campaignThis is probably the most heinous, anti-feminist, protect the Great White Lefty Male Hope, of all the women commentators. If you're going to mention it, have some shame, for heavens' sake. Don't pretend it's all completely innocent when you know it's not: "Three days before the vote, the network aired an eyebrowing-raising story from an anonymous police source who claimed Layton was found in a Toronto massage clinic suspected of being a brothel in 1995. What the report didn’t explain was the NDP leader — then a Toronto city councillor — was unaware of any illicit activity. He was getting a post-workout shiatsu massage. The media, at the time, dismissed the incident as embarrassing but not newsworthy. Sixteen years later, Sun Media dredged it up to smear Layton’s reputation".

David Olive - "October surprises" in April.
David Olive - Political bloodlust. A lesson for progressives.
I have read David Olive on and off for years. I have always respected him, ROB to Star. Of all the commentators, he is the creepiest. First a story about his chiropracter, and a rush to defend Jack whatever the circumstances, then another where he simply describes it as an "ill-advised visit". Yes, because Olive is such a naif, and he sincerely believes nothing untoward happened. This is simply shocking behaviour by Olive. I'll never read him the same again, if I read him at all.

Gerald Caplan - Her Majesty’s Loyal (orange and pink) Opposition "Progressives of all stripes must never underestimate this little caper of Jack’s massage. The smear of Jack Layton by the powerful the Sun Media chain" (EFL underlining).

Caplan is the most disappointing of all. I thought he was one of the very few decent men in Canadian politics, he usually comports himself like some sort of Old Testament prophet, raging against inequity and injustice. I am certain that had this been reported about almost anyone else, Caplan would have worried more about the girl and less about Layton and his, to use Caplan's word, "caper". Until now, in his post-political career, Caplan has been a remarkably straight shooter, no matter who is involved,
or where the blame lies. But here, he abandons his lifetime's position on behalf of the vulnerable, against injustice, to pretend it was all just a "caper". WHAT was a "caper", pray tell? Tell us about the girl then, Caplan. Tell us about the distance in power and position between the girl and her famous client, shall you? Caplan could have avoided the matter, but he chose to speak of it, and he chose to downplay Layton's conduct, and he did so knowingly. Caplan is far, far from a naif. But in the end, he chose his tribe over the probable immorality, illegality and injustice of the situation. Caplan may have behaved worse, but probably while still in politics, under stress. He is outside politics now, and he faced no pressure to take this line. I don't know if he's behaved worse but it's the worst I've seen him behave. I've always thought very well of him. But in the end, blood was stronger than humanism.

For the record, here is the essential extract from the Sun report:

Layton found in bawdy house: Ex-cop

What police say happened on Jan. 9, 1996, was recorded in the former cop's notebook, which was reviewed and photocopied by the Toronto Sun.
The former Asian crime unit officer, who requested anonymity, details a prior police raid on the "premise currently ID as a bawdy house" looking for underage Asian hookers and a subsequent follow-up visit to the two-storey brick storefront on Jan. 9.

At first the policemen didn't realize they were interviewing one of the best-known Toronto politicians who was married to Chow, also a Metro councillor and now the incumbent NDP MP for Trinity-Spadina.
The officer's notebook indicates he asked the suspected john: "Did you receive any sexual services?"
He replied: "No sir, I was just getting a shiatsu."
The cop: "Why did you have all your clothes off?"

The suspected john: No answer.

The cop: "Are you aware that there were sex acts being done here?"
The suspected john: "No sir."
The woman, who was from mainland China, denied masturbating the suspected john but when the question was repeated became nervous and replied, "I don't know I only come to work today," the cop's notes show.
His notes also claim he saw the "female dump wet Kleenex into garbage."
In the interview with the Sun, the officer said: "I asked him for his wallet and I looked at his name and I looked at the last name and it looked familiar.
He's registered as 'John' and I thought he's a 'john.'"
Layton's Christian name is John.
"I explained to him this was a bawdy house and then I asked him the silliest question, 'Are you any relation to the councillor, Jack Layton?' and ... he had that defeated look on his face and he said, 'We are one in the same,'" the ex-cop said.
The former officer said Layton, seemed quiet and mellow and denied that he knew it was a suspected bawdy house.
The police had to decide what to do with the controversial councillor.
"To have arrested him and charged him would have served our egos a lot more. Layton was a thorn in the side of the police, siding with the anti-poverty movement in '96 or '97 ... Jack was anti-police," the ex-cop said.
"We looked at it and thought do we take advantage of this, or do we look at this like (he's) any other person, put it away and we hope this thing dies a slow death."
In the end, they came to the conclusion they shouldn't charge him.
"If we had barged in and he was engaged in a sex act and we had plainly saw it, then it would have been a different story."
The officers said police filled out a suspect investigation card that recorded his name, address, date of birth -- July 18, 1950 -- height and weight.
That information would be filed away by a civilian administrator for crime analysts to use in tracking criminals with particular attributes.
The former cop is surprised it took so long for the incident to become public.
"This stuff was never leaked out back then. The professionalism was outstanding. I thought this would have come out. This thing within the circle was so well known."
The policemen warned the councillor about the dangers of hanging out in suspected bawdy houses that could be run by Asian triads.
"I remembered lecturing him on a lot of these triads, they'd videotape the customers and extort them afterwards. Jack went pale. I said to him you have to understand it's quite possible," he says.
"He came on a bicycle. I escorted him down and he went away on his bike."