Predator process

There is an outcry in Iloilo city about a supposed predator. About a male artist who makes sexual advances on young women. Maybe these girls are fans. Maybe they’re budding artists. But the long and short of it is that this male artist is fairly amorous --and the women don’t like it.

The activists are up in arms. They want the art community, amorphous as it is, to do something. Many things actually. Some of the actions items are pretty common sense, and don’t need the presence of an actual sexual harassment drama unfolding before they are undertaken. Others are more problematic, and perhaps, should be reflected upon before going full speed ahead.

Sure, there has to be safe spaces for dialogue. Sure there has to be more avenues for sensitivity training. And absolutely, when there is guilt, there has to be accountability. But when there is no guilt yet, but a raft of accusations? What are we, the members of the public, or even those intimately involved with the arts community, like galleries and curators, supposed to do?

An open forum would be nice. Asking resource persons from women’s rights groups to speak would be helpful. Maybe, assigning resources like legal aid groups or paralegals to assist in the processing of justice would go one step further. No problem with that.

But there are other, more problematic suggestions. Nay, demands.

The cries include those by a publication called The Daily Guardian (not to be confused with the UK’s The Guardian), which issued a clamor for such remedies as codes of conduct and grievance mechanisms. Sounds fancy, even very official.

But codes of conduct and grievance mechanisms seem likely to wither in the absence of organizations with formalities for membership, not a loose community like artists, collectors, independent galleries, schools, and enthusiasts. Formal rules and set-in-stone policies might end up looking like rigid strictures, which will likely turn off those who might want to consider membership. Common sense should be enough to guide aggrupations of differently-flavored humans.

The editorial piece in the Daily Guardian even issues what can be considered as veiled threats, with a prescription for communities to “not cancel art but (to) no longer celebrate artists who abuse their influence”.

That is perhaps where the line should be drawn. Deciding “not to celebrate an artist” is just code speak for the same thing --cancelation. And while there may come a proper time for canceling a member of the community, that should not be before a proper arbiter (like a judge) has had the opportunity to look at the accusations, as well as the defenses offered by the accused, and handed down a judgment of guilt.

To act before an impartial person has had this chance, to cancel before a finding of guilt, to side with the accuser before the defenses have been aired --all these go beyond principles of due process. What if the artist is indeed innocent? Then the strident cries for justice have unnecessarily inflicted damage.

And to castigate the art community for not acting in the manner desired by the accusers, and to accuse it of being complicit or silencing accusers or participating in a hush-up, is likewise premature. And mayhaps, also immature.

Yes, there are predators out there. Yes, the innocent have a hard time speaking up, so when they do speak up, we must provide support. Yes, they are, most of the time, disadvantaged and hardly in a position of power. But no, punishment must not come before guilt has been found.