What's more, this is not a situation where an incident was dug up out of nowhere and put on the public record without the woman's permission. For better or worse, this encounter was already on the public record in the form of a published, public editorial. The suggestion that we put the genie back in the bottle now is moot.

Ironically, there is at least one recent occasion when a private allegation was put on the public record without the complainants' express permission: That is, in late 2014 when Trudeau went public with allegations against against MPs Scott Andrews and Massimo Pacetti, without telling the women involved — two NDP MPs — in advance. The women felt blindsided, according to the NDP whip at the time.

Trudeau is himself therefore guilty of publicizing a misconduct allegation without the complainants' permission, which makes the suggestion that we now drop the matter concerning the prime minister's conduct — conduct that was already put on the public record — rather rich. It's that conspicuous double-standard, rearing its head again.


The crux here is that the Trudeau and his defenders are asking for a type of leniency and consideration not afforded to other politicians similarly accused of misconduct. MP Kent Hehr, for example, is now out of cabinet because of inappropriate words, though not physical contact. And MPs Andrews and Pacetti were suspended first, investigated later, when allegations against them first surfaced.

Pacetti, in fact, has used the same defence that Trudeau is now employing in response to allegations that he acted inappropriately. Pacetti, who was accused of having sex without explicit consent with a female MP, has always maintained that he believed the sexual encounter, in which she provided the condom, was entirely consensual. She says it was not. To borrow Trudeau's words: the same interaction was viewed very differently from one person to the next.

This is not a judgment on whether the Pacetti incident was indeed consensual, or to suggest that groping and non-consensual sex are in any way on a par, but simply an observation that the excuse used in both cases — I didn't think I was doing anything wrong — was unacceptable in Pacetti's case (he was permanently removed from caucus), but is now permissible in Trudeau's.

Applying universal standards

In the past, Trudeau has said that the same standards would apply to him if an accusation of sexual misconduct is levied his way. It appears he changed his mind.

Practically speaking, however, there is probably no point to launching a formal investigation of this allegation now. The most it would do is uncover a few additional details, for which Trudeau would then apologize, leaving us in the same place we are now. The prime minister will not suspend himself or — as been suggested by some fervent critics — resign.

If we really want to move forward, we don't need an investigation. We need an admission that these things are complicated. That "believe women" as a blanket approach to each and every accusation sounds good in theory, but can be problematic in practice. That we can take allegations extremely seriously without having to reflexively believe them. That punishing before investigating is wrong. That there are scales of wrongdoing, and that we can make room for people to learn from their mistakes, while simultaneously showing no tolerance for those who commit the worst ones.

The prime minister is now experiencing first-hand how a one-size-fits all approach to dealing with accusations of sexual misconduct is extremely fraught. But instead of conceding that admission, he is simply changing the standard to a one-size-fits-most: Everyone except the prime minister. That's the issue. It's the hypocrisy, not the act.

This column is part of CBC's Opinion section. For more information about this section, please read this editor's blog and our FAQ.