Julien Lacroix: A Case Study in Cancel Culture and Due Process
As Sophie Durocher reported, comedian Julien Lacroix has ended his career, finding himself unable to secure venues for his performances. The Groupe Phaneuf, representing prominent Quebec comedians like François Bellefeuille, Louis-José Houde, and Rosalie Vaillancourt, sent a communication to numerous venues suggesting that hosting a Julien Lacroix show could jeopardize their relationship with Phaneuf’s artists. This, as Durocher aptly put it, was a ‘kiss of death’. Which venue would risk losing access to Quebec’s most popular comedians?
It wasn’t Julien Lacroix who left the world of comedy; it was the comedy world that effectively barred him from entry. I have no personal acquaintance with Julien Lacroix. I’ve never seen him perform, not even on television. However, certain principles are fundamental to me, chief among them being the presumption of innocence. I wouldn’t want to live in a society where guilt is assumed until proven otherwise – a society where one can lose their livelihood, reputation, and relationships based on allegations, however credible they may seem.
Such societies are found in China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. Groupe Phaneuf has the right to choose where its artists perform. That’s perfectly acceptable. However, one word in their communication is deeply concerning: “suspected.” The email stated: “It is fundamental for us that our artists are in no way featured in advertising, publications, or joint promotions with any individuals suspected, denounced, accused, or convicted of crimes against persons. Thank you for respecting our position.”
The Danger of ‘Suspected’
Not just accused and convicted, but suspected! Suspected by whom? Who determines the credibility of a ‘suspicion’? Is a mere ‘suspicion’ now sufficient to close the doors of Quebec’s major performance venues to an artist? Is this the kind of society we aspire to live in? If so, let’s abolish our courts – we clearly no longer need evidence to ruin a citizen’s life!
What do our law firms think of this email? Doesn’t it send a chill down their spines to see an increasing number of decision-makers prioritizing the presumption of guilt over the presumption of innocence? Throughout my life, I’ve heard countless rumors about artists and well-known personalities. An comedian allegedly soliciting underage prostitutes. A host reportedly exhibiting toxic behavior towards a co-host for years. Another regularly abusing their partner. A respected doctor allegedly bringing in escorts, tying them up, and assaulting them. Stories I’ve been hearing for decades.
If I were to reveal the names of these individuals, you’d be shocked. These are people you admire. Do we simply ‘cancel’ them all? I reiterate: I do not know Julien Lacroix. But what is happening to him terrifies me. This isn’t about knowing the individual; it’s about defending the principles of justice and fairness that underpin a free society.
Further Discussion: Quebec Government Website for information on legal rights and resources.
