Heather Plessis-Allan: Trevor Mallard should never have claimed rape

COMMENT:

Trevor Mallard severely damaged his credibility this week.

His decisions were strange. His judgment was sorely lacking. Do not ask me why he did it. I can not understand either.

But whatever his reason, he plunged Parliament into panic this week.

On Wednesday morning, staff learned that a serial rapist was working in Parliament. Mallard made this request on the radio.

The women were panicking. The men apparently felt suspicious.

And then Mallard said that he was not going to do anything about it. He did not call the police. It would traumatize the victims again. So he dropped the rape, stepped out of the scene and left Parliament to play the role of the Lord of the Flies.

Mallard's biggest mistake was to use the word rape.

There seems to be no evidence of rape. It seems that Mallard has grossly exaggerated the findings of the report on Francis' intimidation. The report found three examples of "extremely serious" sexual assault. How does this become a rape? Because, says Mallard, "My point of view is that any serious sexual assault, man versus woman, is a rape."

Really? That's the best proof you have? It's fragile and legally very risky.

So we are in a situation where the Speaker of the House shouted RAPIST and where there may have never been a rapist.

Then, Mallard refused to call the police. Mallard's reasoning was that his hands were tied. The Francis investigation promised the plaintiffs not to follow through with their complaints. So, if Mallard called the cops, he would traumatize those victims again.

It's absurd. Essentially, the President weighed the women's security in Parliament and the feelings of the victims, and decided that it was better to protect past victims and, well, the rest of the women in Parliament could try their luck.

The President has a duty to take care of the women who work in Parliament. The cops should have been called as soon as he knew of these allegations.

There is a good chance that Mallard's problems are not over either.

He must face a libel suit.

A few hours after Mallard had called for rape on the radio, a member of the parliamentary staff was removed from office for historic sexual assault. The name of this man is already widespread in Parliament. It's a small place. If he committed an act other than a rape, it is highly likely that he will plead against the President for damaging his reputation.

Too bad Mallard got into trouble. It's a good guy. I like it. Many people around Parliament do it.

But this is an unforced error. And he can not buy too much. He already has enough problems.

Mallard has too much media attention and has been talking too much about him for 18 months.

He has been accused of bias against the opposition, protecting the prime minister in the House, being involved in negative stories about the opposition and telling the story. stories about the opposition to the media.

He is an easy target for National. They use it as a distraction when they do not want a negative story to head for the news. They know that if they can get him angry enough, he could make a stupid decision in the House and, guess what, all of a sudden we are still talking about the alleged bias of the Speaker.

Mallard must stand in line. There is more at stake here than his own credibility. Technically, the president is the third most powerful person in the country, just behind the prime minister, but far ahead of other cabinet members.

It is essential for the integrity of our Parliament that the person sitting in the chair be considered impeccably neutral, fair and credible. Otherwise, our democracy becomes a circus to which no one can trust anymore.

Can we say that Mallard is impeccably neutral, fair and credible? It becomes more and more difficult.