The saga of Harvey Weinstein in the States has been an ongoing story in the Press for over two years now. It has reached some sort of climax with a trial beginning this week and Weinstein facing an indictment of five counts of sexual abuse against two women. The original accusations against Weinstein in his capacity as a well-known film director marked the beginning of what came to be called the ‘me-too’ movement. In many walks of life, including the Church, women have at last felt able to step forward and attest how they have been abused sexually by powerful men. These sexual predators typically seemed to believe that their status and wealth can make any accusations disappear. Scandals were hidden through a combination of threats, shaming and financial inducements. In many cases these methods seemed to work. The problem of sexual harassment in institutions of all kinds has remained a hidden one. When money was handed out, the lawyers backing the powerful abusers forced the women to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). In Weinstein’s case, 80 women had come forward originally alleging their stories of being sexually abused by this one individual. Most of Weinstein’s alleged victims were would-be actors. Some undoubtedly had believed that if they put up with the abuse at his hands, they would able to progress in the film world.
The criminal trial that has just begun is based on the evidence of just two victims. The other seventy-eight women in various ways have either withdrawn from their original complaints or have seen them disqualified. Some have been bought off with cash settlements and NDAs. Others have been persuaded that the task of going through the court process is too injurious to their mental and physical well-being. Many have been harassed by private investigators or reporters and their lives have been threatened with ruin by having a connection to such a notorious case. Two only are left and it indicates that in a case like this, it costs a great deal to be able to stand up for what is right. What we are witnessing is the ability of money and power to make accusations evaporate for the most part. That there are still two witnesses of Weinstein’s alleged misconduct is remarkable when you take in the methods available to the powerful to intimidate and terrify accusers.
One of the Weinstein accusers was speaking on a New York Times podcast this morning. Apart from describing the lengthy and confusing process of the case coming to court, there was one particular moment where the moral dilemma facing her was encapsulated in a single recollection. The victim had prepared a sheet of paper with two columns. On one side she wrote the words. Reasons for withdrawal from the case. She found no difficulty in filling up this column. There were many good reasons for withdrawal from the struggle. There was the effect on her career, her family and her physical and mental well-being. The case, she knew, whatever the outcome, could destroy her life. She would never be able to escape the attention of the powerful supporters of the film mogul. Already the original abuse had taken its toll on her health. She was struggling with post-traumatic stress and all the physical and mental afflictions flowing from that. Would it not be easier just to accept a financial settlement from her abuser to make everything go away?
The witness then turned to the second column. The heading at the top said ‘reasons for carrying on’. Under this heading she wrote the words – ‘this is the right thing to do’. Try as she could there was nothing else to add. She stood to gain nothing financially or in terms of her health and well-being by continuing the fight. But, although she did not use these words, she could hold on to a precious commodity inside herself, her integrity.
Many of my readers will perhaps have already worked out where this particular blog post is going. In some ways it is a continuation my last one where I spoke on the courage of survivors. Like the Weinstein witnesses, Church abuse survivors have very little to gain by fighting the establishment. The Church of England which selected, trained and employed many of the perpetrators of sexual predation is enormously powerful. Like Harvey Weinstein it can use the resources of money and legal expertise to batter down the protests of those who have been grievously wronged. Next week we will, no doubt, hear again how the power of the Church attempted to manipulate even the legal system itself. Peter Ball escaped justice for twenty years because the powerful in the church ensured that victims of his sexual violence, like Neil Todd, could not be heard. As I have claimed in an earlier post, both Neil and Guide Nyachuru were literally sacrificed because powerful people refused to stop protecting the evil, using their resources of their influence and power. On another blog, Thinking Anglicans, the question has been raised once again about the moral guilt of those who financially supported John Smyth in Zimbabwe. This lead directly to the drowning of Guide at a camp run by Smyth.
The church survivor/victims, both the visible and the invisible, are all suffering all the things that the Weinstein survivor wrote on her sheet of paper. Health, wealth and relationships have all been compromised and blighted and these issues don’t get any easier for them as they get older. I am privileged to know several of these brave and courageous survivors. It is because of their persistence that many of the church-wide safeguarding initiatives have come to exist. As one of them put it to me; ‘the survivors are making the running’. It is hard to see that anything much would have been done to pursue justice in this area without the clamorous and courageous voices of survivors. In the same way it took just two victims of Weinstein’s alleged behaviour to enable the court case to happen and put a check on abusive and exploitative behaviour in the American film industry. Because of the ‘nuisance’ survivors like Gilo, Matt and Graham, the Church of England has in fact become a safer place for children and other vulnerable people. When the history of the Church is written, the narrator will, no doubt, be puzzled that the authorities of the Church from our generation, from Archbishops downward, have failed to celebrate and honour these heroic survivors and what they have indirectly achieved at enormous personal cost. As a direct consequence of their suffering, the Church, in another generation, may perhaps be allowed slowly to regain a measure of its integrity. Because we do not yet celebrate these survivors, we cannot at the present time claim any of their virtue for ourselves. Tragically too many members of the Church are content to stand aside and watch as the powers that be try to undermine their heroic witness to justice, integrity and truth.
As ugly as the Weinstein case appears, I have noticed a much swifter and probably more economically pragmatic response. From initial reports to the industrial-scale payoff of victims, seem to be occurring in a handful of years whilst the Church still squeamishly procrastinates decades afterwards.
Is the Church more evil?
It’s not for me to say of course. Readers must draw their own conclusions.
But looking for causes for the highlighted difference is essential.
The Church is a loose collective with no one taking responsibility, even, and perhaps especially her leaders. Weinstein is one person. His lawyers have worked swiftly to save as much of his estate as they can.
Of course payouts, such as they are, can never replace what was taken.
With the Church we’re to some extent all members. Even non attenders can claim membership of the established Church of England. Even atheists.
Without taking a stand against the abuses we hear of, we are acting in complicity to, at the very least, the re-abuse of survivors by ignoring them.
The sheep and the shepherds do not share the burden of responsibility equally. In my opinion the priesthood needs to rise up and stand against abuse of all descriptions in the Church, as the bishops have largely washed their hands of this.
As a footnote, I don’t want to see the Archbishops throwing stones until they have cleaned up their own glasshouse.
I have gone down the face to face telling route, but I didn’t keep banging my head on a brick wall when rebuffed. Or maybe i did…. I tried more than once. Being in a safe place now, I am healing up nicely. But I have to face the fact that none of the people I have told has helped me. I can’t imagine what would have been done to me if I had gone for a formal complaint. Well, maybe the trouble is that I can…..
It does vary from diocese to diocese. Some are still dire, and some improving. Lincoln seem to be pretty good now – and actually have a paid staff member to support complainants!
Stephen and Steve thank you so much for speaking out to support survivors, it saddens me that more people don’t understand (or don’t want to?) the horrendous cost of reporting and the retraumatisation that can be as bad as the original abuse.
You’re so right that it’s all of us who need to step up and respond better, I have heard hundreds of tales from survivors who have been gaslighted or reabused by other members of congregation and clergy, when they have disclosed.
I think it’s disingenuous of the leaders to claim church authority is too loose for them to do anything. Of course archbishops and bishops can take a strong lead and create change, if they choose to. But you’re right Steve, the massive and lasting change that needs to happen needs clergy to take a lead too. Becoming trauma informed and preaching to raise awareness. Asking survivors what we need and how the church might become a safe place again. Reflecting on theology that can appear to condone abuse, such as the sacrifice of Isaac, or atonement.
Holding lawyers and officials to account and advocating with survivors for systemic change.
I think we also need to be engaged in debate about what good practice looks like. Both to encourage survivors thinking of disclosing and those good souls working already to be that change. I am trying to do that by blogging about my current reporting process , http://barefoot-tales.uk/2019/12/30/small-heart-gathers-courage-metoo/
Janet the Lincoln model of employing an ISVA is brilliant and has to be the way to go. Every survivor should have access to counselling and independent advocacy to support them through reporting and beyond. It’s another sign of the church’s failure that the state recognises this (,although there are funding issues) and the church hasn’t.
Thank you Jane!
Athena I am so sad and outraged that you had to try twice and still no-one helped you 😖
I made my first complaint verbally to a bishop in the late 80s. I made my second in writing to a different bishop in 1995. I repeated it in a letter to both archbishops in 2017. In 2018 I tried a different diocese and finally started getting somewhere. (Watch this space.)
It’s a crap system, but there are now a few good players.
“It’s a crap system but there are now a few good players” seems to sum it up perfectly! Thankful for your persistence and that you are finally getting somewhere
Thanks Jane. Sadly we’re up to one Archdeacon and three Bishops, now! I never made a formal complaint because I was too frightened.
I understand that fear. Very sad you’ve felt it too.
The formal CDM route sounds horrendous. We desperately need something more effective that doesn’t take years and punish everyone involved.
You’re brave to keep speaking, Athena. Thank you.
What about a civil action? It’s more straightforward than the Church’s procedures.
I don’t think I could marshal all the evidence. People forget very quickly. I have a good memory, and I’m always surprised by how little most people remember, even a few weeks later. I have kept documents. What I need is a Bishop who will accept balance of probabilities. As others have. But only Bishops can actually do anything.
If you have documents it might at least be worth getting the opinion of a good lawyer. The press can also often be effective at getting results.
Didn’t the sometimes excellent Interested Observer suggest recently on Thinking Anglicans that it is usually best to bypass the inevitable obfuscation of the Church authorities and just sue them? This is because litigation, or at least the threat of it, is the only way they can be persuaded to do what any reasonable person would think they ought to do in the first place, and that the language of the claim form, the arched eyebrow of the judge and the liability on the balance sheet are the only languages they will ever understand.
Of course, talk like that is cheap, and I well understand that litigation is a very high-risk and potentially ruinous strategy for anyone without deep pockets; as a very poor judge in the early twentieth century (Lord Darling) remarked “justice in England is open to all – like the Ritz”.
Please accept my best wishes for your struggle.
Thanks. Anything that costs money is out of the question, I’m afraid.
Many abuse lawyers work on a no-win no-fee basis,, and will take only a fixed percentage of any settlement.
The media, of course, don’t charge at all , and the Church is afraid of them.
The media extract their own price!
Yes, they do. No survivor should be under pressure to take any action. However, if they want to and find the Church unresponsive (as so many do) there are other avenues.
There is a price to pay for speaking out, however it is done, but also a price to pay for being silent. Secrets weigh heavy. There are no easy answers.
True. I worry about the next victim!
That worry is one of the costs of silence, but sometimes speaking out or taking action is just not possible.
2 Weinstein survivors pushed through and 78 didn’t? Let’s be clear that the 78 had a VITAL part in this scandal.
The power of women (and men) joining in and connecting by using a simple device called a hashtag, #metoo, enabled the thing to go “viral”.
In fact it wasn’t 78 + 2. It was probably many thousands joining in and giving strength and momentum to the movement, which enabled 80 to claim and 2 to go to court with this particular individual.
By connecting with each other, for example by getting to know others on this blog, or on Twitter, we each play a vital part in the fight against corruption in our churches which leads to abuse.
Feel under no obligation to report your suffering to the press, the lawyers, the police, the Church even, or anyone else. The last thing a survivor needs is another fight.
And it will be a fight. The toughest fight is the internal one.
But if you can speak up, and many many people have done so, we are with you. Even if you can’t, we’re still with you.
Hear hear!
Well said, Steve.
Indeed!