Judge The Action Not The Person

I've haven't been reading too much about L'affaire Couillard. Stories about ambitious whores preying on naive, weak minded politicians hardly interest me. Sure it makes for a great screenplay but this sort of stuff has been happening for centuries. Ancient Rome was just as (if not more) maliciously amoral with one added intrigue: murder.

That anyone would be shocked to hear this needs to get some dirt thrown into their mouth. Their pristine lips will get them into trouble some day.

However, I did notice something through all this.

If you recall, the way the story was treated when it first broke was "poor girl" who simply got caught up in some trouble and the the private lives of people is none of our business.

It turns out this was a simplistic way to rationalize her actions. It was known early she had ties to biker gangs. This alone should send flairs to people. Obviously, there was more "meat" to this chick. Her past did matter and it indicated that her story was a little more corrupt than first let on. It's rarely just about "sex." It's also about power and she had one intricate plan to get her cut.

So when it was discovered that there was indeed more to the story, it was met with a shrug of the shoulder from me (my left shoulder is sore).

We tend to victimize the culprit these days. It's a strange phenomena. That's because, in part and depending on the situation, we blame the environment for criminal activity. Somehow society is to blame so we automatically defend the victim. This logic was brought to its dizzying (and annoying) heights with the "root causers" following the 9/11 attacks.

It doesn't just happen in politics. We see this in sports too. Ever notice when an athlete commits a social crime or a violent act in the field of play how the chorus of "but he's a great guy and team mate" comes up?

No one disputes that some athletes are inherently good people to be around. Mobsters are the nicest people sometimes. It should not serve to distract from the crime. From Pac-Man Jones to Chris Pronger, we tend to look at the person rather than the act. In the case of Pronger, the logic that he's a captain, a champion and great defenseman somehow absolves him of his cheap shots?

Indeed, if a player has a solid, proven track record with a clean sheet and commits one malicious act then we can chalk it up to "one of those things." Character of the person should be considered and consulted. But the second, third, fourth etc. times? At what point do we draw the line?

Here's another example. Diego Maradona was the greatest soccer who ever lived - among the greatest anyway. I do tend to agree with this with all respect to Pele and Alfredo di Stefano. One day, his destiny was almost shattered when he met with Andoni Goikoetxea - the Butcher of Bilbao. Goikoetxea literally butchered Maradona with a violent tackle that ruptured his left ankle and fracture to his fibula.

The same "woe is me" logic was used as Goikoetxea's original 18 game suspension was reduced to seven leading the colorful Maradona to quip, "if this goes on, they'll be suspending me soon."

For NHL fans we see this ALL THE TIME.

When will we once and for all see the punishment fit the crime? When we stop victimizing the assailant.

Julie Couillard is/was benefiting from public sympathy. It's our first response to something corrupt because we don't want to believe it. There must be something more to the story. Sometimes there is. Sometimes we do nothing but chase shadows.

Treat her for what she is: an amoral, ambitious gal who uses amour to lure her victims into her carefully woven complex corruptive calculations.

Just like the word "Butcher" perfectly described Goikoetxea.

Nothing more, nothing less.