Karina Gould may not have the same Bay Street credibility as Mark Carney, but she resonates big with Main Street.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 15, 2025.

OTTAWA–Why Karina Gould? That’s the question friends posed when I gave a couple of television interviews promoting her as the next leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

At press time, Gould had not yet announced, but her team was putting together a campaign to create a fighting chance in this shortened race to name the next prime minister of Canada. Gould has already recruited more than a dozen caucus members.

Not overwhelming, but considering her campaign only started a week ago, it is a good start.

Mark Carney has been running for the job for years. Press reports say he has about 30 MPs on his team. That number should be twice as large if Carney’s support is as wide and deep as the media keep claiming.

On just about every network, including his American pre-campaign interview on Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show, Carney is constantly presented as the almost certain winner of the upcoming race.

Resisting that pull may be difficult, but many Liberals would like to support a leader who’s in it for the long haul.

Does anyone really think that Carney—who declined offers of more than one nomination in the last election—will stick around if the party ends up in third-party status? The answer is no.  

Liberals need a leader who will appeal to young people. Gould is the most appealing to that cohort because she reflects their values and energy. Gould has managed multiple cabinet portfolios with energy and savvy.  

A superb communicator in multiple languages, Gould negotiated Canada’s national childcare via multiple provincial agreements. While child care is seen as crucial for Canadians, Gould is being critiqued internally by those who say motherhood is a reason not to vote for her.

Before we dismiss misogyny’s role in leadership, we cannot forget what happened to the Kamala Harris vote in the United States. She lost the presidency because American men voted against her. Had the election been determined only by women, Harris would have won. 

No one asked Justin Trudeau if he could manage both politics and a young family when he ran for office at age 36 back in 2008. Instead, his youth and a campaign that included cannabis legalization managed to ignite the attention of a new generation.

Gould has been generating much interest with young people. She also has support from senior Liberals who have supported the party for decades.

Unlike some colleagues, Gould reaches out regularly to party elders, seeking their advice and wisdom while other leadership candidates have either ignored them or publicly denigrated them. 

Party faithful remember the very off-putting negative response of Foreign Affairs minister Chrystia Freeland when former prime minister Jean Chrétien offered to go to China to negotiate a solution to the extradition of Meng Wanzhou to the United States.  

Freeland scorned his offer, and ended up with a protracted fight with China that cost our country economically and politically. But Freeland’s high profile during the Trudeau years have set her up as an obvious runner-up to Carney’s stardom.

Neither Carney nor Freeland have Gould’s likability factor. Parties make decisions based on whom they think can win. Canadians make decisions on the emotional feel they get from a politician. Is that person someone you would like to have a beer with? Kim Campbell was elected Progressive Conservative leader and prime minister because she was seen to be the best choice to rebuild her party in the post-Brian Mulroney era.  

It turned out to be a terrible decision that left the Tories reduced to two seats in a Liberal majority government in 1993. Today, Liberals have little time to judge the emotional IQ of each of the candidates.  

But when it comes to support from young people, reaching out to party faithful, and a commitment to the long-term rebuilding process, Gould is our best bet. 

The first question at any leadership debate should be, “If the Liberals lose the next election, are you willing to remain as leader?” The second question should be, “How can we recapture the dynamic wave of support by young people that carried Trudeau to power in 2015?”

The answer to both questions is Gould studied Latin American and Caribbean studies at McGill and philosophy at Oxford and who worked for the Organization of American States on migration.

She learned Spanish while volunteering at a Latin American orphanage. Gould may not have the same Bay Street credibility as Carney, but she resonates big with Main Street.

Correction: This column originally incorrectly reported that Karina Gould is a lawyer. She is not, and the column was updated at 8:09 a.m. on Jan. 16.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

Once again, a woman for president was just too much for Americans to bear. Kamala Harris was soundly beaten by an angry white man. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 11, 2024.

OTTAWA—After his decisive victory against U.S. Vice-President Kamala Harris last week, Donald Trump needs to get some new hats.

The stench of sexism and racism wafted from voting booths as those who wanted to turn back the clock cast their ballots for a convicted sex offender.

Trump’s numbers in most areas exceeded his previous election bids. In his first attempt, Trump made it to the White House with the electoral vote, but not the popular vote. On Nov. 5, he got it all. There is nothing stopping him now.

David Axelrod, a Democratic adviser to multiple presidents, said after the vote that racism and sexism both played a role in Harris’ loss. Given the United States has previously voted for a Black president in Barack Obama, one has to assume that gender was the deciding Harris negative.

An exit poll by Edison Research found that Harris received the majority of her support from women and minorities. As for women, she won 54 per cent of their votes, while Trump secured 44 per cent. However, the white vote generally gave Trump an edge of 12 per cent. As for Latinos, they moved toward Trump in numbers not seen in the 2020 race.

On the race front, post-election numbers show that Harris garnered 80 per cent of the Black vote, but Obama received 93 per cent. Why was there a 13 per cent drop? Was it because some Black men couldn’t vote for a woman?

Women all over the world are mourning the Harris loss because it felt that, once again, a chance to elect a woman president in American was shattered not by a glass ceiling, but a concrete one.

Harris ran a flawless campaign. She was positive, upbeat, and energetic compared to a waddling Trump who bored crowds with his incoherent, droning speeches.

A woman voter dressed as a handmaid at a Pennsylvania voting booth said it all. Without uttering a word, the anonymous woman sent a clear message of what was at stake in the election.

Margaret Atwood, renowned Canadian author of The Handmaid’s Tale, made her own plea to American voters to support Harris for president.

According to her publisher, Atwood’s novel explores “themes of powerless women in a patriarchal society, loss of female agency and individuality, suppression of women’s reproductive rights, and the various means by which women resist and try to gain individuality and independence.”

That was the narrative for women in this election.

Once again, a woman for president was just too much for Americans to bear. Harris, who took over the Democratic reins from an ailing President Joe Biden 100 days ago, was soundly beaten by an angry white man.

Trump’s multiple character flaws were on painful display in the campaign, including the fact that almost no one who served with him in the White House supported him. His last week of campaigning was a disaster.

The hope that former congresswoman Liz Cheney be put before a firing squad prefaced by a self-inflicted wound at Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally in New York. Multiple participants levelled insults at women, Blacks, and Jews.

Harris herself was alleged to be a sex worker working with her pimps. Then came the now infamous insult to Puerto Ricans when a comedian called their home a floating island of garbage.

Harris faced a double whammy. As a racialized woman, she fought prejudice against her gender and her race.

Despite her comfortable majority support with women, the men did her in. The more education they had, the more likely they were to support her. But opposition from young men and those with less than a high school education was ferocious.

Harris cannot be faulted on her campaign. Her message was solid, and she delivered it with an ease of confidence reminiscent of a real leader.

Now Democrats must reboot while MAGA Republicans are already discussing a successor to the aging president-elect. In a media interview, a young Trump voter said he thought the perfect successor was vice-president-elect J.D. Vance.

The man who thinks America is being run by a “bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices they’ve made and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too” is the next great white hope.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

If history is any indication, Kamala Harris will face an onslaught of attacks about her gender.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 26, 2024.

OTTAWA–Former U.S. president Donald Trump was unusually quiet during the rollout of the Democratic National Convention.

He seemed to be heeding the advice of those who have suggested to the former president that he needs to start debating issues, and to stay away from personalities.

That was the public Trump last week. But the private Trump is not so circumspect. According to multiple news reports, he often refers to his opponent, Vice-President Kamala Harris, as a “bitch.”

Those reports appeared to be confirmed when his former press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, appeared at the Democratic convention to denounce her former boss and tell the world how Trump also mocked his own supporters as “basement dwellers”.

Grisham denounced Trump as someone with “no empathy, no morals, and no fidelity to the truth.”

She recounted a story when the former president visited a hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic, and was upset that cameras were focused on the dying patients, not him.

The Democratic gathering was rife with speakers who opined on why Trump was unsuitable as a commander-in-chief. But some also warned that the love-in people felt at the Chicago, Ill., gathering would quickly turn sour in the uphill battle leading to election day.

Former First Lady Michelle Obama suggested that Harris, the Democratic candidate, would face “ugly, misogynistic, racist lies” in the next 75 days. If history is any indication, she will face an onslaught of attacks. Chances are her gender will be a more popular line of attack than her race.

Trump has already put his foot in his mouth by falsely claiming that Harris is not Black. Trump made the statement in a speech to the National Association of Black Journalists when he drew a shocked reaction after stating, “I’ve known her for long time… and she was always of Indian heritage… I didn’t know she was Black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn Black and now, she wants to be known as Black. So I don’t know, is she Indian or is she Black?”

Trump shut down that line of attack after criticism from Democrats and Republicans.

Harris’ father is Jamaican, and she has consistently embraced her racial identity since joining a historically Black sorority at a historically Black university.

Attacks on her Blackness have been silenced, but we can expect gender name-calling to continue right up to election day on Nov. 5.

It seems that racial epithets are a lot more politically risky than gender slurs.

Just last week, the CBC published a story outlining the shocking level of misogyny facing female politicians on social media. The British-based Centre for Countering Digital Hate published a report stating that Instagram ignored 926 of 1,000 reported abusive comments targeting American female politicians on the app.

The not-for profit monitoring centre focused on comments left on the accounts of 10 politicians, including Harris.

Most were not removed after complaints, including comments like “make rape legal”, “death to her,” and “we don’t want blacks around us.”

Instagram owner Meta has guidelines which allow “stronger conversation” when it involves people like politicians and other public figures who are often in the news.

The Instagram exposé did not surprise those of us who have faced misogyny during and after a life in politics.

On a fairly regular basis, I am insulted when I post or repost items on X. As well as getting death threats and being told to die, I have been attacked as an over-the-hill alcoholic, “Tequila Sheila” hag. The Tequila Sheila name-calling actually came from a moniker given to me by a former Conservative minister.

Former Liberal cabinet minister Catherine McKenna left politics in part because she was tired of the attacks and stalking that she faced as a woman politician. Her office was spray-painted with unprintable insults, and her opponents in the Conservative Party labelled her “climate Barbie” because of her interest in fighting climate change.

Harris has been in politics for a long time, and no doubt will not be cowed by the attacks she will face because of her gender and race.

Obama levelled her own personal attacks during a fiery convention speech, saying Trump may be told “that the job he is currently seeking might just be one of those ‘Black jobs’” to a roar of crowd approval.

Trump must be seething over how his presidential trajectory has been reversed since Republicans celebrated his escape from an assassin’s bullet literally days before their convention last month.

Expect Trump supporters to respond with more misogyny on social media.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

The only way that the United States can take back its streets and its dignity is by making sure that Donald Trump is thrashed in the November presidential election. Even then, the damage done to America may be irreparable.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 8, 2020.

OTTAWA—Stockwell Day made a costly mistake last week. On a television panel he denied that systemic racism exists in Canada.

Day was quickly the subject of a social media groundswell that ended up costing him a board position at Telus and his strategic counsel job at McMillan LLP.

Day paid dearly for his mistake. But there are many Canadians who believe what he said. “Canada is not a racist country and most Canadians are not racist and our system, which always needs to be improved, is not systemically racist.”

I daresay millions share the viewpoint expressed by Day.

Most of them are not in the public domain so we don’t hear their perspectives. Even when the evidence is irrefutable, they simply don’t want to stare truth in the face.

I have known Stockwell Day for years, and he is basically a decent, fair-minded individual. However, by making the statement he did on television, he unwittingly aligned himself with those who are currently using race as a wedge issue in the next American election.

The facts on systemic racism in Canada are clear.

The last census demonstrated a clear and present racial difference in how employees are paid.

On average, second-generation Black Canadians were paid 28 per cent less than their white counterparts. The average pay of racialized and Indigenous workers was 30 per cent less than the earnings of their white colleagues.

On a personal level, that meant an average loss of income of $14,000 compared to Caucasian Canadians of the same age and education background.

We see the same wage discrimination against women.

According to Statistics Canada, in 2018, women aged 25 to 54 earned an average of 13.3 per cent less than their male colleagues for doing equivalent work.

Looking at what is going on south of the border, it is easy to see why Canadians could believe that our situation is not as grim.

But to completely ignore the reality of pay rates, disproportionate incarceration rates and all the other evidence in Canada is to turn your back on the truth.

But Canada is not facing the horrendous situation of a national leader who is doing his best to stoke the flames of racism for personal base electoral ends.

Trump is banking on the fact that the silent majority in the United States actually supports his view. There are millions who back his inflammatory approach, although it appears as though the combination of COVID-19, unemployment, and civil unrest are taking their toll.

Recent polling shows that Trump has the support of only one-third of Americans for his bellicose response to the death of George Floyd.

Cracks are also appearing in his Republican wall of support, with Senator Lisa Murkowski saying she may not support him as the party standard bearer. Murkowski, the second most senior Republican woman in the Senate, spoke out in support of the comments of former defence secretary Jim Mattis criticizing Trump’s “false conflict” between the Armed Forces and ordinary citizens.

Murkowski echoed Mattis’ viewpoint, saying, “I felt like perhaps we are getting to a point where we can be more honest with the concerns that we might hold internally and have the courage of our own convictions to speak up.”

Former U.S. president George W. Bush called on his countrymen to “examine our tragic failures.”

But the current president seems oblivious to all critics, doubling down on his view that multiple peaceful protests across the country were organized by thugs.

In Canada, Day immediately recognized his error and tweeted that “I ask forgiveness for wrongly equating my experiences to theirs. I commit to them my unending efforts to fight racism in all its forms.”

That statement was quite an about turn from his refusal to recognize systemic racism only a few short hours earlier.

Systemic racism is alive and well in Canada and, unfortunately, supported by millions of Canadians who blindly believe there is no problem.

By recognizing his mistake, Day has a chance to do something about it.

In the case of the Trumpian racism of the American president, the whole country is undermined by his deliberate attempt to stoke the flames of racial hatred.

The only way that the United States can take back its streets and its dignity is by making sure that Trump is thrashed in the November presidential election.

Even then, the damage done to America may be irreparable.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 10, 2018.

OTTAWA—Stop the song-shaming of Baby, It’s Cold Outside.

The song is not about date rape. It is about so-called slut shaming.

By pushing a timeless favourite off the Christmas playlists, those who deem the lyrics improper are applying their own narrow, sexist lens, the same lens that is used to characterize society’s negative view of sexually active unmarried women.

The 74-year-old tune was an indirect call for women’s sexual liberation. By killing it, those who promote an equality agenda are actually blocking it.

A closer look at the lyrics should kill any notion that it involves any unwanted advances. The words make clear that the woman’s sexual choices were tainted by external influences like what the neighbours think.

In those times, it was impossible to make the same sexual choices as men without being deemed immoral or bad.

A closer examination of the words makes it clear the song is not about date rape or some pervert dropping roofies in a drink.

It is about a woman vacillating about her desire to stay out longer to enjoy her partner’s company, not because of her own reticence but because she fears being shamed by others.

You do not have to go back 74 years to find a time when women were not free to experience the same sexual feelings as men.

It was not until the discovery of the birth control pill that women were really in a position to explore their own sexuality. The pill was approved for general use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in l960.

Prior to the availability of these oral contraceptives, women were discouraged from exploring their sexuality precisely because of the fear of unwanted pregnancy. Attempts to find foolproof birth prevention methods dated back almost 3,000 years. Condoms were invented in 1838 but they were less reliable and depended upon agreement of the male partner.

Before the sexual revolution of the sixties, “good” young women abstained from sex before marriage, and had to appear reluctant when anyone tried to convince them otherwise.

In Baby It’s Cold Outside, the woman says the evening has been so very nice but she has to get home because her mom will be worrying and her dad will be pacing the floor.

She also expresses concern about what the neighbours might think. Nowhere in the song is there any indication that she is being forced into an unwanted sexual encounter.

If anything, the lyrics imply the opposite.

So canning the song because it supposedly elevates date rape actually diminishes the gravity of a real sexual assault or threat.

In the vigorous debate spawned by the radio ban, song shamers make some very good points.

Kerry of the North tweeted that if people got as pissed off about the 636,000 reported incidents of sexual assault in Canada annually as they seem to be about Baby It’s Cold Outside getting taken off Christmas playlists, maybe we’d have fewer rape victims in this country.

She was absolutely right about people’s lack of attention to sexual assault victims. But that had nothing to do with the song.

By promoting the song ban, the #MeToo movement risks the possibility of loss of support from those who believe that marginalizing this song only serves to marginalize the movement.

The entertainment and media business, including movies, music, and broadcast, play an important role in how we perceive the sexual roles of women and men.

How women newscasters dress, as compared to their male counterparts, sends a message that exposed breasts and bare skin are required of women but not men.

It is great to see women sports casters covering the male-dominated world of the National Hockey League but one does not have to watch very long to see blatantly discriminatory dress codes for both genders in that area.

Likewise, there are songs currently on the charts that promote violence against women. One only has to review the lyrics of many rapper rants replete with threats to slap women around if they don’t put out. The same sexist messages reverberate in many movies.

Going after current rape culture messaging is fair game.

But by attacking the lyrics of this Academy Award-winning song from seven decades ago, supporters of the #MeToo movement completely miss the mark.

And in doing so, they risk losing support.

Why would any woman want to return to the days when they could not openly express their sexual feelings lest they be deemed sluts or bad girls?

Baby, it was too cold outside!

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

By SHEILA COPPS

First published on Monday, October 23, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—When does the punishment outweigh the crime?

The Harvey Weinstein debacle continues to spill over into other sectors. Just last week, two iconic Quebec entertainment moguls suffered similar fates, losing public support, contracts and credibility after two separate journalistic exposés of predatory proportions.

First, a La Presse article cited 11 different individuals alleging sexual harassment by television star and producer Eric Salvail. Most spoke out on condition of anonymity and only one went public, with claims that the star made several direct advances, and fired him when they were spurned.

The second string of allegations involved the commissioner of the Montreal 375th anniversary celebrations, and founder of Just for Laughs. Gilbert Rozon resigned from both posts after a Le Devoir story, citing complaints of inappropriate behaviour from nine women. It was subsequently broadcast that Rozon is facing police investigation for an incident alleged to have occurred in Paris 23 years ago.

Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre issued his own twitter statement on the allegations, distancing himself and his administration from Rozon and reinforcing his support for all victims. He minced no words, saying he was shocked about the allegations and he would not “defend the indefensible.” Coderre, who is facing an election is less than two weeks, underscored the fact that Rozon was actually appointed to the post by previous mayor Gerald Tremblay.

Rozon also stepped down as vice-chair of the Metropolitan Montreal Chamber of Commerce.

Montreal police chief Philippe Pichet tweeted an invitation to all victims to come forward, retweeting a police force tweet that “we are listening.”

To date, the Canadian fallout from the Weinstein effect has hit hardest in the Quebec glitterati world. But expect the ripple effect to result in more allegations and more charges.

That is a good thing.

But some good people could also get caught in the crossfire. It was 18 months ago that the Liberal government of Justin Trudeau lost its first minister.

And the resignation was not the result of public discontent or ministerial misfiring. Rather, it was a self-imposed withdrawal from the Liberal cabinet and caucus to clean up a messy personal life.

Fisheries minister Hunter Tootoo was one of the early stars in the Trudeau firmament. A northern Indigenous leader with more than a decade of political experience under his belt, Tootoo was a natural minister who revelled in the challenge of aboriginal reconciliation.

A residential schools survivor himself, he had fought the odds and become a strong voice for Nunavut and Northern Canada in a cabinet of urbanites.

But while things were humming on the political front, his personal life was a mess.

By his own admission, he was drinking heavily and began an inappropriate relationship with an assistant, and concurrently with her mother.

Because of these transgressions, Tootoo stepped down from his cabinet post and withdrew from the Liberal caucus to seek treatment for alcohol abuse.

His rehabilitation involved counselling and attending sobriety meetings, and since his resignation from caucus, Tootoo has successfully completed an alcohol rehabilitation program and has a clean bill of health.

Tootoo has been working hard as an Independent member of Parliament, logging millions of kilometers of travel time, and visiting all 25 fly-in communities in his riding. He was the first Member of Parliament in history to do so.

During his period as an independent, nine ministers, including the prime minister have visited his riding.

Two parliamentary committees have been convened there and he has been joined by high-profile ministers like Navdeep Bains and Catherine McKenna, during his time as an independent.

Tootoo has many Liberal friends and supporters, including new Newfoundland minister Seamus O’Regan, who followed a similar alcohol rehabilitation route before being named to cabinet this fall.

It should come as no surprise that Tootoo would like to re-join the Liberal team.

The decision on his potential return is in the hands of government whip Pablo Rodriguez, who has previously assumed responsibility for ethical breach investigations of other Members of Parliament.

At an early summer meeting on the issue, Rodriguez deferred a decision until some testy tax matters had been disposed of.

Tax issues have obviously subsumed the government agenda since that time.

Tootoo’s return would be welcomed by colleagues, many of whom have pleaded his case in caucus. Tootoo would love to prepare for the next election as a Liberal.

He could also be a huge help in the ambitious reconciliation agenda being proposed by the government.

Reconciliation is not exclusive to racial healing. Political parties also need to forgive.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

By SHEILA COPPS

First Published on Monday, Oct. 16, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—The ignominious end to Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein has all of us in agreement.

This predator got what he deserved.

But the larger question remains. How did he get away with it for so long? How was he able to assault so many women with so much impunity? Why did so many people say nothing for so long?

Tut tut, we say. What a shame that the entertainment field is so full of these types of characters. Would that the problem were so isolated.

This is not a casting couch problem. This is not even an American problem. It is a power imbalance as old as the story of Adam and Eve.

Even in biblical terms that parable casts Eve as the seductress while innocent Adam is the guileless guy who can’t resist the allure of a snake and a strumpet.

Men have often been excused for assaulting women while women have been portrayed as simply getting what they were asking for. Society confers upon the male of the species a power to attack without owning the consequences.

We shudder at the comments of American President Donald Trump, who publicly justified groping, leering, and unwanted sexual advances because his star status placed him in the untouchable stratosphere.

Notwithstanding all the misogynistic comments taped and replayed in broadcast interviews, Trump was elected president of the United States. In the end, his bald admission of sexual harassment did not really matter to the American voters.

Trump’s despicable interview with shock jock broadcaster Howard Stern, where the two chuckled over women’s body parts and their alleged desire to be treated like “doodoo,” was just the tip of the iceberg.

As owner of the Miss America franchise, Trump made it his business to go into the dressing room while the contestants were disrobing, and pageant organizers even encouraged participants to rush up and fawn all over him.

The current president’s behaviour was explained away in the last election, as simply locker room talk. Boys will be boys, was the answer when Trump was quoted as saying he could simply walk up and kiss any woman he wanted, and then grab them by the pussy because he was a “star.”

So now that the Weinstein story is fading away, how do we get to the basis of deeply rooted societal acceptance of sexism?

There are still many places in the world where women do not enjoy basic freedom of movement. Life partners are chosen for them, and they cannot even leave their homes or travel without the permission of a male family member.

The right to drive an automobile is limited, and while we welcome the recent change in Saudi Arabian policy on this issue, it was a tiny step in the path toward equality.

Role models are great predictors of what the future might hold. When it comes to the entertainment industry in particular, the white, male-dominated hierarchy repeats itself.

One is hard pressed to name five female directors of note and the discrepancy in salary ranges between male and female actors has been well documented.

Classical guitarist Liona Boyd stated publicly last week that the issue of sexual harassment for women in the record business was eerily similar to the situation facing Weinstein’s victims. She spoke about “predators” in her business and the casting couch mentality that permeated the music industry as well.

The field of politics is rife with stories of sexual harassment. Sexual transgressions in worlds of media, education, and finance also periodically rear their ugly heads.

So while Weinstein’s transgressions made front-page news for a few days, they will soon recede into the background. The story needle needs to move beyond the egregious acts of a single predator.

Societies promote sexual violence by commission and omission. Objectification of women in advertising, anonymous social media misogyny, consumer support for companies that ignore gender balance all contribute to the problem.

Power imbalances vary in different parts of the world.

The changes in Saudi Arabia are a sign that one of the most patriarchal societies on earth is committed to turning over a new leaf.

But when young Canadian women are still paid only 87 cents for every dollar earned by men, inequality is not just sexual, it is also economic.

Some blame educational levels for the lag, but when university-educated, postgraduate females are counted, they still make 10 cents less than every dollar earned by a man.

The Weinstein story was flavour of the week. Institutionalized inequality is not.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.