Last week Pontiac’s member of parliament Will Amos made international headlines in perhaps one of the most embarrassing ways possible.

Apparently returning from a jog just in time for question period, he appeared on a video call completely in the nude while changing into his work clothes. Journalists and the public initially weren’t . . .

privy to his mishap, the video feed was only visible to MPs and some staffers. If it weren’t for Bloq Quebecois MP Claude DeBellefeuille making a point of order at the end of the proceedings, intimating that one of her fellow members had disregarded the dress code, Amos’ indiscretion would have gone unnoticed. She stated that one of her colleagues had been naked, but didn’t single out who.

It wasn’t until a screen capture of the incident was leaked to greaseball Sun columnist Brian Lilley* and subsequently shared on social media that it was revealed Amos was the culprit. His groin area was covered by what appears to be a cell phone. Numerous outlets ran with various iterations of the picture, some adding blurring to the crotch, others blacking out anything from his nipples down. In the days following the story, others opted to take down the photos, as La Presse did, along with an apology.

While Amos and his colleagues have demanded an investigation into who leaked the photo, they have stopped short of saying it broke the law, calling it “potentially criminal”. It was definitely a violation of parliamentary rules to take a screen-shot of a non-public part of the meeting, but that doesn’t make it a criminal matter. News outlets get leaked confidential documents or photos all the time and it’s not a crime to publish things that government officials don’t want the public to see. This story will likely end up a case study in journalism courses, as it resides in an ethical grey area.

Amos and his colleagues have framed this issue as an intimate photo being shared without his consent, mimicking the language used to describe “revenge porn”, where nude photos consensually sent to a former partner (or other party) are leaked maliciously. However, getting caught changing during a work meeting is a completely different context and as a public official this mistake is undoubtedly newsworthy.

Andrea Slane, a professor of legal studies at Ontario Tech University, told the New York Times that she didn’t believe the photo violated the law because Amos’ genitals were obscured. In order to qualify as an “intimate photo”, Canadian law states he also has to have a reasonable expectation of privacy, both at the time the photo was taken and the time that the image is published, which is definitely debatable. Is it too much to ask that our representatives show up to the national legislature prepared and with clothes on?

As parliamentary press gallery reporter Dale Smith pointed out in his blog (routineproceedings.com):

“Amos made an apology, citing that he had just come from ‘jogging,’ and didn’t realize his camera was on – but I know this has raised more questions because MPs need special log-ins and passwords in order to even log into their special Zoom, so why he would have done so before he had changed is…dubious.”

It should also be pointed out that the people rushing to defend Amos have repeatedly uttered the grating cliché that “it could have happened to anyone”. Well no, it could happen to anyone with a public-facing job that allows you to work via video conference. Telling people on the verge of bankruptcy or putting their lives at risk during a pandemic that this situation is relatable reeks of privilege. The fact that so many in the press were eager to repeat this line of thinking speaks to how many of them are out of touch with working class people.

Amos has said himself that he’s not trying to posture as a victim, and he shouldn’t be treated as one. No one forced him to change in front of his work computer or leave his camera on while he went for a jog. He is responsible for his own conduct, however in this instance the punishment was vastly disproportionate to the offence. People as far away as South America and China had his nearly-naked body grace their newsfeeds. Though it was admittedly a boneheaded mistake, he’s paid for it many times over. The internet is forever, this is an indelible mark that will show up any time someone types his name into Google.

The German language has a great number of incredibly precise words for specific emotions, and there’s a great one called shadenfreude. It describes the experience of taking pleasure in the misfortune or humiliation of another person.

All politicians, especially at the federal level, take great pains to curate their public image and it’s easy to gleefully cheer when they do something embarrassing, especially if they’re someone you don’t agree with. They are well-compensated and wield an enormous amount of power compared to the average person, who wouldn’t enjoy seeing them taken down a peg?

But would this situation have been treated differently if it was a woman who had forgotten to turn her camera off? Absolutely, and it’s worth pondering why our society has such a double standard when it comes to the male and female body.

In any case, this unfortunate episode is a distraction from the countless pressing issues that face this region during a public health crisis. Ontario recently decided to close its borders to non-essential travel, a move that’s been advocated for by our own warden, despite zero evidence that it’s effective at curbing transmission or an efficient use of resources. Same goes for the province-wide curfew that allows people who own land to gallivant in freedom while apartment-dwellers are criminalized for smoking on the sidewalk past 8 p.m. Focus could also have been directed at the first federal budget since the pandemic kicked off, which was introduced Monday.

Enough oxygen has been consumed by this sitcom side-plot. Let’s move on.

Caleb Nickerson

*Editor’s note: I say greaseball because it was recently revealed by Canadaland that Lilley was in a live-in relationship with the director of media relations for Doug Ford’s government, you know, the people he’s supposed to be covering. The fact that it was described as an “open secret” in Queens Park is a damning indictment of their press gallery.