Dutch conductor is guilty of sexual intimidation
NewsThe Institute for Human Rights in the Netherlands has reported the conductor Pieter Jan Leusink for committing unwanted sex acts against two soloists, between the years 2012 and 2016.
Leusink invited the women to stay at his home during rehearsals. They told the institute that they agreed to have sex with him out of fear that he would terminate their contract with his ensemble. They may now resort to legal action in the civil courts.
Leusink, 64, is listed as a conductor of The Bach Choir & Orchestra of the Netherlands. He was not cited by name in the judgement, but his identity has been confirmed by a number of Dutch newspapers and on television.
I’m sorry, but inviting them to stay at his home, it was their own, very clear choice to accept and also a very own choice to sleep with him.
What is this nonsense now?!
Is he an asshole? Absolutely.
Is it criminal? I bed to differ.
We are starting a modern witch-hunt.
Sorry to tell you that that is not how power dynamics work.
But this happened between 2012 and 2016 BEFORE women were infantalized. Women used to be able to say no, but something has made them nothing but weak helpless babies who have no will of their own.
In German law such behavior would be defined as sexuelle Nötigung which is criminal. As wiki describes it:
Anyone who, regardless of their gender, uses violence or threatens imminent danger to life or limb to coerce another person into tolerating sexual acts by the perpetrator or a third party or carrying out sexual acts or a situation shall be punished for a crime of sexual coercion, in which the victim is at the mercy of the perpetrator’s influence, is exploited for sexual acts. The violence can be overwhelming (vis absoluta = e.g. binding, enclosing, knocking down, stunning) or bending the will (vis compulsiva).
The will of these two women was clearly bent through blackmail. I strongly suspect the Netherlands have similar laws.
Here is the German text:
Wegen eines Verbrechens sexueller Nötigung wird bestraft, wer, unabhängig von seinem Geschlecht, eine andere Person mit Gewalt oder durch Drohung mit gegenwärtiger Gefahr für Leib oder Leben nötigt, sexuelle Handlungen des Täters oder eines Dritten an sich zu dulden oder sexuelle Handlungen vorzunehmen oder eine Lage, in der das Opfer der Einwirkung des Täters schutzlos ausgeliefert ist, zu sexuellen Handlungen ausnutzt. Die Gewalt kann überwältigend (vis absoluta = z. B. Fesseln, Einschließen, Niederschlagen, Betäuben) oder den Willen beugend (vis compulsiva) sein.
I don’t see how ‘fear that he would terminate their contract with his ensemble’ falls under ‘violence or threatens imminent danger to _life_ or _limb_.’ Blackmail isn’t physical violence. But even if the women don’t have a criminal case, they may still have a civil court case.
You are going too far. It might have been that, but it could have been much more harmless and voluntarily as well. We simply can‘t know.
It could have been harmless from both sides, and the women later changed their minds.
It could have been abuse of power by him.
It could have been abuse of him by the women, who wanted to gain an advantage through non-musical means.
It could have been a mix of all of those.
We can‘t know and thus we can‘t judge.
A question of principle arises out of this. Can a conductor ever invite a musician into a private setting?
Apparently not.
Even if on the evening a spontaneous romance ensues out of mutual agreement, somebody could change their mind later.
Interesting story. I wonder what the term ‘responsible adult’ means.
Surely, after many years of expanding awareness of the games predators play, after numerous trials and dismissals of predators, and given the growing court-room and societal support for people who say “NO” to predators, these soloists saying “no” would have been a no-brainer? An uncomfortable, portentially scary and intimidating conversation? Absolutely. Could this whole scenario have been avoided IN THE FIRST PLACE when the initial invitation was issued “to stay over” at the predator’s home and saying “NO” at that point?? It seems so to me. It’s 2022. The world is inundated with ‘me-too empowerment. Old power man invites young people to stay over…? And they say “YES?!”
Yes, the conductor is a predator and deserves to have the house come down on him. But when do people begin taking responsibility for their own decisions – stupid and otherwise?
It’s probably totally un-PC to ask these questions, but if we can’t raise serious queries, then A-Bit-Of-Reason’s reference to a witch-hunt would take on greater credibility.
For the sake of correctness, it is worth reminding that the incidents happened between 2012 and 2016, not in 2022. Harvey Weinstein’s case began in October 2017 and dragged till 2020 and beyond. In 2012 the world wasn’t yet inundated with #me-too empowerment.
To McGrath: The concept isn’t so difficult to understand. If you threaten people in order to have sex with them, you might end up in prison. I think there are very few people who object to that kind of law. (And to belabor the obvious, being a house guest doesn’t mean you agree to have sex with the host.)
You should read the story. He didn’t threaten them but promised them soloist roles in the orchestra. Is he a scum who should get his comeuppance? Certainly. But this is very far from ‘violence or threatens imminent danger to life or limb to coerce another person into tolerating sexual acts by the perpetrator’ as you wrote in your first comment. As I wrote in my first comment, the women don’t have a criminal case but may have a civil case.
The story says he didn’t threaten to punish them but promised to reward them. “The two women were promised an important (solo) role in the orchestra, on the condition that the conductor would accompany them individually.”
What does that make them? Women who have sex for money or other favors are either hookers or gold diggers. We had a local politician here who gave women free rent in housing he owned in exchange for sex. He was charged with rape and when found innocent they made lesser charges. He was finally found not guilty on everything they charged him with. One of the women admitted to lying under oath and no one bothered to even prosecute her. It’s time to do a Depp and sue these women.
It’s some years ago, and these women were seriously pressured into staying over. As soon as they said no they were fired by the organising foundation…
Serious queries can absolutely be raised; this was not an instance of serious queries but of ageless victim blaming and my-feelings-before-law.
There is no point made. You wrote all that and you ask questions that seem more like statements, but what is the point?
You think sleeping at someone’s house unavoidably leads to sexual intercourse?
I think you should say this out loud in your real life environment, so people know and can make an enlightened decision when/if you offer to host them.
Saying ‘yes’ to going to someone’s house does not mean ‘yes’ to sleeping with them. You also need to bear in mind the way that us women see a lot of men at the moment. Many of us are nervous and scared around you. Not all of us, but some of us. We fear that us saying no will make you angry. Again, not all of us, some of us. Speak to some women in your life and see what they think.
You are an excellent illustration of the underlying problem. No need to expand on that, really.
I teach at a major university, and I regularly invite soloists (i.e. guest lecturers) to stay at my home instead of a hotel. But I have never, ever invited anyone to my bed.
The line between welcoming hospitality and sexual harassment ist not that difficult to draw. And for those who transgress it, well, there may be legal consequences.
You clearly have no idea about the background of this story.
Stop. blaming. the. victim.
It sounds like you thankfully have never found yourself in the position where you resort to agreeing with the perpetrator’s demands in order to protect yourself from hurt/pain/losing your job etc.
Please show some sympathy for these women. It’s a horrible situation to be in. If you’ve never been in that situation, then it’s not reasonable for you to comment on it.
Sexual extortion is a CRIME, no doubt about it.
Recently I had the misfortune of sitting through one of his concerts…
Serial molesters come in all shapes, sizes, ages, flavors, attitudes, methods, degrees of toxicity. Many are in positions of great authority, and abuse the power of their authority to obtain sex. Many offenders are protected by their organizations, where leaders in positions of fiduciary responsibility are often perfectly aware of the sex molesters’ abuse of power, yet take no action to end it.
you are FAKE and clearly posing as multiple identities on this website in order to spew some absolute BS trash. did someone hurt your feelings?
This synopsis omits the most damning details of the linked article.
“The two women were promised an important (solo) role in the orchestra, on the condition that the conductor would accompany them individually. In addition, it was compulsory to practice at his home and to spend the night.
There, according to the women, he initiated sexual acts. They felt obliged to have sex for fear that the conductor would terminate their contract with the music company. As soon as they stopped having sexual contact, they were no longer hired immediately or shortly afterwards.” (Translation by Google)
Women or men who have sex in exchange for free rent and a position or a pay check are prostitutes. Unless you have a gun to your head, you can always SAY NO and walk away. Only now years after they benefited from the prostitution, do they complain?
#MeToo is a fraud.