Just in: An international cellist is fired for sexual offences
mainA well-known musician has been suspended by the University of Stavanger after the Norwegian broadcaster NRK reported seven cases of sexual harassment of students.
The law prohibits NRK (and us) from naming the man, who is a professor at the major conservatoire in his home country and a regular performer in the UK. He is not a Norwegian.
He is accused of inviting female students to his room and plying them with alcohol before making sexual advances, repeating the process with those who first refused.
‘The person was immediately suspended from the post after the reports,’ says Stavanger Rector Marit Boyesen. He has subsequently resigned.
Report here (in Norwegian).
A principal cellist with the Vienna Philharmonic was fired on similar grounds two months ago by the University of Music. He now awaits the results of an investigation by the State Opera, which will determine whether he can continue to play there.
Is Slipped Disc subject to the jurisdiction of Norwegian law? I’m not suggesting that the person concerned should be named, but I’m curious to know how Norwegian law prevents publication in England. Some readers will remember a case in which a story that could not be published in England and Wales was published perfectly legally in Scotland as well as in countries outside the UK. I forget whether it was published in Northern Ireland.
Doesn’t say anything about a cellist in the Norwegian article
At least now he’ll have time to attend to that nasty crack…
Not all cracks are nasty . . .
I understand privacy issues in sexual cases but at the same time, if the behavior was recent, perhaps people should be warned. In the US there are computer registries for the names and addresses for child sex offenders.
However, as far as I am concerned, perhaps there should be some time limitation on reporting a story with perpetuators names if that person’s behavior remains clean for a certain amount of time.
Athough I understand that the victims want justice perhaps there should also be a time limitation for the behavior of Levine and Dutoit as well, not only for the victims’ ability to sue but also a time limitation for keeping the charges public.
Levine, in fact, does have a confidentiality agreement for most of the evidence that was and will be presented in his case. Although in his situation it started because the Met promised those who presented evidence against him confidentiality, confidentiality works very strongly in Levine’s favor as well (in my opinion), as I have mentioned in other posts, especially with regard to his professional reputation and potential ability to make a comeback.
However, since no charge in Levine’s case, is less than ten years old and most of the charges, at least those that we know about, are much older, perhaps (although I personally will miss the juicy stories) confidentiality is appropriate.
… and then there’s the news about the Duke of Windsor and Wallis Warfield Spencer Simpson (soon to be Windsor) that was banned from publication in the UK, even as it was front-page fodder for papers across the United States for months and months …
I daresay that some people in the U.K. yearn for those times of discretion afforded to the royals.
It wasn’t banned by law, it’s just that the press barons were willing to humor the Royal family and keep the story private (every Fleet Street editor knew all the juicy details about David and Wallis)