While far-left Disney CEO Bob Iger is running around testing the presidential waters, the studio’s connections to multiple sexual misconduct scandals still simmer, and a Toronto court just ruled against Disney in a sordid case tied to Harvey Weinstein and Disney.
A woman identified only as Jane Doe is suing Disney (and Miramax) over the allegation that she was twice sexually assaulted by Harvey Weinstein in 2000, the co-chairman of Miramax at the time. Weinstein has denied any wrongdoing.
At that same time, the year 2000, Disney owned Miramax, Iger was Disney’s chief operating officer, and the alleged victim claims Disney turned a blind eye to Weinstein’s behavior. This is a credible claim now that we have been told by countless sources that “everyone knew” about Weinstein’s alleged predations.
According to the Toronto Star (for obvious partisan reasons, the American media have almost no interest in this story), Disney is laughably claiming that Weinstein enjoyed autonomy, and, therefore, Disney was not responsible for his behavior. In other words, Yes, Harvey worked for us, but how can you hold us responsible for his behavior when we allowed him to do whatever he wanted?!?!
Disney also claims that “it had no knowledge of any complaints, lawsuits or settlements against Weinstein.” Again, considering the widespread cries of “everybody knew,” this does not hold water. Additionally, we know that Weinstein settled at least one lawsuit while Disney owned his company — the one filed by actress Rose McGowan, who claims Weinstein raped her.
As of now, a Canadian court is not buying any of this. Disney had hoped to squirm out of the Jane Doe suit by arguing that it cannot prove its innocence without violating three confidential employment agreements. “In March, Disney asked the court to seal three documents related to Weinstein’s business relationship with Disney and Miramax films, arguing that the public interest in confidentiality outweighed the public interest in openness,” the Star reports.
Yes, poor Disney is in a terrible Catch-22 because to prove its innocence, it must violate a confidentiality it cannot violate.
The judge thinks otherwise. After dismissing the motion, she said, “Disney had not met the high threshold set out by our Supreme Court of Canada to curb the open court principle.”
Disney’s potential liability does not end with Weinstein, nor do Bob Iger’s potential public relations problems.
Iger oversaw Disney’s purchase of Pixar in 2006, and now, there are allegations the studio knew about the alleged predations that resulted in Pixar chief John Lasseter’s (who is also a top executive at Disney) extended leave of absence.
Disney’s third “open secret” problem is Mark Halperin, who was fired from NBC last year after credible allegations came forward about his behavior while working for ABC News (which is also owned by Disney). Numerous women not only allege that Halperin harassed, groped, and even masturbated in front of them, but that “everybody knew.”
Iger was president of ABC during Halperin’s tenure there.
As I wrote late last year, this story will be spiked by our media because:
1) Disney is a left-wing company. 2) Disney’s chairman and CEO is Bob Iger, a longtime Democrat who raised money for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, who resigned from a Trump advisory council after the president pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement, and who is now registered as an independent — a move many see as the first in a 2020 bid to unseat Trump.