Russell Brand’s Downfall and the Society That Enabled Him

Russell Brand has been sentenced to ten and a half years in prison. Having read the judge’s sentencing remarks, I can understand why. But something about this entire affair troubles me. And it isn’t simply what Brand did to the women he assaulted.It’s the extraordinary hypocrisy of the institutions that surrounded him, celebrated him, profited from him, and then, when the moment arrived, condemned him.Where were they before?The most disturbing incident involved a woman working at a London radio station. Brand approached this stranger, forcibly kissed her, pinned her against a wall, and sexually assaulted her. His entourage stood nearby.She wasn’t backstage at one of his shows. She hadn’t accepted an invitation to his home. She wasn’t participating in some sexually adventurous encounter. She was at work.Yet, according to the account described in the sentencing remarks, Brand behaved as though those boundaries simply did not apply to him.His history of heroin and cocaine addiction, along with his sex addiction, was well known — and considering his manner of dress and behavior, Brand hardly hid the fact that he had a penchant for hedonistic excess. Combine that with fame, and seemingly a touch of narcissism and a spectacular disregard for other people, and you have a heady combination that might have led him to believe he could “get away” with the liberties he took with these women.At another gathering, he grabbed a woman’s breasts in front of other people. The sheer audacity is staggering. A complete disregard for another human being’s bodily autonomy.And the people around him? What did they do?That is where my anger begins to extend beyond Brand himself. Because predators don’t always operate in isolation. They have colleagues, assistants, managers, agents, friends, and sometimes entire industries prepared to look the other way.I know something about that. When I was twenty-one, a film and television producer invited me to his home, supposedly to help me with my career. Young, ambitious, and painfully naive, I went.I was drugged with Quaaludes and sexually assaulted.I was so incapacitated that I couldn’t drive home. I was still living with my parents, but I had to spend the night in the home of the man who had assaulted me. The following morning, his housekeeper prepared what I have always thought of as my “breakfast of shame.”I sat there, embarrassed, humiliated, and emotionally shattered before finally getting into my car and driving home.And who did I blame? Myself. What an absolute fool I’d been.I had willingly walked into that house, believing a powerful producer genuinely wanted to help my career. I had made myself vulnerable to a predator.There is an uncomfortable truth here. Naivety, ambition, misplaced trust, and foolish decisions can create opportunities for predators. We should be able to acknowledge that without pretending that foolishness and predation are morally equivalent. They aren’t. One is an error of judgment. The other is a deliberate violation of another person.When I told my agent what had happened, the response was essentially, “Take the day off. You’ll be fine.”That was it. No outrage. No investigation. No consequences.The producer carried on. The industry continued. And the casting director who was told to hire me for a small supporting role on an episodic series this guy was producing? I have often wondered how much she knew. How many other young, naive young women arrived in her casting office after this predator had yet another night of Quaaludes and sexual assault? The acting job? Pardon the pun but that was my booby prize. Pardon the pun.And I have known other women who were raped, drugged, assaulted, and sometimes physically injured, yet never reported what happened. I understand those feelings. Blaming yourself for being an idiot.How many thousands of related stories have disappeared into silence?Harvey Weinstein. AP Photo/Richard Drew, PoolWhich brings me to Harvey Weinstein. For years, Hollywood knew enough about Weinstein’s reputation to raise fundamental questions. Hell, I knew! It was common knowledge. Yet this enormously powerful producer continued making films, winning awards, and receiving the adulation of an industry that could scarcely function without men like him.Until suddenly it could. In 2017, investigative journalists exposed allegations that had circulated for years. Women spoke. Evidence accumulated. Weinstein’s empire collapsed.But why then? Why not ten years earlier? Why does an industry that supposedly abhors sexual exploitation so often discover its conscience only after a powerful man becomes impossible — or too inconvenient — to defend?Russell Brand’s celebrity was of a different kind. He didn’t wield Weinstein’s power to finance films or make and destroy careers. His influence increasingly came from somewhere else.Recently he has been encouraging people to think for themselves. To question governments, mainstream media, pharmaceutical companies, and the institutions that presume to tell us what to believe.Not necessarily agree with him. To consider. To question. To examine ideas outside the approved boundaries of conventional opinion.I admired this independence. And I can admire that while utterly condemning the sexual assaults for which he was convicted.Human beings are not neatly divided into saints and monsters. Someone can challenge intellectual conformity while behaving appallingly in his personal life. The measure of wrongdoing is not whether the offender has ever said anything worthwhile, but the gravity of the harm he inflicts on others.And after exploring more details of the offences for which he was convicted, it does appear that Brand inflicted serious harm. But his guilt does not settle the question of why the institutions surrounding him tolerated troubling behavior for so long, or why accountability arrived when it did.Justice may have been warranted, but was its timing entirely a matter of justice? Or had a once-celebrated entertainer become a far less convenient figure to protect?The investigation began in 2019, before Brand’s later political transformation became most pronounced. That chronology matters. But so does what happened afterward, as his independent audience grew and his criticisms of establishment institutions became increasingly prominent and, dare I say, dangerously influential.I find it difficult to ignore the possibility that his changing cultural position made the public pursuit of Brand more convenient.And I question the consistency of British justice itself.Consider Ramin Bari, sentenced in 2024 to nine years in prison after being convicted of four rapes in a child sexual exploitation case in Rotherham.Brand received nine years for the rape of an adult woman with whom he had already had consensual sex, plus another eighteen months for three more sexual assaults. I’m not discounting how the victim felt after being forcibly anally raped. I absolutely empathize. I understand her confusion, too. After all, she willingly went to his home to have a consensual vaginal sexual encounter but that does not make a subsequent non-consensual act acceptable.In any case, both men committed serious crimes. But four rapes involving a child and one rape involving an adult are not identical offences. The vulnerability of children and the repeated nature of abuse surely demand particular consideration.Sentencing rules and individual circumstances matter, but why does such a disparity exist?Britain’s grooming-gang scandals have exposed shocking failures to protect vulnerable girls. Baroness Louise Casey’s national audit documented institutional reluctance to confront uncomfortable questions about the ethnic background of offenders and the fear of being accused of racism.How many girls were sacrificed to political sensitivities?And why should the public have unquestioning confidence in the consistency of a justice system capable of such failures?I question whether Brand’s celebrity and increasingly anti-establishment influence made him an especially convenient figure upon whom to demonstrate the full force of the law. The disparity deserves examination, not dismissal.And beneath all of this lies an even more disturbing question.What about the people who knew?The assistants, executives, producers, agents, colleagues, friends, and bystanders who witnessed troubling behavior, heard complaints, or watched vulnerable people being exploited?How many looked away because the perpetrator was their employer, their friend, their meal ticket, or simply too powerful to challenge?When did keeping quiet become an acceptable professional skill?Does the entertainment establishment have a consistent moral standard, or does its willingness to scrutinize powerful individuals sometimes change when their commercial or cultural usefulness changes? What is it? Cowardice? Fear? Groupthink at its worst?In Weinstein’s case, why did an industry that had heard troubling accounts of his behavior for years continue celebrating and rewarding him?In Brand’s case, did his changing relationship with the establishment influence the intensity or character of its scrutiny — and if so, what evidence demonstrates that?And what finally brings these men down?Is it the courage of a victim who refuses to remain silent? The accumulation of evidence that can no longer be ignored? Or does the moment sometimes arrive when a powerful individual ceases to be commercially, socially, or politically useful to the institutions that once celebrated him?I suspect the answer is not always as simple, or as noble, as we would like to believe.Because the real scandal isn’t merely that powerful men commit terrible acts. It is that the institutions surrounding them can tolerate those acts for years — and then expect applause for finally discovering their conscience.Julienne Davis is an actress and singer.

Russell Brand’s Downfall and the Society That Enabled Him

Russell Brand’s Downfall and the Society That Enabled Him

More from the New York Sun

‘Extraordinary Circumstances’ Blamed for Nationwide Ground Stop for All Air Traffic

Scott Bessent’s Very Good Day

Spies, Soldiers and Cops Who Fled Maduro’s Regime Unveil Their Plan To Purge Venezuela’s Generals

Mamdani Sweet Talks Trump Into Easing New Rules for Corner Stores

Justice Alito’s Warning

Exclusive: As Musk Slows Starshield, Ukraine Pivots to Israeli Drone Communications Technology

Retailers Beg Federal Judge To Block Mamdani’s ‘Predatory’ Grocery Monopoly

Miss Universe Contestants From Africa Struggle To Obtain American Travel Visas

More from the New York Sun

‘Extraordinary Circumstances’ Blamed for Nationwide Ground Stop for All Air Traffic

Scott Bessent’s Very Good Day

Spies, Soldiers and Cops Who Fled Maduro’s Regime Unveil Their Plan To Purge Venezuela’s Generals

Mamdani Sweet Talks Trump Into Easing New Rules for Corner Stores

Justice Alito’s Warning

Exclusive: As Musk Slows Starshield, Ukraine Pivots to Israeli Drone Communications Technology

Retailers Beg Federal Judge To Block Mamdani’s ‘Predatory’ Grocery Monopoly

Miss Universe Contestants From Africa Struggle To Obtain American Travel Visas