This is not about Sophie Grégoire Trudeau

Back in the '90s, I used to write a feminist column for The Daily News in Halifax. Misogyny is not a new thing and I got plenty of hate mail. Much of it was vulgar and threatening. I even had one that looked something like this:

Different message, of course; same method.

This was back in the days when the hateful people had to get out a sheet of paper and a pen – or snip out little alphabet letters – work on their message, find and address an envelope, buy a stamp, walk to the post office or mail box, and mail the letter. It was sensible to assume they felt strongly about what I was writing. It was quite clear they felt threatened by the feminist viewpoints I was writing and they countered them with threats of their own.

These letters were disturbing and I acknowledge, I was upset every time I got one.

I can't even fathom what it must be like nowadays, when you don't even have to express any thoughts that frighten people to become the target of countless people in the apparently lawless world of social media.

At some point last week before her husband stole the headlines, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau told a newspaper that she needed more help to be able to carry out the things that are expected of her as the Prime Minister's wife. The usual barrage of vicious attacks kicked in: hurtful, hateful, creepy, scary.

Then her defenders had their say: Neil MacDonald at the CBC told us that, as Canadians, we have a bad habit of hacking down the tall poppies. Heather Mallick in the Toronto Star said we were all jealous because we're unbeautiful and we don't dress as nicely as Sophie.

Another columnist made much the same point and said we're just bitter because our husbands aren't as handsome as Sophie's. I said "speak for yourself."

(This is my husband. I love this photo and I wish it hadn't got bent.)

On Twitter and Facebook, the sparring went on for days with people on one side complaining that Sophie already had two nannies, a driver, a chef and a gardener. The other side said she was in great demand outside her home and needed someone to organize that side of her life. Most of the people who held the latter view referred to her as "Canada's First Lady" or "our First Lady."

I waded into the social media discussions for two reasons: I couldn't stand that people called her the First Lady and I was appalled at the narrowness of the discussion and the fact that no one – including the professional commentators – seemed to understand the issue.

Here are some of the points I made edited for repetition and clarity, in a number of different discussions:

We don't have a First Lady because we don't have a President. We have a Prime Minister. We don't elect a Prime Minister. We elect a Member of Parliament. The leader of the party which elects the most MPs becomes Prime Minister. A Prime Minister is a member of the cabinet – first among equals. A very different role from a President.

So if the First Minister's spouse takes on a publicly supported role, would this also affect spouses of other ministers? This is not about Sophie. It's about making a major change in how our cabinet ministers and government members are perceived. It really is a much bigger issue than just, "oh, could we hire someone to help Sophie?"

The issue is one of accountability: if she is going to receive public money to help her navigate through the demands made on her time, it must be clear that her public engagements are in the public interest and not in the Liberal Party of Canada's interest.

So should her speeches be vetted by some all-party committee before she goes out? If she says something at a charity luncheon, are we to believe that she's speaking on behalf of the government? Of the Liberal Party? Or are the views she expresses her personal views, and she and only she should be held accountable for what she says? I honestly don't see how and where this could end, if it's done properly and ethically.

In one of the discussions, someone accused me of nit-picking and said – yes, she said this – "There's no reason why we couldn't tweak it and take on the American model. She actually is a First Lady."

No, we couldn't follow the American model. The USA is a republic. The president is the head of state. Canada is a constitutional monarchy. Our head of state is Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth who is represented in Canada by the Governor General. They are so different, there is really no basis for comparison.

She really lit into me for that and said, "Why do we have to have this ridiculous royal stuff. We should just get rid of it."

I think polls continue to show that a majority of Canadians would not agree with abolishing the monarchy. In any case, changing the system would require much more than a tweak. To abolish the monarchy would involve a major constitutional upheaval and while not impossible would be very very difficult to achieve.

Before I gave up, another person chid me and said that Sophie supported worth-while causes and as we expect her to be out there, we should help her do it.

I don't think anyone would take issue with Sophie's choice of charities. The entire issue is: if she needs help with her daily schedule, should Canadian taxpayers be paying for her staff?

What Sophie went through at the hands of the Hate Patrol was quite mild compared to what was ahead for Ruth Ellen Brosseau. I saved some of what I shared in those discussions also and I hope to get back to share some of it with you.