Schadenfreude vs Principles

Following the continued fall out from the accusations against Harvey Weinstein and the subsequent #MeToo fire-storm that followed I wrote a piece which was basically looking at all these accusations and stories (stories in the generic sense, not in the “fiction” way) in a cold, detached and rational way that would put the rule of law and the adage of innocent until proven guilty above believe wholesale any claims made by anyone against anyone else.

I held of making this specific piece all 2 of you are reading now after serial Trump-baiter and one trick pony actor George Takei had allegations of groping levelled against him.

I held off again when the most snobby of all famous man-hating virtue-signallers Lena Dunham defended one of her shows writers after allegations were made against him.

Then I wrote a piece about something called “hipster racism” a wonderful bit of made up phrasing I’d only become aware of after this was what Dunham was also accused of being.

But I could no longer hold back when, earlier this week, Harry Potter author Joanne Rowling, defended the casting of alleged wife beater Johnny Depp in another of her insipid brain fluff movies, this after “months of silence” on the issue following the release of the original Fantastic Beasts movie.

The fact of the matter is that I am ideologically at odds with the roles that Takei, to a lesser extent, but mainly Dunham and Rowling have both ascended to but also had placed on them thanks to the power of social media and the giant echo-chamber witch-hunting that can arise mainly on twitter

These 3 have constantly stirred up discontent on twitter, be it on purpose or just lending weight to certain hysteria, for numerous amount of right-on and horrible illiberal liberal causes that always attack at the cores of free speech.

But this should not detract from the fact that, in Takei’s case he is indeed innocent until proven guilty and in the other two cases, they themselves are holding this principle to the letter when it comes to things close to them.

Granted their stances are massively hypocritical given some of the previous things they have said but this doesn’t change the fact that they are well within their rights to defend people because they are directly linked to them.

It is amusing watching this whole sorry mess of liberal pie eat itself and the backlash, especially against Rowling has been amusing and caused warm feelings of Schadenfreude to coarse through my veins but it isn’t really personally, it is just it it a magnificent way of holding a mirror up to the fetid, festering, moral Gordian knots that a certain type of persons love to tie themselves up in.

 

Thanks for reading.

 

Advertisements

No, I Don’t #BelieveYou

First off an apology, for the title, which is clearly click-bait.

Secondly, because of the hysterical times we live, a proviso, which I shouldn’t have to make but have to and need to, to state to those who don’t read past a title and a few lines; rape and sexual assault is wrong. They are horrible, barbaric acts and all perpetrators should be pursued to the full extent of the law.

But to believe anyone who comes forward with a tale of rape or assault and pointing the finger at an assailant does not have the automatic right to “belief.”

Or, more pertinently, the alleged assailant is also afforded the equal amount of “belief” to them if they deny the accusation.

In this current climate an accusation is all it takes to get someone fired from their position of employment.  Not “suspended, pending further investigation” but sacked.

The twitter frenzy and the surrounded hashtags create witch-hunt, mob mentality that seems to trump the rule of law and also basic common sense.

Harvey Weinstein is probably a degenerate scumbag, who abused his position and power to physically abuse numerous others but the man is allowed a fair trial and as each allegation is published and every reaction is apparently justified the chances of finding a jury of his peers not prejudice enough to give him a fair trial gets more remote by the day.

Any defence lawyer worth their salt could quite easily search through a prospective juror’s social network for posts and all they need find is something as naive, lame and stupid as #IBeliveYou and they need never be called for jury duty again.

How would you ever hope to convict anyone of a serious crime, one that has made headlines, if everyone is automatically going to believe the alleged victim.

And it is not a question of NOT believing the alleged victim, it is simply trying to be the detached human being we generally are when it comes to events in the lives of random strangers.

The only reactions to a crime that matter are that of the police, the courts and other law enforcement bodies.

I always remember this from 2009…

Harriet Harman today promised a “systematic” review of the way that rape cases are dealt with as she launched a new bid to raise the conviction rate for sex attackers

It always struck me as rather sinister language.  Yes it is right to treat all alleged victims with respect and a certain amount of kid gloves, but from the language used its as though everyone accused just “got away with it,” QED; all accused are guilty, we must increase the conviction rate, even at the expense of actual justice.

This piece isn’t about victim blaming if that is what you are feeling right now, far from it.  If the accused can not get a fair trial because of the reaction of everyone numpty online, then the accuser is going to be a victim a second time.

So the cycle continues and the denigration of basic common sense and reason continues unabated.

 

Thanks for reading.