B Kavanough and MeToo

[MigL]

This is not about B Kavanough's suitability for the Supreme Court, nor whether he is innocent or not of the accusations levelled against him ( and certainly not about D Trump ).
The issue I want to discuss is whether the MeToo movement has made Due Process a thing of the past. It is no longer 'innocent until proven guilty', but guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. Have we, in our rush to provide a level playing field for victims of sexual assault, taken away the rights of a group of people ( males ) to a fair trial ?
The fact that a woman, with dubious recollection ( self admitted ) of events that happened over 30 yrs ago, is to be believed beyond doubt, and could potentially ruin a man's life, unless he can prove himself innocent ( and even then, there will always be suspicions ), seems more than a little skewed.

Is this the kind of 'new justice'  system we  need/want ?

And I realize the problems with getting women to report abuse, but surely there has to be a better way than demonizing all men.
Men are human and a certain number of them will do vile things.
But women are only human too and a certain number of them will use this 'new justice' for their own vile ends.

Edited September 22, 2018 by MigL

[iNow]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

The issue I want to discuss is whether the MeToo movement has made Due Process a thing of the past.

No.

Nobody is being placed in prison based on hearsay, but as always our social capital and position is contingent upon our actions and the social norms of the day.

Is it possible we’ll overcorrect and some folks who don’t deserve to be will get ostracized or lose out on something to which they’ve previously felt entitled? Sure, but this is a correction that is LONG past due. 

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

The fact that a woman, with dubious recollection ( self admitted ) of events that happened over 30 yrs ago, is to be believed beyond doubt,

Gonna have to call you out for a pretty obvious strawman on this one, brother. 

[MigL]

I don't see what you mean by entitled.

Losing a Supreme Court appointment after an accomplished/distinguished career ( don't know about that one ) ?
Having your wife leave you and your marriage ending ?
Losing the respect of your children, friends and co-workers because they consider you a sexual predator ?

All because of some vague recollections of something that happened 30 yrs ago, and is not provable in a Court of Law ?

Sorry, but Due Process is a right, not an entitlement.

[zapatos]

12 minutes ago, MigL said:

It is no longer 'innocent until proven guilty', but guilty until you can prove yourself innocent.

With all due respect, give me a fucking break.

Quote

The fact that a woman, with dubious recollection ( self admitted ) of events that happened over 30 yrs ago, is to be believed beyond doubt, and could potentially ruin a man's life, unless he can prove himself innocent ( and even then, there will always be suspicions ), seems more than a little skewed.I

See above...

Quote

And I realize the problems with getting women to report abuse, but surely there has to be a better way than demonizing all men.
 

Frankly I'm surprised this kind of nonsense is coming from you.

Quote

But women are only human too and a certain number of them will use this 'new justice' for their own vile ends.

Yep, there are indeed people in the world who do bad things. It almost seems as if you did not realize women could be bad.

 

[MigL]

Other than a few expletives, I didn't see any rebuttals...

I'm surprised this is coming from you. 

[StringJunky]

18 minutes ago, MigL said:

Other than a few expletives, I didn't see any rebuttals...

I'm surprised this is coming from you. 

Anything to do with 'wimmin' and the knives get sharpened.

I'm thinking along the same lines as you. It's a toxic mix of a lot of motives driving this situation. Everybody wants their 15 seconds of fame and she's about to get hers.

Edited September 23, 2018 by StringJunky

[zapatos]

   18 minutes ago,  MigL said: 

It is no longer 'innocent until proven guilty', but guilty until you can prove yourself innocent.

Obviously false. No one is in jail. No one is going without a defense by a great number of people. No one is even out of the running for Supreme Court.

  Quote

The fact that a woman, with dubious recollection ( self admitted ) of events that happened over 30 yrs ago, is to be believed beyond doubt, and could potentially ruin a man's life, unless he can prove himself innocent ( and even then, there will always be suspicions ), seems more than a little skewed.I

Obviously false. She is not to be believed without a doubt. She is not asking to be believed beyond a doubt. It was Ford who requested an official investigation so that you didn't simply have to take her word for it. 

  Quote

And I realize the problems with getting women to report abuse, but surely there has to be a better way than demonizing all men.
  Quote

 

 

Have you been demonized? I know I haven't. Absolutes such as "all" are rarely used on a science site.

I thought the arguments I have now made in this post were obvious enough that I didn't have to spell them out. My mistake.

 

30 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I'm thinking along the same lines as you. It's a toxic mix of a lot of motives driving this situation. Everybody wants their 15 seconds of fame and she's about to get hers.

Yes I'm sure the death threats are exactly what she wants. Exactly how did you come to the conclusion that she is after fame?

[StringJunky]

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Yes I'm sure the death threats are exactly what she wants. Exactly how did you come to the conclusion that she is after fame?

Maybe she never figured that one in her calculations. Quite honestly, it's pathetic, she was 16 and he was 17 and he's now 53 and she's 52. 

[iNow]

I will acknowledge that we must be cautious and not allow any accusation whatsoever to be the cause of someone’s downfall; that it’s important to look at evidence in context and avoid conclusions before enough information is available. 

I will also state clearly that I have ZERO reason to disbelieve this woman or question her motives. People who are lying don’t try to demand an FBI investigation before testifying. 

With Kavenau specifically, the question for me is... if we stipulate that this event definitely happened... is that enough to prevent him from winning a lifetime appointment in the highest court in the land?

My follow up question is if our response would be the same if he weren’t a WASPy conservative, but was instead black or Hispanic, liberal or leftie.   

Finally, I think all contributors to this thread thus far are fairly long-standing online friends and should avoid talking with talons. 

Edited September 23, 2018 by iNow

[swansont]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I don't see what you mean by entitled.

Losing a Supreme Court appointment after an accomplished/distinguished career ( don't know about that one ) ?

You can't lose something you never had. Such phrasing is one of entitlement.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Having your wife leave you and your marriage ending ?
Losing the respect of your children, friends and co-workers because they consider you a sexual predator ?

All because of some vague recollections of something that happened 30 yrs ago, and is not provable in a Court of Law ?

Sorry, but Due Process is a right, not an entitlement.

Sorry, but due process is between an individual and the government. There has been no loss of due process in this incident. 

[iNow]

He also hasn’t exactly lost his SCOTUS appointment. Not yet, and not based on accusations anyway. 

[StringJunky]

41 minutes ago, iNow said:

I will acknowledge that we must be cautious and not allow any accusation whatsoever to be the cause of someone’s downfall; that it’s important to look at evidence in context and avoid conclusions before enough information is available. 

I will also state clearly that I have ZERO reason to disbelieve this woman or question her motives. People who are lying don’t try to demand an FBI investigation before testifying. 

With Kavenau specifically, the question for me is... if we stipulate that this event definitely happened... is that enough to prevent him from winning a lifetime appointment in the highest court in the land?

My follow up question is if our response would be the same if he weren’t a WASPy conservative, but was instead black or Hispanic, liberal or leftie.   

Finally, I think all contributors to this thread thus far are fairly long-standing online friends and should avoid talking with talons. 

I don't think  she's lying but, deep down, I find it highly disturbing that she chooses this point, many years into the future, to destroy a persons's reputation at a critical point in his career. It smells of a politically-motivated move to stop a conservative candidate. I find myself in conflict because you really don't need another conservative judge and this is one way to do it but, on the other hand, he's a highly accomplished person, irrespective of his politics, who has conducted himself properly apart from an immature moment when he was a youth. Is a person to be condemned for the rest of their life for such an immature moment. Maybe this is the future and we must all act like virginal nuns from the day we are born unless we want to be subjected to 'trial by internet' at some later stage. The overarching point, I feel, is that peoples actions are increasingly, in the internet age, having no sell-by date and they are being preserved in perpetuity, never allowing a person the possibility to change and grow. A biblical reference: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Edited September 23, 2018 by StringJunky

[iNow]

I guess the narrative we use is what matters. I see it thus:

”I’ve held this in for SO very long. It’s poisoned my own health and well-being and shattered my sleep for decades. I’ve been able to swallow and largely ignore my disgust at him advancing and hobnobbing with the well to do all these years. But now? He’s about to become... a justice... on the Supreme Court? I wouldn’t be able to live myself any longer if I remained silent. This is too important.”

And she did it BEFORE Trump confirmed he was the one he was picking. She spoke up when he was just one among about 40 on a list of potential candidates. 

She didn’t want any of this. 

Edited September 23, 2018 by iNow

[MigL]

Personally, I don't think the appointment will go through, unless he can prove he is innocent.

If he's not innocent of the acts, no big deal, he doesn't deserve the appointment ( no matter his gender, color, politics or religion INow )
But if he is innocent, and he cannot prove it, he won't get the appointment; and even if he can prove it, there will always be a cloud of doubt hanging over his head.

But maybe you're right, B Kavanough is a bad example to use because he might not get the appointment for other reasons.
( maybe I should have used Asia Argento as an example )
 

[StringJunky]

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

I guess the narrative we use is what matters. I see it thus:

”I’ve held this in for SO very long. It’s poisoned my own health and well-being and shattered my sleep for decades. I’ve been able to swallow and largely ignore my disgust at him advancing and hobnobbing with the well to do all these years. But now? He’s about to become... a justice... on the Supreme Court? I wouldn’t be able to live myself any longer if I remained silent. This is too important.”

And she did it BEFORE Trump confirmed he was the one he was picking. She spoke up when he was just one among about 40 on a list of potential candidates. 

She didn’t want any of this. 

We can't control the narrative that passes through peoples heads. She's condemning the youth that was in her past not the man he is today.

Edited September 23, 2018 by StringJunky

[zapatos]

8 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

 ...apart from an immature moment when he was a youth. Is a person to be condemned for the rest of their life for such an immature moment. 

I guess this characterization of what is alleged by Ford to be "an immature moment" is what really bothers me. Women will never be safe if men characterize this type of behavior as an 'immature moment' instead of a serious assault. This was not a case of a boy trying for second base when she only wanted to go to first base. Regardless of whether or not the assault occurred, to dismiss it so easily does a disservice not only to women but to all of us.

Quote

Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room. They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help.

Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with REDACTED, who periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh. They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state. With Kavanaugh's hand over my mouth I feared he may inadvertently kill me.

 

[iNow]

28 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

We can't control the narrative that passes through peoples heads.

But we can control the narrative which passes through our own. 

[StringJunky]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

But we can control the narrative which passes through our own. 

Which she hasn't done, clearly. What's going to happen will happen.

Edited September 23, 2018 by StringJunky

[rangerx]

Ford is calling for an FBI investigation. Kavanaugh is not.

That pretty much tells you everything anyone needs to know.

Sexual assaults are things not easily mistaken or forgotten. They are vivid, haunting events that ruin lives.

For shame, MigL.

12 hours ago, MigL said:

This is not about B Kavanough's suitability for the Supreme Court, nor whether he is innocent or not of the accusations levelled against him ( and certainly not about D Trump )..

 

12 hours ago, MigL said:

Losing a Supreme Court appointment after an accomplished/distinguished career ( don't know about that one ) ?

If you're going set pre-conditions about discussing the OP, it might behoove you to refrain from contradicting yourself in the next breath.

[swansont]

11 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I don't think  she's lying but, deep down, I find it highly disturbing that she chooses this point, many years into the future, to destroy a persons's reputation at a critical point in his career.

Maybe because the emotional cost of coming forward is very high (as should be obvious) and it's just not worth going through it if it were some guy getting promoted to mid-management at some corporation.

Also, he has no reputation to destroy if the allegations are true. He has a fiction that he has woven. The esteem he is held in by others isn't deserved. If sexual assault didn't have such a high emotional cost and was treated like other crimes by law enforcement, he would have had the "accused of sexual assault" (and possibly a conviction) mark on his record already.

11 hours ago, StringJunky said:

It smells of a politically-motivated move to stop a conservative candidate.

Naming him as the SCOTUS nominee wasn't her idea. Also, from what I've read, she is not politically active.

11 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I find myself in conflict because you really don't need another conservative judge and this is one way to do it but, on the other hand, he's a highly accomplished person, irrespective of his politics, who has conducted himself properly apart from an immature moment when he was a youth. Is a person to be condemned for the rest of their life for such an immature moment.

Is there any evidence that this is motivated by him being a conservative judge? Or is it that republicans are such restrained folk that nobody has come forward to accuse nominees from democratic presidents, even though they could have?

There are justices on SCOTUS who do, in fact, believe that transgressions by youthful offenders should condemn them for life. Hint: it's not the liberal ones.

But keep in mind that Kavanaugh has denied even being at the party. If the allegations are true, then it's not just a matter of this being an indiscretion of a drunk teenager. He's trying to cover it up. Add that to multiple times he seems to have perjured himself during his testimony.

11 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Maybe this is the future and we must all act like virginal nuns from the day we are born

Oh, come on. This is a false dichotomy. There is a range of behavior between "virginal nuns" and "sexual assault" that you can drive a truck through.

11 hours ago, StringJunky said:

unless we want to be subjected to 'trial by internet' at some later stage. The overarching point, I feel, is that peoples actions are increasingly, in the internet age, having no sell-by date and they are being preserved in perpetuity, never allowing a person the possibility to change and grow. A biblical reference: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

How about we also apply "do not bear false witness"

[Ten oz]

13 hours ago, MigL said:

This is not about B Kavanough's suitability for the Supreme Court, nor whether he is innocent or not of the accusations levelled against him ( and certainly not about D Trump ).
The issue I want to discuss is whether the MeToo movement has made Due Process a thing of the past. It is no longer 'innocent until proven guilty', but guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. Have we, in our rush to provide a level playing field for victims of sexual assault, taken away the rights of a group of people ( males ) to a fair trial ?
The fact that a woman, with dubious recollection ( self admitted ) of events that happened over 30 yrs ago, is to be believed beyond doubt, and could potentially ruin a man's life, unless he can prove himself innocent ( and even then, there will always be suspicions ), seems more than a little skewed.

Is this the kind of 'new justice'  system we  need/want ?

And I realize the problems with getting women to report abuse, but surely there has to be a better way than demonizing all men.
Men are human and a certain number of them will do vile things.
But women are only human too and a certain number of them will use this 'new justice' for their own vile ends.

I gave you a +1 to remove the neg rep from the OP. You are asking  a question based on your own opinion and I don't feel an OP should be neg rep'd for that. 

To your question whether or not MeToo has made due process a thing of the past, no it has not. Bill O'Reilly, Les Moonves, Louis CK, Matt Lauer, and others aren't in prison. What trials have taken place have been fair trials. Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstien both were able to lawyer up and be heard in court. Can you provide an example of someone not receiving "Due Process"?

I wasn't a bad kid in High School relative to my siblings and peers but I got in fights, cheated on girlfriends, and did all types of questionable things. I can sit here and excuse it all on the times. Point out that nearly everyone in the neighborhood was doing the same but that would be missing the point of MeToo. The whole point of MeToo is to highlight how pervasive bad behavior has been. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. In my opinion it is healthy to shine some light on bad behavior from 30yrs ago.

 

13 hours ago, MigL said:

I don't see what you mean by entitled.

Losing a Supreme Court appointment after an accomplished/distinguished career ( don't know about that one ) ?
Having your wife leave you and your marriage ending ?
Losing the respect of your children, friends and co-workers because they consider you a sexual predator ?

All because of some vague recollections of something that happened 30 yrs ago, and is not provable in a Court of Law ?

Sorry, but Due Process is a right, not an entitlement.

Clarence Thomas, who was accused of sexual harassment,  has sat his @## on the Supreme Court for decades meanwhile Merrick Garland who was not accused of anything never even got a hearing. The standard by which one loses a Supreme Court appointment is purely political and has nothing to do with MeToo. 

I have been married for 10yrs. If I was accused of something I was innocent of I do not believe my wife would leave me. If she did than obviously I have done questionable things over these years to place doubts in her mind. 

Trump is a well known chauvinist. From "grab'em by the P" to paying a Porn Star hush money or joking about dating his own daughter Trump has done any number of despicable things. Last I checked he hadn't lost the respect of his children, friends, and co-workers. 

If you "vaguely" recalled that a judge who'd been tapped for the Supreme Court of Canada had attempted to bugger you 30yrs ago would you want them appointed?

[MigL]

The point of the MeToo movement, Ten oz, hs always been to remove the 'spotlight' from the victims of sexual assault.
As others have pointed out, for too long, victims have been reluctant to come forward, in fear of having their actions/behavior/life examined in detail, rather than the perps of the crime. This change is needed, that we can all agree on.

What we should be discussing is how far we want to go with removing obstacles to victims being able to make accusations without having to bear the burden of cross-examination. That is an integral part of the justice system.
This woman has made accusations ( true or not doesn't matter for the moment ) and the accused has stories written about him ,and the assault, daily by every news outlet in North America, without a single shred of evidence being presented in court. Where is the protection for his life being under a microscope if the allegations turn out to be false ?
People have lost marriages and family over accusations, and yes, I realize B Kavanough is a public figure, but I only used him as an example because he's currently in the news. I could have used A Argento; no-one bothered looking into her actions when she made accusations against H Weinstein, yet she is alleged to not only assault people , but underage people. Even more despicable acts.

Sorry RangerX, I see no shame in having this discussion.
That is the purpose of this forum, if you don't think we should be discussing differing opinions, then why are you here ?
( don't mean to imply you should leave, I enjoy butting heads with you and others )

Edited September 23, 2018 by MigL

[iNow]

16 minutes ago, MigL said:

As others have pointed out, for too long, victims have been reluctant to come forward, in fear of having their actions/behavior/life examined in detail, rather than the perps of the crime. This change is needed, that we can all agree on.

Yes sir. Quite right!

17 minutes ago, MigL said:

What we should be discussing is how far we want to go with removing obstacles to victims being able to make accusations without having to bear the burden of cross-examination. That is an integral part of the justice system.

In this instance, though, that will be happening on Thursday. 

18 minutes ago, MigL said:

This woman has made accusations ( true or not doesn't matter for the moment ) and the accused has stories written about him ,and the assault, daily by every news outlet in North America, without a single shred of evidence being presented in court.

Again, I have no reason to disbelieve her, but I acknowledge others do. That’s okay. What’s interesting is that most of us would like to see this go to court. It won’t because this is about politics and winning not justice and truth.

He’ll be on the court for 40 years. Surely we can spend 40 days making sure it’s the right thing to do?

[Ten oz]

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

This woman has made accusations ( true or not doesn't matter for the moment ) and the accused has stories written about him ,and the assault, daily by every news outlet in North America, without a single shred of evidence being presented in court. Where is the protection for his life being under a microscope if the allegations turn out to be false ?

Where is that protection for any high profile or public figure? James Comey, Robert Mueller, and Andrew McCabe have all been publicly accused of things which every media outlets broadly reported on. If all the allegations are proven false will Comey and McCabe won't get their jobs back. Countless lies were told and repeated in the media about Hillary Clinton which negatively impacted her support in various communities she had no built in protection. Public figures bare the brunt of public scrutiny and criticism. No protections were in place when people ran around claiming Obama was a secret Muslim or born in Kenya. Public figures get accused of all type of stuff and are stuck having to address them publicly. It is the nature of choosing to live a public life. No one forced Brett Kavanough  seek a spot on the Supreme Court. 

26 minutes ago, MigL said:

People have lost marriages and family over accusations,

In my opinion those who have lost marriages and family were either guilty or never had quality relationships with their spouses and family in the first place. 

29 minutes ago, MigL said:

A Argento; no-one bothered looking into her actions when she made accusations against H Weinstein, yet she is alleged to not only assault people , but underage people.

Over 80 women have come forward against Weinstein. Not just Argento. As for her situation it is being dealt with in court. Argento hasn't gotten any sort of pass. 

[rangerx]

 

4 hours ago, MigL said:

This woman has made accusations ( true or not doesn't matter for the moment ) and the accused has stories written about him ,and the assault, daily by every news outlet in North America, without a single shred of evidence being presented in court.

Sorry RangerX, I see no shame in having this discussion.

That is the purpose of this forum, if you don't think we should be discussing differing opinions, then why are you here ?
( don't mean to imply you should leave, I enjoy butting heads with you and others )

This whole "without a single shred of evidence" nonsense is just a talking point to preclude what may or may not an outcome to pretend it didn't happen.

When it comes to pervasive sexual behavior, past or present and a great portion of fact issues exist in bubbles not out in public. The word taboo comes to mind, even. Either side, either reason. I don't buy into the narrative that #metoo is open season to be demonized as liberal political weaponry. in the case of Argento, both being assailants doesn't preclude anything.

It distracts from the core issue while blowing a fringe issue out of proportion.