The Ideological Bubble of the
#MeToo Movement
Part 1 of 3:
The Standard of Evidence &
Statute of Limitations
Part 1 of 3: The Standard of Evidence & Statute of Limitations
Part 2 of 3: The Liberal Media, Boycotts, Defamation & Comebacks
Part 3 of 3: The Feminist Victim Mentality, Consent & Power Dynamics
By: Shawn Alli
Posted: October 22, 2018
Image copyright belongs to Getty Images/Johannes Spahn/EyeEm
The #MeToo movement has done a great service by exposing institutional sexism in all levels of society. But what it overlooks is an understanding of the standard of evidence. For criminal cases the standard is beyond reasonable doubt. For civil cases it's the preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not).
Many of the #MeToo claims/allegations that have caused the firing or resignation of various men and women have overlooked the standard of evidence. When a company investigates an allegation, what standard of evidence are they using? What is the standard of evidence that liberal media outlets are using to vet these allegations?
And that’s the issue. They're turning a blind eye to both standards and saying that if the victim told other people and there's a pattern, then it's a solid case. And then after publishing they let the public decide what to believe based on their own personal standards of evidence and their own biases.
Yes, if there's a pattern to an accuser’s action, it may be a solid case in the eyes of the public. But in a criminal court, if the pattern of an accuser is based on a flimsy standard of evidence, the jury may be doubtful of those claims.
And that’s another issue. If the complainant files for a jury trial, the case is dependent on the sympathies/feelings of the jury (6-12 people). That's not an impartial objective system of justice. But, then again, leaving it to a judge may benefit the accused. But a judge only trial is not impartial either. It's dependent on the bias of the judge interpreting law and the potential bias of the appeal judges in how they interpret law.
Even in a criminal case, the #MeToo movement (with the help of liberal media outlets) continues to push the narrative that the defendant is guilty and the justice system is broken if they don't find in their favor. You can't say the justice system is broken when you don’t win and say that it works when you do win. That's called being a hypocritical asswipe.
And this is what happens in the case of former Canadian broadcaster Jiamn Ghomeshi. In 2014 Ghomeshi was charged with four counts of sexual assault and one count of choking. [1] The judge tossed out the case because of inconsistencies and deception by the plaintiffs. [1] And that was a criminal case. A civil one may have been worse for the plaintiffs.
A side note to accusers. There's a fine line between civil lawsuits and extortion. Many civil lawsuits are a joke. It's just legal extortion, with the settlements themselves as a joke.
You give me some money and I'll make these allegations go away.
Again, for civil cases, the preponderance of the evidence means "more likely than not." More likely to be right than wrong. So if the scales of justice lean 0.1% over to any side, they win. That's not justice.
The best example is the OJ Simpson trial. Simpson was acquitted of criminal charges in 1995 for murder but found guilty in a civil trial in 1997. Why? Because of the different standards of evidence. Any rational being would understand that having two different standards for guilt or innocence is complete nonsense. But this is the world we live in.
But in the Ghomeshi case, a few months later, the final sexual assault charge was dropped in exchange for an apology and peace bond. [2] Why did the Crown and plaintiff agree to the deal? Because they weren't confident in the case after the acquittal. But that's not enough for feminists, liberal media outlets, and the #MeToo movement (which you'll see in Part 2).
Harvey Weinstein is another example of a supposed rock solid case that may not be what it appears to be. In September 2018 a judge tossed out a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) lawsuit against Weinstein. [3] In October 2018, Weinstein gets a sexual assault charge dismissed (which prosecutors did not oppose) because of biased police detectives and false testimony. [4]
These aren't major wins for Weinstein, but they're still significant. Again, the liberal media has built up the image of Weinstein as a monster. But in reality, he's just doing what almost all men with power in Hollywood does. They trade sex for deals. Sexual favors have been the currency in Hollywood for decades. If you're shocked about all of this, then you're a gullible person and have been living in your own ideological bubble with little connection to reality.
But that's the way social conditioning works. Present an ideology and pour money and marketing behind it, push it in every facet of life, and you'll most likely be successful in conditioning people to whatever message you create.
Conditioning is neither good nor bad, it's just a reality. After you become an adult (legally speaking) you have the right to reject or accept any ideology you want. If you choose to stay with your previous conditioning, that's on you. It's not the fault of the people doing the conditioning because it's you who has the final say on what ideologies goes into your mind. If you don't like your current situation, stop being a slave to your conditioning and reflect on why you believe in XYZ ideologies. If you're unsure I recommend radical dualism (see Philosophy of Mind in Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose).
And remember, sometimes people lie for whatever reason. Sometimes people have false memories of an event that get reinterpreted through a different lens. That's why the statute of limitations exists. And Kevin Spacey, Steven Seagul, and Brett Kavanaugh are an example of this. Los Angeles prosecutors decline to press charges against Spacey and Seagal because of the statute of limitations. [5] James Toback was accused of sexual misconduct by over 300 women and prosecutors declined to press charges because of the statute of limitations. [6]
The only reason the Catholic Church supports charges against pedophile priests in the past is to pacify its believers. But after 2016, they take a no holds barred approach and lobby against bills extending the statute of limitation. [7] [8]
The statute of limitations exists for most crimes (except murder) for good reasons. You can't say you were raped in 1980 and then come forward in 2018 to destroy a person's credibility at an opportune time. And the recent case of Brett Kavanaugh is the best example.
Personally, I don't believe any of the complainants in the Kavanaugh case. Why not? Because they didn't report the incident at the time. While liberals can complain all they want about the narrow FBI investigation of the incidents, the real issue is that it took place too long ago to prosecute.
Even if today's police decided to prosecute (which they wouldn't), like most old cases, it would just be a he said vs. she said case with both sides using high priced lawyers to sway the jury/judge. That's not justice. That's justice to the highest bidder, with the deepest pockets (money and power). For a more radical solution see Philosophy of Ethics and Philosophy of Law in Part I.
In order to add credibility, a complainant needs to file a police report/human resources complaint as soon as possible (a few days after) in order to have an official record of the events. It doesn't mean that charges have to be laid. It just means an official record exists in the time period when the allegations took place. That gives credibility to the complainant in the eyes of the public and the courts.
Does filing a police report mean that the event actually happened as described by the complainant? No. Many women and men file false police reports the next day in order to gain credibility.
But the reason why the next day or two is important for filing a police report is because of the limited time in reinterpreting the memories of the incident. Of course, it only takes a few minutes to reinterpret a memory (with or without the aid of friends or ideological biases like religion or feminism). But generally speaking, the fresher the memory, the more believable it is to the police/court system.
Understandably, the believability of a complainant is a touchy subject for the average person. I'll try to clear it up with a few examples.
Kathryn Mayorga alleges that Cristiano Ronaldo raped her in 2009. [9] Her case should be seen as credible because she filed a police report the next day. [9] Is it possible she woke up the next day and regretted the sex or reinterpreted the memory? Yes, but by filing the day after she deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Faviola Dadis alleges that Stevan Seagal groped her in 2002 and Regina Simons alleges that Seagal raped her in 1994 [10] Both cases should NOT be seen as credible because neither filed a police report a few days after. Doing it decades later is not credible because of the possibility that the complainants are reinterpreting their memories to fit a narrative for whatever reason. Even though it's very possible that Seagal (and other directors) did such things during a casting call (since women were/are seen as disposable sex objects to many), Dadis and Simons don't get the benefit of the doubt because they didn't file a report a few days after the incident.
I know it sounds harsh, but it's he said vs. she said with no witnesses (like most sexual assault cases). Filing a police report decades after the alleged incident occurred because of the #MeToo movement today does not add credibility to the claims.
Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez, and Julie Swetnick allege various forms of sexual misconduct by (now) Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. [11] All the allegations are more than 3 decades old and done by liberal women at an opportune time to stop the confirmation of a conservative judge to the Supreme Court. None of these women made a police complaint/school complaint at the time. Hence, none of these women deserve the benefit of doubt for their claims.
And no, Swetnick's allegations didn't destroy the liberal/Democrat case against Kavanaugh. Even if the police investigated it (and they have the right to do so) the district attorney would have declined to prosecute because of lack of evidence and statute of limitations. Thinking otherwise is a liberal delusion. It's not that men hate women or that the law is biased against women. It's that the credibility of the complainants is questionable due to the amount of time that elapsed before an actual complaint was made.
And don't worry, we'll get into the issue of consent in Part 3. And just so you know, it's going to be very messy.
Ruby Anaya alleges that co-workers from WeWork sexually assaulted her in 2014. [12] Her claims are credible and deserve the benefit of the doubt because she filed a complaint with human resources immediately. [12]
Sarah Lawrynuik (a Canadian journalist) says that she was raped at a university party and that the alleged assailant is a high priced lawyer. [13] She says that if he gets a higher position, she'll say something (most likely name him publicly). [13] The reason why you shouldn't believe Lawrynuik is because she doesn't report the alleged rape to the university or police at the time. You can't keep silent and then cry rape decades later when the alleged rapist reaches a high position. If Lawrynuik chooses a civil lawsuit against her alleged rapist with no further evidence, it would be akin to extortion.
I think you get the point.
Many feminists and liberal media outlets would claim that most rapes are unreported.
It would be a tidal wave of rape cases in the courts if they came forward.
Sorry, but that's false.
I'll see your unreported rape allegations and raise you the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Put that standard on the table and I would bet that 80% of those cases would be dismissed by the prosecutor. Another 15% would be charged but not convicted because they weren't able to meet the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. 3% would be convicted but have their conviction overturned on appeal. Only 2% out of the original 100% would most likely get convictions with prison terms.
Feminists and liberal media outlets claim that our justice system is broken. Fine, how are you going to fix it? Reforming a Western-European justice system that already exists is almost impossible. The best you can do is make small changes, like strengthening the presumption of innocence before being found guilty in Europe. [14] Perhaps someone should let the MeToo movement know about this.
Unfortunately, we're stuck with our current legal/justice system, so we have to proceed based on what currently exists, not what we would like to exist. That means discrediting a witnesses. Yes, that didn't work out well for Bill Cosby, but his case is an exception to the norm. And the norm is that most sexual assault cases never result in charges. The ones that do, usually leads to a shaky courtroom drama. And even if a person gets convicted, it doesn't mean the jury/judge were correct in their judgment.
Type in "miscarriage of justice" or "overturned convictions" in a Google search and see for yourself. There are hundreds to thousands of people wrongly convicted due to false eye witness testimony, bad forensic science, and corrupt police officers.
While a conviction means a lot in the eyes of the public, many are based on false claims, junk science, smooth prosecutors, and sympathetic jurors. Reforming a justice system has to take all these things into account.
Our course, each case is different. A man pays a prostitute for sex. She dies from the rough sex (bleeding to death from a tear in her vagina). Is the man guilty of manslaughter? This very case is now being heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. The lower courts acquitted the man of first degree murder and manslaughter. [15] The case is further complicated because she's Aboriginal, poor, and has three kids.
Canada has a rocky relationship with Aboriginal people in the past and today. I worked in rural Aboriginal communities for almost 3 years in the Northwest Territories. I have a pretty good idea of the reality, the stigmas, and conditions they face. And just so you know, it's not black and white. Like most things in life, it's very grey for most issues.
But the question remains. Should the man be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter? Prostitution in Canada is still illegal for the johns. He performed an illegal act and it resulted in her death. Others are trying to use the consent argument. A person wouldn't consent to something if they knew it would result in their death. But that’s the problem. Both parties don't know/expect death as the end result (the same man was the one who called 911).
Personally, I would leave the consent argument alone, find the man guilty of involuntary manslaughter, but face the minimum sentencing. Yes, he's at fault, but he didn't know/expect it to result in her death, hence the potential guilty verdict but understanding from the courts in regards to sentencing.
Law is a tough cookie in a peaceful society. In a war-torn battle society, laws are more black and white. But in a peaceful society (where every variable/influence counts) it's very grey.
Personally, I think there will come a time where memories of a person can be shown on a screen, be it via technology or internally. A disturbing possibility that would change not only the justice system but all of humanity.
References:
[1] Gollom, Mark. Jian Ghomeshi found not guilty on choking and all sex assault charges. CBC News. March 24, 2016.
[2] Fraser, Laura. Jian Ghomeshi trial: Former CBC radio host signs peace bond, Crown drops sex assault charge. CBC News. May 11, 2016.
[3] Dolmetsch, Chris. Weinstein Judge Tells Women to Refile Racketeering Lawsuit. Bloomberg News. September 12, 2018.
[4] Harvey Weinstein: prosecutors in New York drop part of sexual assault case. Associated Press. October 11, 2018.
[5] Kevin Spacey, Steven Seagal won't be prosecuted for alleged sex assaults. Associated Press. September 4, 2018.
[6] Mumford, Gwilym. James Toback will not face sexual abuse charges due to time limits, LA prosecutor says. Guardian. April 10, 2018.
[7] Joseph, George. US Catholic church has spent millions fighting clergy sex abuse accountability. Guardian. May 12, 2016.
[8] Pa.'s Attorney General Calls for No Statute of Limitations in Wake of Clergy Abuse Report. NBC 10. October 12, 2018.
[9] MacInnes, Paul. Cristiano Ronaldo accuser spells out rape claims in magazine. Guardian. October 1, 2018.
[10] Green, Alex. Steven Seagal accused of raping woman at his Beverly Hills home during the filming of 1994 film 'On Deadly Ground'. Daily Mail. January 12, 2018.
[11] Walters, Joanna. Brett Kavanaugh: third woman expected to make accusations of sexual misconduct. Guardian. September 24, 2018.
[12] Del Valle, Gaby. A WeWork employee says she was fired after reporting sexual assault. The company says her claims are meritless. Vox. October 12, 2018.
[13] Lawrynuik, Sarah. This is why Christine Blasey Ford came forward — and why I would, too. CBC News. September 28, 2018.
[14] EU strengthens right to the presumption of innocence. Consilium. February 12, 2016.
[15] Purdy, Chris. Supreme Court to hear questions in case of Ontario trucker acquitted in death of Edmonton woman. Canadian Press. October 9, 2018.