 |
| "Don't speak" |
In 2014 Mr. Ghomeshi, a Canadian radio host, was accused of having rough, at times non-consensual sex with several women. CBC, his employer, subsequently fired him. At his 2016 trial he was acquitted. A second one was cancelled after he reached an agreement with a fourth accuser. There was no admission of guilt.
I found out about the story because Quartz, a business publication, defended his right to have non-traditional sex. Based on the article, I agreed. Once more details surfaced, it no longer was about having an alternative sexual preference, but whether or not Mr. Ghomeshi abused these women. All in all, 19 came forward.
At the trial the judge unleashed a searing rebuke to the evidence given by three of Mr. Ghomeshi's accusers: "that their "deceptive and manipulative" evidence raised a reasonable doubt in the guilt of Ghomeshi."
His aquittal is only one part of the story though. The judge also pointed out how: "...acquittal was not the same as asserting the events in question never happened." I wondered, did the judge believe Mr. Ghomeshi's accusers but based on the rule of law, found their testimony inadmissible?
Writing on the wall
Two years later Mr. Ghomeshi writes an essay in the The New York Review of Books. He talks about his fall from celebrity to outcast. I've read it several times and am confused for two reasons. Why did he write it and what is his message?
So why did he write it? He must have realized that no matter what he writes, it only adds fuel to the fire. The fact that he was never convicted at trial doesn't matter. Trial by social media doesn't work that way. At the same time, the Twitter crowd that thinks he is guilty and got away with it, is equally naive when they demand him to come clean. Nobody confesses when they are being handed a get out of jail for free card.
Even more mind boggling is trying to understand exactly what point Mr. Ghomeshi is trying to make. People don't need an essay to understand that there are consequences when you fall from grace. He talks about female friends who believe him, financial consequences and depression, but why is it important to share this with the world? What is his message? I don't think Mr. Ghomeshi has one and he is just venting his frustration.
To me, the real issue here is that the rule of laws doesn't necessarily equal justice. After all that has happened, no justice can be done. Innocence means that Mr. Ghomeshi's life is destroyed, where is the justice in that? Same thing if he is guilty, where is the justice for his victims?
A few days after the essay was published, the New York Review of Books editor resigned. While social media users may not like that Mr. Ghomeshi was given a platform, it's dangerous that free expression lets itself be muzzled by the anger of social media. Even if you don't like the rule of law, it should be respected. If you don't, what is left is cherry picking. Two recent high profile cases just show that.
Judge the judge
Mr. Kavanaugh is a candidate for the US Supreme Court, a job in which he will shape the United States just as much, if not more so than the President. During his nomination Christine Blasey Ford came forward accusing him of sexual harassment when she was 15. She spoke to her therapist about it years before judge Kavanaugh was such a public figure. There are notes to prove it, which make her case more credible.
The ruling Republican Party only has a short window to appoint judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court and they are in a hurry. Despite the fact that Professor Ford is still discussing the terms of her testimoney to Congress, majority leader Mitch McConnell said this Friday morning:
“Here’s what I want to tell you, in the very near future, Judge Kavanaugh will be on the U.S. Supreme Court. So, my friends, keep the faith. Don’t get rattled by all this. We’re going to plow right through it and do our job.”
Educate the professors
A second news story that shows just how selective public indignation is, happened at NY university. A former graduate student filed a complaint against a professor. The student accused the professor of sexual harassment over a period of several years. It doesn't matter that the professor is a woman and her student is male. In May fifty-one prominent academics, many of them feminist scholars signed a letter - meant to be kept secret - that "stressed Ronell’s fame and influence and focussed on the potential loss to N.Y.U.’s reputation if she were fired"
What makes it all the more surprising is that the letter opens with "Although we have no access to the confidential dossier..." the signees state that "and some of us know the individual who has waged this malicious campaign against her." It's the same thing all over, the accused is an upstanding citizen, meanwhile it's OK to assassinate the character of the accused. Opinions are not facts. Applying that same logic to the Kavanaugh case, makes you shiver.
So?
While Twitter looks back as it explodes over an article by Jian Ghomeshi, the important fight is right in front of us. If judge Kavanaugh is confirmed to the Supreme Court, there is a real chance that women's abortion rights in the US will be restricted. Better make sure the accusations have no merit before appointing him for life. Apart from media clickbait, the whole Ghomeshi story feels like bread and circusses. Win the fight and loose the war.
More on Jian Ghomeshi
|
No comments:
Post a Comment