Another good article. I was not surprised at Carl Benjamin’s take, but I expected more of Kissin. It seems to me that he’s the one who doesn’t understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Demanding that women can only speak of their experiences after a man has been tried and found guilty, or during a harrowing court case, is ludicrous. It seems their free speech commitments go out the window pretty quickly.
I truly believe men just can’t get it. Not really. But the women who are sure he’s innocent and being persecuted are more disappointing to me. I think Louise Perry is right that it’s framed as a legal issue always because we’ve lost the vocabulary to discuss sexual predators any other way. Which invites taking sides in an adversarial framework. Women need to be warned about the Bluebeards because they are often extremely seductive and charming in person. A girl can see the signs but ignore them because he’s not evil. The emotional damage of sexual abuse is not obvious and it’s coated in shame. Especially when you really liked him and he made you feel used and violated. Anyway, the men (and women) calling for innocent until guilty aren’t extending the same good faith witholding of judgement to the women, just like they were very quick to call Amber Heard a liar. Why assume they are guilty of defaming him to ‘bring him down’. Where is their presumption of innocence?
Many perspicacious observations in this article, well said. One of the things to bear in mind about these men who cry foul over allegations of sexual assaults against other men, particularly in the current climate, is that to do otherwise invites people to examine their oeuvre of public works for examples of hypocrisy. Peterson, Zuby, et al would much rather have the "presumption of innocence" card available to play and be played for them should they find themselves in Brand's position.
The wagons certainly do circle powerful/famous/rich men very quickly, and - as you say - by both men and women. Men who are none of these things, however, are much more likely to get the full force of society's disgust, although, truthfully there's no guarantee of that, either.
Dear Edie, This is a rant! You say: “Women are being told they must extend the presumption of innocence to men generally in society.” That is a biased way of looking at the justice system. It would be fairer to say: “People are told they must extend the presumption of innocence to people generally in society.”
Also when you talk about “the allegations that are being labelled at Brand”, don’t you mean “the allegations that are being levelled at Brand”?
Considering that members of UK House of Commons have written a letter (on the Commons' official stationery) to Rumble execs to convince them to demonetize Brand's videos, it would be quite a stretch NOT to believe that there is something seriously fishy behind the Brand case. They want to do their best to take away sources of livelihood from someone our so-called justice system hasn't even accused of a crime. All the legislators guilty of this horrific violation deserve to be barred forever from any public office. In the justice system we purport to have, a person is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik, who killed 77 people, most of them teenagers, on July 22, 2011, was sentenced to 21 years in prison, because that's the max punishment for murder allowed in Norway. It seems woefully insufficient, doesn't it? In 2033 he will have served his sentence for killing 77 people. Majority of Norwegians would have been happy to see Breivik hung in the public square on July 23rd, 2011. But that's the price we pay for a "justice system." Not perfect, not always just, but it's the best we've come up with so far.
I'm not against the presumption of innocence where it belongs but to use it to tell rape women to shut up I'm afraid you are leaning into rape apology here, which is also a bit fishy.
Another good article. I was not surprised at Carl Benjamin’s take, but I expected more of Kissin. It seems to me that he’s the one who doesn’t understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Demanding that women can only speak of their experiences after a man has been tried and found guilty, or during a harrowing court case, is ludicrous. It seems their free speech commitments go out the window pretty quickly.
I truly believe men just can’t get it. Not really. But the women who are sure he’s innocent and being persecuted are more disappointing to me. I think Louise Perry is right that it’s framed as a legal issue always because we’ve lost the vocabulary to discuss sexual predators any other way. Which invites taking sides in an adversarial framework. Women need to be warned about the Bluebeards because they are often extremely seductive and charming in person. A girl can see the signs but ignore them because he’s not evil. The emotional damage of sexual abuse is not obvious and it’s coated in shame. Especially when you really liked him and he made you feel used and violated. Anyway, the men (and women) calling for innocent until guilty aren’t extending the same good faith witholding of judgement to the women, just like they were very quick to call Amber Heard a liar. Why assume they are guilty of defaming him to ‘bring him down’. Where is their presumption of innocence?
Many perspicacious observations in this article, well said. One of the things to bear in mind about these men who cry foul over allegations of sexual assaults against other men, particularly in the current climate, is that to do otherwise invites people to examine their oeuvre of public works for examples of hypocrisy. Peterson, Zuby, et al would much rather have the "presumption of innocence" card available to play and be played for them should they find themselves in Brand's position.
The wagons certainly do circle powerful/famous/rich men very quickly, and - as you say - by both men and women. Men who are none of these things, however, are much more likely to get the full force of society's disgust, although, truthfully there's no guarantee of that, either.
Dear Edie, This is a rant! You say: “Women are being told they must extend the presumption of innocence to men generally in society.” That is a biased way of looking at the justice system. It would be fairer to say: “People are told they must extend the presumption of innocence to people generally in society.”
Also when you talk about “the allegations that are being labelled at Brand”, don’t you mean “the allegations that are being levelled at Brand”?
I wasn't talking about the justice system and I made a grammatical error, yes I see that makes it a rant. I doubt you'd say that to a man.
Where in my comment am I telling "rape[d] women to shut up"?
Considering that members of UK House of Commons have written a letter (on the Commons' official stationery) to Rumble execs to convince them to demonetize Brand's videos, it would be quite a stretch NOT to believe that there is something seriously fishy behind the Brand case. They want to do their best to take away sources of livelihood from someone our so-called justice system hasn't even accused of a crime. All the legislators guilty of this horrific violation deserve to be barred forever from any public office. In the justice system we purport to have, a person is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik, who killed 77 people, most of them teenagers, on July 22, 2011, was sentenced to 21 years in prison, because that's the max punishment for murder allowed in Norway. It seems woefully insufficient, doesn't it? In 2033 he will have served his sentence for killing 77 people. Majority of Norwegians would have been happy to see Breivik hung in the public square on July 23rd, 2011. But that's the price we pay for a "justice system." Not perfect, not always just, but it's the best we've come up with so far.
I'm not against the presumption of innocence where it belongs but to use it to tell rape women to shut up I'm afraid you are leaning into rape apology here, which is also a bit fishy.