|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What are we going to do about men in politics?
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
An American congresswoman is heroically trying to clean out the Augean stables that we call Capitol Hill. I think the only solution, especially in relatively closed environments like the government, is for the members themselves to step up and fix it.
Brenda the article stated than neither interns or fellows were covered by some of the protections mentioned. What are "fellows?".
Huia
I'm not sure, Huia. It's not a locution I remember hearing in this context. Interns are the unpaid, teenaged assistants; if you google around you can read of an older scandal of them being preyed on. Fellows may mean staffers, or some other group of lower-level munchkins. No one who works on Capitol Hill is covered by any of the labor or HR regs that apply to the rest of the United States; Congress carefully exempts themselves from all these laws and adjusts any regulations or procedures that do exist to tilt heavily in their favor.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
A media outlet in Canada called the minister of the environment "climate Barbie". She confronted one of the reporters. CBC link. A Conservative MP had picked up the name and used it in a Tweet. She named the problem. This is an example of what to do about misogynist and sexist bastards in politics. And no one should have to. I hope their family members tell them off.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
According to Internships, Fellowships, and Other Work Experience Opportunities in the Government (compiled by the Congressional Research Service):
quote:
The terms fellowship and internship are sometimes used interchangeably in the names of specific programs. Fellowships are generally intended for persons with advanced degrees or substantial professional experience and are usually salaried positions lasting nine months to a year or more. Internships, which are either salaried or volunteer short-term arrangements, usually require relatively little experience and are often filled by students.
Although they are sometimes confused with interns, congressional pages are high school students who serve Congress as messengers. The House page program ceased operations in August 2011, but the Senate still employs pages. For more information on the Senate page program, see its website.
...
Fellowships in congressional offices are offered by many organizations—such as the American Political Science Association (APSA), the American Psychological Association, and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers—which offer fellows exposure to public policy and the legislative process. Placement for these fellowships is generally not done through the Members’ or committees’ offices but instead through the sponsoring organizations.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
wild haggis
Shipmate
# 15555
|
Posted
In all this discussion, I think we have missed the main problem: the way men behave towards and treat women in the workplace, whether that is an office or Government.
If they showed respect they would not need to fear any lists. I don't think the media should be publishing lists anyway. In Britain you are innocent until proven otherwise. We seem to be developing trial by the media and that is wrong.
There is such a thing as good manners and respect and that seems to have been forgotten by many men (and some women too) and not just in politics.
The golden rule is that you should not handle anyone unless you know them very well and have their permission.
I remember travelling to work on a crowded London Tube train a few years ago. A man behind me started to rub my bum (not acceptable by anyone except hubby!). In those days I did not have arthritis. I was wearing heels. I gave him a good backward kick on the shins! That soon stopped it. If he had complained I would, in my loud primary teacher's playground voice, have broadcast what he had been up to. I didn't need to, the kick was enough. What gives a man the right to think he can rub a women, he doesn't know, bum? What kind of warped mind do some men have?
The problem in politics is that as someone in the lower echelons, often not paid, and wanting to develop a career there, you don't want to rock the boat for your future. There may be no one to complain to outside the office. Unlike school and churches, offices, hospitals in Britain Parliament doesn't seem to have a Code of Practice, Safeguarding Policy or Advocate people can go to without sabotaging their career. Why is that not in place? It should have been years ago.
The Government advised workplaces to have a whistle-blowing policy, but they seem to think that they don't need it and that they are above the law. It's not helped by all the bars and the subsidized alcohol (paid for by UK tax payers). What other work place allows you to drink on duty, have pubs on the premises and sometimes even turn up drunk! This needs changing. MPs should drink after work and pay the same price as everyone else. That would certainly help. Boozy men often think they have the right to do and say anything. Never mind the fact these people formulate our laws.
But it isn't just a problem in politics. People need to respect each other and keep their hands to themselves generally, unless they know the person well and know they don't mind being hugged or whatever.
What's the problem with that men?
--------------------
wild haggis
Posts: 166 | From: Cardiff | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wild haggis:
I remember travelling to work on a crowded London Tube train a few years ago. A man behind me started to rub my bum (not acceptable by anyone except hubby!). In those days I did not have arthritis. I was wearing heels. I gave him a good backward kick on the shins! That soon stopped it. If he had complained I would, in my loud primary teacher's playground voice, have broadcast what he had been up to. I didn't need to, the kick was enough.
Enough to stop him bothering you.
quote:
Boozy men often think they have the right to do and say anything. Never mind the fact these people formulate our laws.
Alcohol can alter the personality, but its main effect is to lower inhibition. So the fix is still the same.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Andrea Dworkin suggested the death penalty for rapists. I have no issue with this.
For bum-rubbing, I would certainly have the victim choose from a menu of penalties. Up to and including the amputation of a digit, let us say.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Andrea Dworkin suggested the death penalty for rapists. I have no issue with this.
I do. A rape conviction can be a he-said, she-said kind of thing. That's a slender thread to hang a state-sponsored murder on.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
And if there are four victims? Forty? At some point 'he said, she said' moves beyond the realm of possibility. Furthermore, if there are many victims a solid case could be made that the perpetrator is irredeemable and incurable.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And if there are four victims? Forty? At some point 'he said, she said' moves beyond the realm of possibility. Furthermore, if there are many victims a solid case could be made that the perpetrator is irredeemable and incurable.
Yeah, "Kill 'em all" said Jesus.
ETA:I've no sympathy for rapists.
[ 04. November 2017, 23:34: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
When the bad man does it with a weapon or violence, it's a little easier to consider doing them extreme violence. I've gotten over retaliatory dreams and fantasies of causing painful death. But they are fully understandable; if you don't understand them perhaps the trauma of it hasn't visited you or your's. Which frankly is one of the great evils such interpersonal violence: it pushes gentle people into rage and thoughts of great violence. They certainly don't jail men nearly long enough. Life is reasonable to prevent harm to others.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Brenda Clough quote:
Andrea Dworkin suggested the death penalty for rapists. I have no issue with this.
I do: killing people is wrong. It may make some people or states more comfortable to label one type of killing "murder" and another "execution" but taking a life is killing - giving it some sort of legal status doesn't alter that fact.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Executions and amputations? Struth, the Saudis will love this.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
When the bad man does it with a weapon or violence, it's a little easier to consider doing them extreme violence. I've gotten over retaliatory dreams and fantasies of causing painful death. But they are fully understandable; .
Understandable, but not acceptable. I've had more than my share of revenge fantasies and with good reason. But we hurt ourselves and our society when we operate on this desire for vengeance.
Lock them away forever, yes; but and eye for an eye will render us all blind.*
*with apologies to whomever I've lifted the phrase.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
On the intellectual plane, sure, not acceptable. On the emotional plane, very reasonable.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
At both the intellectual and emotional level, I would hate to live in a society where people were executed out of revenge fantasies. Actually, I would hate to live in a society where people were executed.
The justice system exists partly to avoid such fantasies being enacted.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Well if you insist, I would be good with life sentences with no parole. Hard labor, while we're at it.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Well if you insist, I would be good with life sentences with no parole. Hard labor, while we're at it.
This sounds like a Trump tweet.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Eh? I hit send too fast, otherwise I would have added that my own clement and pliable nature will be the death of me, some day.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quetzalcoatl:
You appear to misunderstand the emotional response people have to such interpersonal violence. Yes, indeed, the rule of law and control of vengeance is a feature of society which controls this. But the emotional aspects don't simply vanish because a court has sentenced a violent rapist to 4-6 years (pretty standard Canadian tariff). Because the suffering of victim and their loved ones, such sentences serve to increase the emotional response. It is part of the spreading evil of someone doing terrible violence that causes those who've been harmed find themselves forming violent and disturbing emotionally-based ideas toward the rapist. This is what is understandable. Everyone will agree (at least because they know it is the right answer) that actually enacting the violent fantasies isn't acceptable, but I'll be damned if I'll pretend this aspect of humanity doesn't exist.
In Canada, when someone has harmed repeatedly, the Crown prosecutor may apply for indefinite lock-up as a "dangerous offender", There is a fall back of "long term offender" which involves 10 years of monitoring in the community. From the data I've seen, we'd be better for rapists to have life sentences which include the corrections system being able to determine the level of supervision: lock-up, placement in the community under electronic monitoring, and if risk rises, back to lock-up. Thus no time-based sequencing of anything. I'd apply this to the "stranger rapists", violent rapes causing physical injury, and repeat rapists. The point is control of future harm, not vengeance. But we certainly feel the vengeance.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would hate to live in a society where people were executed out of revenge fantasies.
Those of us who live in the US already live in such a society; it just hasn't been institutionalized yet.
Apparently the Sutherland Springs shooter wished to avenge himself on his mother-in-law's church.
As a rape survivor, I can't support such extreme penalties as death or life without parole. Too many of us subscribe to the belief that rape permanently and utterly destroys its victims. That this is sometimes true ignores the fact that most victims recover and move on with their lives. They may be changed -- I was -- but are not necessarily done in by the trauma.
--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free
Posts: 374 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Carl Sargeant, the Welsh Labour minister who had been stood down to face allegations about his behaviour, has been found dead.
Tried, convicted and shamed on the strength of allegations.
My view is this - and this is based on dealing with something like this - is that all accusations should be treated seriously but the climate where all accusers are automatically believed needs to stop. Now.
The problem is that the police all treat the accusation as if the crime has actually happened and so, when condicting the investigation following the arrest, they only look at evidence that supports the allegation. This is true. I have experienced it for someone in my congregation.
People - including me (and I was on the premises when the rime allegedly took place!) were left unquestioned, the scene of the 'crime' was not inspected. Nothing that could possibly be used in defence was considered and so the defence had little to go on.
It's little more than a witch hunt and now a bloke has killed himself.
What a shame.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Obviously this death is a tragedy - but unless I have missed something - this guy was not subjected to prolonged monstering by the press or anyone else. Allegations were made, he was suspended for an investigation to take place.
It is terribly sad that he reacted in this way, and we do not know what vulnerabilities he may have that led him to despair - but I don't think we know that he was mistreated in the process of the investigation.
(Also, mudfrog, afaik - this case was never at a level that required referral to the police.)
[ 07. November 2017, 18:48: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
As a rape survivor, I can't support such extreme penalties as death or life without parole. Too many of us subscribe to the belief that rape permanently and utterly destroys its victims. That this is sometimes true ignores the fact that most victims recover and move on with their lives. They may be changed -- I was -- but are not necessarily done in by the trauma.
At my worst moments I had fantasies of dire revenge, but I knew they were fantasies and most of them had cartoon flavour of Roadrunner and Wiley Coyote about them. I don't believe in the death penalty, (NZ hasn't had it since about 1959) and even if I did, the years of processing it, the arguments and appeals would have mired me in the past and made recovery and moving on far more difficult.
Huia
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I think this piece is very good, in relation to the call to believe women - and what that actually means in terms of press reporting.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Obviously this death is a tragedy - but unless I have missed something - this guy was not subjected to prolonged monstering by the press or anyone else. Allegations were made, he was suspended for an investigation to take place.
It is terribly sad that he reacted in this way, and we do not know what vulnerabilities he may have that led him to despair - but I don't think we know that he was mistreated in the process of the investigation.
(Also, mudfrog, afaik - this case was never at a level that required referral to the police.)
No indeed, I had never heard of him until his death was reported but, quite tellingly, on the radio this morning it was reported that although he was suspended he was not told what the allegations against him actually were, and although the solicitor had demanded from the party that they give those details, the poor man took his own life without ever finding out what he was supposed to have done wrong.
In conversation with friends he had vowed he would clear his name but felt - and this is the most significant point in this whole discussion - he felt that he had already been found guilty in this whole process.
It appears that the leader of his party may well now be under extreme pressure because of the decisions that were made in this case and in the way the allegations and the suspension were handled.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think this piece is very good, in relation to the call to believe women - and what that actually means in terms of press reporting.
Very good.
I was concerned to hear a case where the police had decided there was enough evidence to convict the alleged (*cough*) perpetrator of the abuse.
I'm sorry? Is it the police's duty or privilege to decide on that?
Surely it's for the police to decide if there's enough evidence to
arrest somebody.
It is for the magistrate to decide if there's enough evidence to send a suspect for trial, and for the jury to decide if there is enough evidence to convict.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I don't know anything about any case that's in the public eye at the moment.
However it seems to me that there is scope for blackmail and/or revenge in making claims about things that happened many years ago.
I don't know how anyone is to navigate this. On the one hand, women who say things should be believed. On the other, how is anyone going to prove something that happened x years ago? On the other other, how is a woman going to get justice when they've been powerless to do anything about it before now? On the other other other, how does a person accused protect or defend themselves against malicious accounts?
I don't know. It's a huge horrible black hole where no option going forward is good.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'm sorry? Is it the police's duty or privilege to decide on that?
Surely it's for the police to decide if there's enough evidence to
arrest somebody.
It is for the magistrate to decide if there's enough evidence to send a suspect for trial, and for the jury to decide if there is enough evidence to convict.
There are various check-and-balances in the system. The first is the police - if they don't think there is enough evidence they won't arrest an individual.
The next is the Crown Prosecution Service. If they don't think there is a realistic chance of prosecution, they won't go forward with a case.
The next is the courts.
I'm not sure we want a system where the police charge and bring to court everyone, even if the evidence is very slight. For one thing, I don't know that the courts could handle the number of prosecutions.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't know how anyone is to navigate this. On the one hand, women who say things should be believed.
No.
This is the problem.
When a woman is believed just in her accusation that means automatically that the accused is seen as guilty and that what he says is disbelieved.
That entirely removes 'innocent until proven guilty' and, as I said, believing the allegation even at the stage of accusation and before the arrest, means that the investigating police officer will then only look for evidence to corroborate the allegation and will ignore any evidence that does not uphold the 'truth' of the accusation.
What should happen is that an accusation is listened to, taken seriously and acted upon.
To automatically believe an allegation is to damn the accused even before he is arrested; and this is exactly what we are seeing.
I would also like a new law to be introduced that says an accused person cannot be suspended on account of an accusation, cannot be named on account of an accusation; rather they should only be named and suspended when an actual charge is made against them.
It can be months before an accused is actually charged with a crime; and they will be named, suspended from work, or even church, and deemed to be guilty by law enforcement, the media and the public. It should be at the point of being charged, not arrested that these things should be done.
I have spoken to women in the last few days and without exception they are all horrified, think this is a witchhunt and say that soon men will be afraid to leave the house because of these accusations of sexual abuse that amount to little more than touching a leg: words of women, not my words.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No.
This is the problem.
When a woman is believed just in her accusation that means automatically that the accused is seen as guilty and that what he says is disbelieved.
I don't know Mudfrog. I'm not sure I want to get into a debate about this, but surely there is a problem when someone reports a rape and the initial reaction of the police is "ok, so prove it. Convince me."
It throws up all kinds of complicated and uncomfortable things which make the whole thing extremely hard to prosecute - such as barristers badgering witnesses about their sexual history to show that they are not credible.
quote:
That entirely removes 'innocent until proven guilty' and, as I said, believing the allegation even at the stage of accusation and before the arrest, means that the investigating police officer will then only look for evidence to corroborate the allegation and will ignore any evidence that does not uphold the 'truth' of the accusation.
Explain to me exactly what the police should do if someone comes to them in extreme distress and saying that someone has raped them. It was a while ago so there is no physical evidence. So what then?
Either one believes them (at least initially) and moves forward on the assumption that it is true or tends to say that they disbelieve them until they can come up with convincing evidence.
Neither is a great position to be in, but I'd have thought more belief of people saying that they'd been attacked in the initial stages of an investigation might have uncovered Savile (etc) sooner.
quote:
What should happen is that an accusation is listened to, taken seriously and acted upon.
To automatically believe an allegation is to damn the accused even before he is arrested; and this is exactly what we are seeing.
I'm not sure it is. But I'm also not sure I really want to continue with this line of discussion thanks all the same.
quote:
I would also like a new law to be introduced that says an accused person cannot be suspended on account of an accusation, cannot be named on account of an accusation; rather they should only be named and suspended when an actual charge is made against them.
That seems problematic to me.
quote:
It can be months before an accused is actually charged with a crime; and they will be named, suspended from work, or even church, and deemed to be guilty by law enforcement, the media and the public. It should be at the point of being charged, not arrested that these things should be done.
Maybe. But then I'm not sure suspension in most jobs is about the legal stuff as much as the whole "look" of the thing. When someone is obviously under investigation, the spotlight is taken off of the thing/job they're supposed to be doing and onto them as a person. Which in politics in particular is not good.
quote:
I have spoken to women in the last few days and without exception they are all horrified, think this is a witchhunt and say that soon men will be afraid to leave the house because of these accusations of sexual abuse that amount to little more than touching a leg: words of women, not my words.
I've heard some similar things - although I think there is also truth in the thought that the leg-touching is evidence of a systematic misogenist attitude in parliament and that although it may not have been very serious in-and-of-itself, as part of an ongoing sexualised environment whereby men seem to think they can get sexual favours is problematic.
I think it would be quite nice if everyone in Westminster kept their hands to themselves, or at very least touched people lightly on the shoulder to show affection. In my limited interaction with MPs I've noticed several times that they can be extremely touchy-feely with women, which seems unnecessary.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I would also like a new law to be introduced that says an accused person cannot be suspended on account of an accusation, cannot be named on account of an accusation".
While I agree in principle, this would be difficult if the allegation was so serious and probably true that there might be a real danger of a (further) crime being committed.
quote:
They should only be named and suspended when an actual charge is made against them.
Certainly agree about the naming ... and possibly not even when the charge is brought, if they are to get a fair hearing. Problem is, the media soon cotton on to what's happening and drop brought hints such as "a 56 year old man from Acacia Avenue"; and, of course, it only takes one person to Tweet or Facebook and the secret is out.
I'm very unhappy with the current situation as anyone who has a grievance, real or imagined, can lash out and make an allegation which is totally false, causing untold grief. Believe me, I've seen it happen. IMO no allegation should be taken seriously unless (a) it is both seriously and provable and/or (b) several separate allegations are made by unconnected individuals - which is not at all the same as naming someone and inviting other victims to come forward.
It strikes me that the classic case is of a male doctor or teacher upon whom a female makes advances. He quite rightly declines those advances, at which point the disgruntled woman or girl claims that he tried to assault her. It's one word against another ... but mud sticks.
[ 08. November 2017, 11:01: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
beatmenace
Shipmate
# 16955
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan.
It strikes me that the classic case is of a male doctor or teacher upon whom a female makes advances. He quite rightly declines those advances, at which point the disgruntled woman or girl claims that he tried to assault her. It's one word against another ... but mud sticks.
Another good reason why there is a dearth of people going into teaching. I've found it doesn't take long at all to find a teacher this has happened to.
[ 08. November 2017, 11:50: Message edited by: beatmenace ]
Posts: 297 | From: Whitley Bay | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I know of a teacher who was at my sons' school a number of years ago.
An 8 year old girl accused him of touching her.
He was immediately suspended, the entire community was outraged that he had done this unforgivable thing - you can imagine a whole community of mothers and the hatred that was coming from them.
The poor bloke had a complete breakdown.
The girl then confessed that she'd lied because he'd told her off in class.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
That is of course the classic defense: women are liars, you can't believe their accusations. This is an accusation with deep historical roots. You can quite see why it discourages women with real grievances from stepping forward.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I know of a teacher who was at my sons' school a number of years ago.
An 8 year old girl accused him of touching her.
He was immediately suspended, the entire community was outraged that he had done this unforgivable thing - you can imagine a whole community of mothers and the hatred that was coming from them.
The poor bloke had a complete breakdown.
The girl then confessed that she'd lied because he'd told her off in class.
I'm sorry, but this is type of bullˢʰᶦᵗ used to ignore solving real issues.* Men would imply that this happens often when statistic back the reverse conclusion. Adding a child into the equation is playing to sympathy.
Everyone should be innocent until proven guilty. ✔
Accusation ≠ guilt. ✔
Accusations should be private until charges are made. Yeah, this one is problematic.
The Wienstien case shows why. The courage to bring a public charge gave others the courage to speak. If the first charge were brought to a court and failed, all the other victims would have been discouraged to speak out.
Suspension should wait until charges are brought. Also problematic. In cases where no further harm is likely, possibly. But there are situations where harm might be continued and those where ignoring the accusation feeds the attitude of dismissal which has so long plagued abuse cases.
*Not saying that what allegedly happened is OK, it would not be.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Well, it is a conundrum. I remember at the time of the Orkney satanic abuse case going to a training course re child protection policies in local churches. At one of those cases a social worker said, quite categorically, that children making accusations of abuse "should always be believed".
Greatly daring, I mentioned Arthur Millers "The Crucible" as a dramatic illustration that children might make false accusations for reasons of their own. The next few minutes were embarrassing - for me. All I was trying to do was argue that people of any age who alleged they were victims of a sexual assault should always be treated seriously, listened to without judgment. But "always" was a dangerous word in this context. It gave an accuser power (the point of "The Crucible").
The evidence that I have seen strongly suggests that the vast majority of accusations of serious sexual assault(over 90% in most studies) are indeed truthful. The studies themselves are problematical.
See here.
But that of itself cannot shift the burden of proof. Like Mudfrog, I know of one case of false accusation which caused very serious damage to the accused. But I know a good many others where the accusations were indeed found to be true. Based on my own experience, a non-representative sample, accusers are predominantly truthful. For justice to be served, the only safe way is case by case testing.
So far as suspension is concerned, the employer has no choice during the investigation, particularly if others, particularly minors are judged to be at risk. There is an obvious duty of care. So far as privacy of the accused is concerned, I don't see how that can be managed.
Personally, I think people should be prepared to await the results of investigations and trials, live with the uncertainty. We don't need to have an instant opinion on everything.
But it is a conundrum. If over 90% of the time, the victim is the victim, but up to 10% of the time the victim is the accused, how is that to be handled? Since we are not in a position to know for sure?
"Always" doesn't seem to be a safe word in these cases.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Most sexual assaults are not reported because the investigation and trial processes provide for copious secondary trauma of reliving and being attacked about the details of everything. Even in jurisdictions with "rape shield" laws where past reputation and behaviour is illegal to ask, the boundaries are case-to-case about what may be asked.
I think the best approach is preventative. Like publicizing behavioural advice: "If you are hiring someone for a job, don't have sex with them as part of the interview."
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
The evidence that I have seen strongly suggests that the vast majority of accusations of serious sexual assault(over 90% in most studies) are indeed truthful. The studies themselves are problematical.
For a limited definition of problematic, perhaps. The only problem I see is exact percentage, not general accuracy of the studies. IOW, whether the studies are off by a few percentage points either way doesn't change that the majority of accusations are valid.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
"Always" doesn't seem to be a safe word in these cases.
It depends on the sentence. Always take the accusation as undeniable fact? No. Always take it seriously? Yes.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No.
This is the problem.
When a woman is believed just in her accusation that means automatically that the accused is seen as guilty and that what he says is disbelieved.
That entirely removes 'innocent until proven guilty' ....
I believe the complete phrase is "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law". Many, many people don't seem to understand that finding a defendant guilty in a court of law requires a number of factors, not just establishing that the defendant committed the criminal act. One challenge in prosecuting a sexual assault is proving the "guilty mind". All a defendant has to say is, 'I thought s/he wanted it' and there's your reasonable doubt. It's like the "I feared for my life" defense for cops.
But if that doesn't work, or if the judge believes the defendant is lying,
quote:
The so-called W.(D.) test, set out by the Supreme Court in 1991, allows for an acquittal if a court has a reasonable doubt based on the totality of the evidence, even if the trier of fact does not believe the testimony of the accused. This has resulted in scores of trial judgments over the years, where judges say in written reasons that the defendant is “probably guilty,” but they must acquit.
The trouble with sex assault trials
Mudfrog's concerns about limited investigation apply to any crime, not just sexual assault. It is a risk in any investigation as soon as a suspect is identified. In the Canadian justice system, it is up to the Crown prosecutors to decide whether a) there is enough evidence to warrant a charge and b) whether there is a reasonable chance of a conviction. It is also up to a judge to determine whether the accused should be detained before trial or be released with or without conditions. To be fair, Mudfrog's suggestions would be greeted with joy by the thousands of "innocent" people in custody.
As for this:
quote:
... soon men will be afraid to leave the house ...
Now you know what it is like.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, I was just thinking that the risk of the innocent being accused occurs with many crimes, not just sexual ones. If I am accused of serious fraud, my reputation will suffer a lot. Should the police and courts therefore not investigate?
We have to be careful, as these stories of witch-hunts against men are classic methods of discrediting women, and the campaign against sexual harassment.
At the moment, the backlash is not all that strong, but it could gather pace, in a campaign to negate the anti-harassment struggle.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It depends on the sentence. Always take the accusation as undeniable fact? No. Always take it seriously? Yes.
Yes, that's my position exactly. It is much more likely too be truthful than not.
So far as the stats are concerned, I understand why they are problematic, from the viewpoint of statistical rigour. But the different studies all point towards predominant truthfulness.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It depends on the sentence. Always take the accusation as undeniable fact? No. Always take it seriously? Yes.
Yes, that's my position exactly. It is much more likely too be truthful than not.
So far as the stats are concerned, I understand why they are problematic, from the viewpoint of statistical rigour. But the different studies all point towards predominant truthfulness.
All true. But you can't send someone to prison based on statistics.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Exactly.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
As for this:
quote:
... soon men will be afraid to leave the house ...
Now you know what it is like.
No, actually he doesn't. Because even if his "Oh no's the false accusations" were accurate, it isn't a phenomenon limited to men. And he still doesn't have to worry about actually being raped nearly anywhere, being groped at work,* denied promotion or even a job, etc.
*Yes, I know, these do happen to men. But not nearly as often and typically by other men. And most men I know do not worry about it, but most women do.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
even if his "Oh no's the false accusations" were accurate, it isn't a phenomenon limited to men. And he still doesn't have to worry about actually being raped nearly anywhere, being groped at work,* denied promotion or even a job, etc.
You'll have heard of Blackstone's ratio - better that 10 guilty people go unpunished than that one innocent person be punished.
You may or may not agree with that in the case of "ordinary" crimes. Like theft, where you as an individual run both the risk of someone stealing from you and getting away with it, and the risk of being wrongly accused.
Seems to me that the problem comes when people want to apply different rules to "gendered" crimes where someone's gender means that - to a first approximation - they run one risk and not the other.
Because if you change your mind about the relative acceptability of those two risks in the direction that your self-interest dictates, isn't that a contemptible double standard ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
You'll have heard of Blackstone's ratio - better that 10 guilty people go unpunished than that one innocent person be punished.
You may or may not agree with that in the case of "ordinary" crimes. Like theft, where you as an individual run both the risk of someone stealing from you and getting away with it, and the risk of being wrongly accused.
Seems to me that the problem comes when people want to apply different rules to "gendered" crimes where someone's gender means that - to a first approximation - they run one risk and not the other.
Because if you change your mind about the relative acceptability of those two risks in the direction that your self-interest dictates, isn't that a contemptible double standard ?
Predictable try, but rubbish. The problem is that sexual abuse/assault already has a different rule, one that we would see removed.
If we could see such crimes reduced to the level of Blackstone's ratio, it would be progress.
It is a contemptible dodge to suggest that victims receive most of the preferential treatment.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
You'll have heard of Blackstone's ratio - better that 10 guilty people go unpunished than that one innocent person be punished. ...
Blackstone seems to work better for rapists than burglars or barfighters. Crimes against corporations get dedicated police teams and prosecutors and 80-90% are solved. And innocent people do get punished.
The criminal justice system is biased, and it is biased by gender, race, and a whole host of other factors. It is not a double standard to demand the same standard of justice for people of all genders and all races, whether victim or suspect, whatever the crime.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No.
This is the problem.
When a woman is believed just in her accusation that means automatically that the accused is seen as guilty and that what he says is disbelieved. [/QB]
That's not borne out by the statistics. Few of men accused of rape are brought to trial, and few who are brought to trial are convicted.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
It's always about the accused's rights and ensuring they get everything about process. Court is very traumatizing for victims, usually experienced as a trial against them. There is no real due process for them. Even if they don't testify, they get subpoenas and have to show up, do nothing but wait, expecting to testify, and then get sent home, possibly seeing the attacker in the hallways of the court room, or their family. Very upsetting and re-traumatizing.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
