|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Do we pressure men into sexual misconduct?
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
And what happens in the Geoffrey Rush case, to which Orfeo and I have referred? As an actor seeking new roles, what tribunal can say that he's been unjustly not chosen for a role because of this unspecified and anonymous assertion and is therefore entitled to compensation by the theatre?
We are familiar with how hard it is to prove systematic discrimination against classes of people (cf. housing owners not renting to black people). It is very much harder to prove systematic discrimination against a particular individual.
Did I not cast that actor because of some rumours about him, or did I just not think he was quite right for the part? Proof is almost impossible.
Similarly, did I not cast that actor because he or she didn't offer sexual favours? It's pretty hard to prove anything.
[ 05. December 2017, 20:53: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm curious to know what would happen if someone was fired in the UK for an accusation that was false. I'd guess that they could try taking it to a tribunal to claim unfair dismissal, but I'm not sure what standard of proof is required.
I'm not sure what happens if a fired employee goes to an employment tribunal saying that they don't believe that the employer had any proof or basis for firing them.
And what happens in the Geoffrey Rush case, to which Orfeo and I have referred? As an actor seeking new roles, what tribunal can say that he's been unjustly not chosen for a role because of this unspecified and anonymous assertion and is therefore entitled to compensation by the theatre?
An accusation was made, he decided to step down whilst it is looked into. It is, currently, a minor inconvenience to him. The course of action taken by him, and accepted by the AACTA, is a reasonable and mature one.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
This really sidesteps the point: an employee can go to a tribunal and seek compensation if wrongly dismissed, or if not employed because of unlawful discrimination. But Mr Rush is not an employee, and who's to know why he is not invited to take any role? No tribunal to go to for him.
As to the balance of the post - what is being looked in to and by whom? I've not seen any announcement of one. All we know is that the Sydney Theatre Company (to which we are subscribers, BTW) received an allegation of misconduct from a person who wishes to remain anonymous. Rush is not told of this allegation but an employee of the STC tells a member of the press that one was received. Rush still does not know what it is that he is alleged to have done and to whom. Scarcely fair play by the STC, I'd say.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
This really sidesteps the point: an employee can go to a tribunal and seek compensation if wrongly dismissed, or if not employed because of unlawful discrimination. But Mr Rush is not an employee, and who's to know why he is not invited to take any role? No tribunal to go to for him.
Acting is temporary, one is not an employee of a company after a job is over as you note, so how would a tribunal work? It is a real problem, though one that has traditionally worked against the abused.
quote:
As to the balance of the post - what is being looked in to and by whom? I've not seen any announcement of one.
Rush's statement seems to imply one
quote:
In the circumstances, I have decided to step aside in my ambassadorial role as president of AACTA effective immediately and until these issues have been resolved
however it isn't definitive, so there may not yet be one.
quote:
Scarcely fair play by the STC, I'd say.
If the accusation is never revealed, then yes. At the moment it is too early to make your accusation.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Too early!!!!!! The accusation was made to the STC 21 months ago, and as at the breaking of the story late last week, the STC had not told Rush. There's nothing to suggest that they have done so since or are just relying upon the furore as a being sufficient. So he still does not know who has made the assertions, what he is supposed to have done and when. Nor is there any suggestion that the STC has been making any investigation of its own.
In my book, that's totally unfair given that a newspaper reporter was told that an accusation had been made.
[ 06. December 2017, 04:41: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The risk of false accusation is something that accompanies any issue where there is accusation. This issue is no different. Tell me why it is being treated as if it is.
Well, because I don't think there are many other issues that one can be accused of something, see their lives collapse around their ears before any proof has been weighed and/or any judicial and legal decision has been made.
The only thing I can come up with at the moment is when a teacher is accused of child abuse.
I think the issue of false allegations is becoming increasingly important in the world of corporate whistleblowing. On the one hand, big corporate scandals have led for public calls for greater protection for whistleblowers (which could include guaranteed compensation or even - as I think is already the case in the US - financial incentives to blow the whistle) greater protection for whistleblowers inevitably increases the risk of false accusations by colleagues with a grudge.
A similarity with the sexual harassment issue is that in the past, the dice has seemed to be weighted against the whistleblower (especially in medicine, where blowing the whistle on even deadly misconduct by colleagues is effectively a one-way ticket to Australia - because you'll never work in the UK again). But now the concern is that correcting this historic imbalance will result in a tip in the other direction.
On the whole, I think safer whistleblowing routes are a good thing. But OTOH, it must be awful to be suspended from work pending investigation and not be entitled to know what you're accused of, who has accused you etc etc.
In both cases - sexual harassment and corporate misconduct - I would support a lot more research into the rates of both false accusations *and* of victims/potential whistleblowers choosing not to make a complaint/blow the whistle, to try and get closer to understanding what the real prevalence is of both. However I appreciate that this could be complex and expensive.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
In the airline industry, if something happens and there's an 'incident', then everyone has to report in. Ground crew, flight crew, manufacturers, air traffic control. Consequently, air safety is as good as it gets.
In medicine (and especially surgery), no such protocols apply. If the surgeon turns up drunk, then no one has to report them.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The thing that I fear, and am seeing here, is the attitude that "Well, some innocent men are going to go down, but that's just the price we as a society pay for finally hearing women's voices. Sucks to be male. We've been dealing with this since forever. Get over it." My mind keeps going back to the early Soviet Union, and people ratting on their neighbors for being "kulaks."
We on the left speak out against fascism, until it benefits (or seems to benefit) us. Then it's peachy keen, suck it up buttercup.
Fortunately some female voices have risen up against this attitude.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The thing that I fear, and am seeing here, is the attitude that "Well, some innocent men are going to go down, but that's just the price we as a society pay for finally hearing women's voices. Sucks to be male. We've been dealing with this since forever. Get over it."
Yes and no. Innocent people being accused is a price of addressing crimes/behaviour. It does suck, but it is impossible to avoid unless we choose to not address crimes/behaviour at all.
In other words, to spare all innocent men, no guilty ones will face any consequences.
The only real issue here is trying to assure that percentage is as low as practical. This is not how it works for any other issue, though it should be. I am also pointing out the hypocrisy of those who have not called for caution in any other issue before they were potentially affected.
And I would point out, again, whilst there is a flood of #meetoo, there is not a flood of direct accusation.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Too early!!!!!! The accusation was made to the STC 21 months ago,
Nothing I've read says this. The alleged incident was 21 months ago, it appears that the accusation is more recent.
This particular incident does illustrate how problematic the entire issue is. Typically, a victim risks their career by making an accusation. This is an entertainment industry fact. If the accuser of Rush is in fact sincere, s/he might be hoping other victims come forth in support and minimise the risk.
If no other accuser steps forth and this one and his/her accusation remains nebulous, Rush's career will likely not suffer. One of his costars in a major film franchise continues to get roles despite domestic abuse allegations.
None of this is going to be fair in every case.
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The thing that I fear, and am seeing here, is the attitude that "Well, some innocent men are going to go down, but that's just the price we as a society pay for finally hearing women's voices. Sucks to be male. We've been dealing with this since forever. Get over it." My mind keeps going back to the early Soviet Union, and people ratting on their neighbors for being "kulaks." .
That is a real and valid fear.
My parallel fear is that all this moshing together of everything from juvenile pranks to underage rape/ exposure of almost every prominent male figure will lead instead to "well, this is just what boys do. Nothing to see here". Which, given the latest poll numbers for Roy Moore, seems to be exactly what is happening.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
If you look closely at that Time magazine cover, you can see that the image has been cropped. There's a woman to the right side of the shot who can be only be discerned by her elbow and a chunk of skirt. She's a Me-Too person who does not dare show her face or reveal her name -- she will lose her job.
So do remember that men possibly losing their jobs is balanced by many women fearing the same.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
None of this is going to be fair in every case.
Again, I have seen, and indeed (in my time and to my shame) participated in, causes in which damaging other people was waved away by some as acceptable "collateral damage" in pursuit of a higher aim.
If the cause doesn't have a mechanism to provide some sort of checks and balances to that kind of thinking, it's fanaticism.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
My parallel fear is that all this moshing together of everything from juvenile pranks to underage rape/ exposure of almost every prominent male figure will lead instead to "well, this is just what boys do. Nothing to see here". Which, given the latest poll numbers for Roy Moore, seems to be exactly what is happening.
Except I don’t think that’s what Roy Moore’s poll numbers are showing. Everything I have seen out of that race and the poll numbers indicates that voters do think that there is something to see, but greater importance is being given to political pragmatism. Voters seem to be saying that at the end of the day, it’s preferable to elect a Republican whom they can count to vote the way they want him to than to elect a Democrat who won’t, even if they’d never want that Republican candidate alone with their daughters.
Well, it’s that plus a dash of “those Yankees aren’t going to tell us how to vote.”
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
My parallel fear is that all this moshing together of everything from juvenile pranks to underage rape/ exposure of almost every prominent male figure will lead instead to "well, this is just what boys do. Nothing to see here". Which, given the latest poll numbers for Roy Moore, seems to be exactly what is happening.
Except I don’t think that’s what Roy Moore’s poll numbers are showing. Everything I have seen out of that race and the poll numbers indicates that voters do think that there is something to see, but greater importance is being given to political pragmatism. Voters seem to be saying that at the end of the day, it’s preferable to elect a Republican whom they can count to vote the way they want him to than to elect a Democrat who won’t, even if they’d never want that Republican candidate alone with their daughters.
Well, it’s that plus a dash of “those Yankees aren’t going to tell us how to vote.”
I'm not seeing that as a whole lot different from what I described above. "Child rape may be bad, but it's not as bad as the possibility of our (assuming you're very rich) taxes going up if a Dem is elected..."
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm not seeing that as a whole lot different from what I described above. "Child rape may be bad, but it's not as bad as the possibility of our (assuming you're very rich) taxes going up if a Dem is elected..."
I see it as very different, for two reasons:
First, “nothing to see here” suggests that the problem is dismissed altogether. I think the reality is that many, many voters do not dismiss the problem at all; they’ll just hold their noses and vote for him despite the problem.
Second, I don’t think the taxes example is really apropos. That’s not going to be on the radar of most Alabama voters, and to the degree it is, it’ll be as much from poorer voters as wealthier ones. I think it’s more: “What he did to those girls is horrible and repulsive, but it’s more important to elect someone who will consistently vote pro-life/personal freedom and vote to confirm pro-life/personal freedom judges and justices.” As you know, for a segment of the electorate, protecting the unborn in particular trumps any other consideration.
To be clear, I don’t agree with that rationalization, nor with the “pro-life” agenda. At the same time, though, I don’t think it helps to mischaracterize the motives of voters, to the extent we can know those motives at all.
ETA: By “personal freedom” I’m mainly thinking religious freedom and free speech. And guns, I’m afraid.
[ 06. December 2017, 18:17: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
“What he did to those girls is horrible and repulsive, but it’s more important to elect someone who will consistently vote pro-life/personal freedom and vote to confirm pro-life/personal freedom judges and justices.”
Because once they're born, they're fair game.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
“What he did to those girls is horrible and repulsive, but it’s more important to elect someone who will consistently vote pro-life/personal freedom and vote to confirm pro-life/personal freedom judges and justices.”
Because once they're born, they're fair game.
Just one of the many problems I have with the “pro-life” agenda.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
None of this is going to be fair in every case.
Again, I have seen, and indeed (in my time and to my shame) participated in, causes in which damaging other people was waved away by some as acceptable "collateral damage" in pursuit of a higher aim.
If the cause doesn't have a mechanism to provide some sort of checks and balances to that kind of thinking, it's fanaticism.
Who, the fuck, said is was acceptable? It is inevitable, there is a difference.
And acceptable damage is part of every system we have. The only thing we negotiate is the threshold. No tolerance for coleteral damage is no enforcement of standard. Full stop.
[ 06. December 2017, 19:06: 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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And acceptable damage is part of every system we have. The only thing we negotiate is the threshold. No tolerance for coleteral damage is no enforcement of standard. Full stop.
Nope. Blackstone's formulation has been the cornerstone of English jurisprudence since the 18th century.
quote:
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"
That is what no tolerance for collateral damage looks like. That is the standard.
[ 06. December 2017, 19:29: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Too early!!!!!! The accusation was made to the STC 21 months ago,
Nothing I've read says this. The alleged incident was 21 months ago, it appears that the accusation is more recent.
This particular incident does illustrate how problematic the entire issue is. Typically, a victim risks their career by making an accusation. This is an entertainment industry fact. If the accuser of Rush is in fact sincere, s/he might be hoping other victims come forth in support and minimise the risk.
If no other accuser steps forth and this one and his/her accusation remains nebulous, Rush's career will likely not suffer. One of his costars in a major film franchise continues to get roles despite domestic abuse allegations.
None of this is going to be fair in every case.
No. This
Rush’s lawyer* said in a statement that Rush had not been informed of the nature of the complaint by the complainant or the theatre company, either at the time the complaint was made 21 months ago or since.
is along the same lines as all other reports in papers here. Plenty of time to investigate. It's still unclear if the STC has directly told Rush at all.
I don't understand your last paragraph, but it seems to be along the lines that collateral damage is to be expected and too bad for those wrongly accused.
BTW, the bit about the accuser hoping to encourage others to come forward does not sit with the request to the STC to keep it quiet.
*I don't know the particular lawyer, but the firm is a solid and well established one, not the sort of place from which you'd get wild or unsubstantiated allegations.
[ 06. December 2017, 20:14: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Nope. Blackstone's formulation has been the cornerstone of English jurisprudence since the 18th century.
quote:
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"
That is what no tolerance for collateral damage looks like. That is the standard.
This is not how the system actually works, regardless of what is supposed to be the cornerstone. Unless you believe no innocent person has ever been convicted.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
It is most certainly not how the system works where I am right now, since as in many other Western countries the vote-winning option is to enact policies to lock as many people up as possible regardless of whether it is actually appropriate and constructive for society to do so or not.
However, the important thing about Doc Tor's quote to my mind is what it says about attitude. I'm sure Blackstone didn't want dangerous criminals running free around the country; but that in pursuing that worthy goal, he wanted to ensure the potential for other injustices was at least factored in and provision made accordingly. That's the part that doesn't come across, at least to me, in what you've been saying.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The risk of false accusation is something that accompanies any issue where there is accusation. This issue is no different. Tell me why it is being treated as if it is.
Because the consequences of the false accusation are different.
And I don't even think you're right to suggest that the same risk of false accusation exists in all cases.
Because for anyone who makes a deliberately false accusation, the calculation as to the likelihood of achieving the desired outcome is part and parcel of the decision to make the accusation in the first place. And so if the current environment is one that is more favourable to believing accusations (or particular kinds of accusations), and to having consequences immediately follow from an accusation without need for proof, then that in fact increases the incentive to make the false accusation in the first place.
The abstractness of your ideas about this weirdly reminds me of the kind of naive belief that good guys with guns will be be able shoot bad guys with guns. There's an unreality in both cases. In the real world, the zeitgeist does make a difference.
Have you never seen The Crucible? The whole point is that accusations that would be laughed off in one circumstance might become deadly serious in another.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
We could always try the biblical approach:
quote:
If a malicious witness comes forward to accuse someone of wrongdoing, then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days, and the judges shall make a thorough inquiry. If the witness is a false witness, having testified falsely against another, then you shall do to the false witness just as the false witness had meant to do to the other. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. The rest shall hear and be afraid, and a crime such as this shall never again be committed among you. Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
(In response to orfeo.)
And if innocent people are hurt, it makes people doubt all the real cases.
And it creates enemies.
[ 07. December 2017, 10:04: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This is not how the system actually works, regardless of what is supposed to be the cornerstone. Unless you believe no innocent person has ever been convicted.
This how the system is supposed to work. That is the point. The moment you - specifically you, in this case - decides otherwise, is the moment you become a tyrant.
And if you think that's a bit strong, the reverse of Blackstone's formulation has been uttered by people as varied as Stalin and Pol Pot. Throwing innocent people under the bus on the basis of a denunciation is a hallmark of totalitarianism.
Everyone should strive that any accusation is listened to and investigated thoroughly. That is different from being believed.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
We could always try the biblical approach:
I do hate selective quoting of bible verses. For example this one would appear to suggest that one shouldn't accuse a church leader of abuse in court.
From which I think we can conclude that scattergun quoting of bible verses is never useful.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
This is not prooftexting but identifying a principle.
Other contextual elements aside, both passages enshrine the (in my view extremely sound) principle that one should not rush to a court of law, as reiterated by Jesus when he says it is better to settle with your adversary before you get there, if at all possible.
The OT law I quoted also offers a very practical deterrent to false accusations and highlights the seriousness of the matter.
I doubt it could be usefully implemented today, and didn't intend to suggest that it should be, but I think it supports Blackstone's attitude as opposed to lilbuddha's in this respect.
[ 07. December 2017, 11:32: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This is not prooftexting but identifying a principle.
OK. What you call "identifying a principle", I call proof-texting.
quote:
Other contextual elements aside, both passages enshrine the (in my view extremely sound) principle that one should not rush to a court of law, as reiterated by Jesus when he says it is better to settle with your adversary before you get there, if at all possible.
As you say, that's just your opinion. Which isn't, in-and-of-itself authoritative. Almost nobody actually takes much notice of bible texts talking about accessing secular legal remedies. And nor should they.
quote:
The OT law I quoted also offers a very practical deterrent to false accusations and highlights the seriousness of the matter.
The bible is full of contradictory things. Including this.
quote:
I doubt it could be usefully implemented today, and didn't intend to suggest that it should, but I think it supports Blackstone's attitude as opposed to lilbuddha's in this respect.
I think that's cobblers. The worst kind of incoherent evangelical thinking. The bible is useful in ways you say. Because you said it.
You are entitled to believe this, I just think it is no sense any kind of credible position.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
As you say, that's just your opinion. Which isn't, in-and-of-itself authoritative. Almost nobody actually takes much notice of bible texts talking about accessing secular legal remedies. And nor should they.
I never offered it as anything other than an opinion and didn't say anything about it being authoritative.
I'm as against any reconstructionist biblical version of sharia law as the next guy, but to suggest that none of our legal principles have their origins in biblical thought and that there's nothing relevant there for us in terms of ethics is also cobblers.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm as against any reconstructionist biblical version of sharia law as the next guy, but to suggest that none of our legal principles have their origins in biblical thought and that there's nothing relevant there for us in terms of ethics is also cobblers.
OK, well there is only one thing worse than proof-texting, and that's arguing about proof-texting.
As such I'll agree to disagree and give your opinion the respect it deserves: ie nothing.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
(loud screeching of tires as topic wrenched back onto the main road)
A woman is defending Roy Moore by pointing out all the women he did -not- assault. Next time you murder someone, you could try telling the jury that you should get consideration because after all you did not murder lots and lots of other people. Oh Lord, when will you come down and save us? Only five days until the election...
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I don't even think you're right to suggest that the same risk of false accusation exists in all cases.
It most certainly doesn't. For example, it's very hard to make a false accusation of murder if there isn't actually a victim. For sure, the wrong person can be accused of the crime, but at least there has to have been a crime in the first place.
The thing that makes accusations of sexual abuse - especially historical sexual abuse - so easy to fake is that such accusations are inherently one person's word against another's. There is no requirement for the accuser to provide any evidence other than their own say-so, and therefore no crime has to have been committed before a false accusation can be made.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I'd say that in my country we try to follow Blackstone's formula if you're a white guy. If you're black? Haha, of course you must be a guilty fuck. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Oh, we've had our own problems. Especially Irishmen accused of terrorism. But, yes, young black men over here don't have the best chance either.
The principle, however, remains. It needs to be both remembered and extended.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This is not prooftexting but identifying a principle.
Other contextual elements aside, both passages enshrine the (in my view extremely sound) principle that one should not rush to a court of law, as reiterated by Jesus when he says it is better to settle with your adversary before you get there, if at all possible.
The OT law I quoted also offers a very practical deterrent to false accusations and highlights the seriousness of the matter.
I doubt it could be usefully implemented today, and didn't intend to suggest that it should be, but I think it supports Blackstone's attitude as opposed to lilbuddha's in this respect.
But the real problem is not that someone might make a provably false accusation-- in that case, there are civil and criminal remedies, as well as hopefully media exposure to restore the reputation of the falsely accused and rightly denigrate the libelous liar.
But more frequently in these cases it comes down to he said/she said. Where neither side can be proven. So someone will deal with a grave injustice-- whether its a victim who never receives justice-- or a false accused person who will forever live under a shadow of suspicion. Neither is a good outcome, but I don't know how you avoid it.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm sure Blackstone didn't want dangerous criminals running free around the country; but that in pursuing that worthy goal, he wanted to ensure the potential for other injustices was at least factored in and provision made accordingly. That's the part that doesn't come across, at least to me, in what you've been saying.
So, you either have not read what I have said, think I am lying or do not wish to believe I am sincere.
quote:
We don’t want a looser standard, we want to have this problem to finally be taken seriously.
quote:
Once again for emphasis, We don’t want a looser standard, we want to have this problem to finally be taken seriously.
quote:
I’m not saying that false accusation is unimportant.
quote:
I’m not trying to minimise the effects or seriousness of false accusation.
quote:
How many times must I repeat that false accusation are a bad thing.
(Hint: Lots, evidently)
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This is not how the system actually works, regardless of what is supposed to be the cornerstone. Unless you believe no innocent person has ever been convicted.
This how the system is supposed to work. That is the point. The moment you - specifically you, in this case - decides otherwise, is the moment you become a tyrant.
I have not "decided" anything. It only takes a minimal amount of effort to see that it isn't how the system actually works.
quote:
Everyone should strive that any accusation is listened to and investigated thoroughly.
This is something that women and LGBT+ have been wanting for decades. quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I'd say that in my country we try to follow Blackstone's formula if you're a white guy. If you're black? Haha, of course you must be a guilty fuck.
Oh, we've had our own problems. Especially Irishmen accused of terrorism. But, yes, young black men over here don't have the best chance either.
The darker the skin, the higher the conviction rates and the longer the sentence. Though I would add being poor or "foreign" doesn't help either.
quote:
The principle, however, remains. It needs to be both remembered and extended.
The principle should always be remembered. But it isn't, it never has been, the perfect standard. It cannot be, because enforcement would become next to impossible. Perfectly exposed offence is something that rarely happens, it is almost always circumstantial. And bias against the aforementioned groups has always existed.
Extended? How do you mean this? From reading your posts over time, I am making the assumption that you are not suggesting an extension because of increased personal risk.
But, honestly, I think many are.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I don't even think you're right to suggest that the same risk of false accusation exists in all cases.
I don't think I have actually said this. I've said all offences have the risk of false accusation, but I do not think I have said it is the same. The chances of being accused vary for the offence and group. The consequences vary by offence as well.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
For example, it's very hard to make a false accusation of murder if there isn't actually a victim. For sure, the wrong person can be accused of the crime, but at least there has to have been a crime in the first place.
This is not, actually, accurate. Presumption of a crime can indeed occur and result in a trial.
quote:
The thing that makes accusations of sexual abuse - especially historical sexual abuse - so easy to fake is that such accusations are inherently one person's word against another's. There is no requirement for the accuser to provide any evidence other than their own say-so, and therefore no crime has to have been committed before a false accusation can be made.
Abusers have relied on the lack of evidence to perpetrate their abuses. Historically, accusers have faced more repercussions than the accused. Even when abusers are made to stand trial/get sacked, etc. the victims often face censure, job loss and further abuse. Accusation has never been an easy thing.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
The latest on the Rush saga. Another actor sued recently and obtained a substantial verdict for lost earning capacity, in addition to the usual defamation damages.
BTW, I don't see any retraction from lilBuddha for the error she made.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
BTW, I don't see any retraction from lilBuddha for the error she made.
I did say that my posts was based on the sources I read. Perhaps I should have looked harder, perhaps you could have provided a link sooner. A bit of a wash, there.
The real error was not to go back and read orfeo's earliest post on this which I missed.
The theatre did misstep in telling a reporter without telling Rush.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
And perhaps I should have realised that I had to do your research for you.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
And perhaps I should have realised that I had to do your research for you.
Perhaps you should have realised that not all sources reported it the same way and that if you had link that did, the easiest and most reasonable thing to do would have been to provide it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Sorry, that just does not wash. You have provided not a scrap of evidence to support your post, and simply rely upon your guess as to what had happened.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Sorry, that just does not wash. You have provided not a scrap of evidence to support your post, and simply rely upon your guess as to what had happened.
Rubbish, You read one thing and took days to provide a link. I said I read something different, and following your timeline, am now providing a link.
Had you simply done so at the beginning, this would have been a shorter exchange. I could have done the same, but the point is you are accusing me of behaviour that you were engaging in yourself.
Above that, I get the impression of severely twisted knickers that I did not make an extra effort to find the links you were claiming to have read. You provided neither a link or a quote, instead requiring me to accept that you had read them correctly.
Here is a link with wording typical of what I had read.
The relevant bit if clicking is too much effort.
quote:
Geoffrey Rush has stepped down from his position as president of the Australian Academy of Cinema and Television Arts after a claim of “inappropriate behavior” by the “Pirates of the Caribbean” actor surfaced this week, The Associated Press and Australian media reported Saturday.
Rush announced his decision after Australia’s ABC News stated the Sydney Theatre Company “received a complaint alleging that Mr. Geoffrey Rush had engaged in inappropriate behavior” during his time with the company.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
That item provides no timeline at all, and therefore no basis for your proceeding on the line that the complaint was recent and therefore time for investigation was required.
[ 08. December 2017, 20:13: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Oh for heaven's sake, this is getting seriously childish.
It doesn't surprise me in the least that overseas sources, in particular, wouldn't have provided proper detail that the complaint was not new, only the "surfacing" of the complaint.
All that had to be done was to correct this point.
Conversely, all lilbuddha had to do was accept the correction instead of being niggly about it.
This is not a thing worth arguing about for post after post. We've established that the complaint was not made recently.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh for heaven's sake, this is getting seriously childish.
Sir is correct, apologies to the thread for my part in that.
[ 08. December 2017, 23:40: 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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
