I realized what is getting to me here. The men present seem to be looking to women for the solution when it is men that are the perpetrators. Any solution proposed is then shot down.
I think the solution is exactly what is happening. If the grapevine suggests there is a problem an independent investigation is carried out the results of which are presented to the individual who is free to deny any accusations.
It seems to be working better than any other approach so I'm good with it.
Pondering wrote:
When you start with the attitude that porn can't be defined you are playing semantics not discussing sexual misconduct and violence towards women.
A lot more minds than mine have been unable to identify 'porn'. Back when, one of the definitions was that you could identify pornography because it was 'without 'redeeming social importance'. The makers of the various 'Beach Blanket Bingo' movies in the USA protected themselves from prosecution by having one of the female characters get pregnant and then die. Thus, after showing us that sex caused pregnancy, and pregnancy caused death, they could run the rest of the movie as they wanted.
The problem isn't that there is no dictionary definition of 'pornography'. The problem is identifying what does, and what doesn't, match the definition.
Here's a link to a site which documents the history of the USA Supreme Court's cases dealing with pornography:
further from Pondering:
It is my opinion from anecdotal evidence that porn, at least what we consume as porn now, has a negative impact on human sexuality.
There's a reason science doesn't proceed by anecdotal evidence. It's because it's very often wrong. I posited a test in my last post, that is, comparing rape statistics between countries that have either dissimilar levels of legal tolerance of pornography, or similar levels of same.
In the one case, according to your anecdotal evidence, the country with the greater tolerance should have a higher level of sex crime, and in the other, the levels should be much the same.
I know this is difficult because of reporting differences, legal differences, etc., but in examining similar countries with similar cultures it should be possible to test your theory.
My own quick test was between the Netherlands and the USA because the Netherlands has a history of tolerance towards porn. If you check, you'll find, as I did, that rape stats for the Netherlands are much lower than for the USA, which is certainly counter to your anecdotal evidence.
i see this thread about the mens, by the mens, for the mens is still.
Pondering why engage? their narcissism is being fed.
You are still nitpicking. However you define porn, it is free and widely available. There is no need for a legal definition in order for people, particularly men, to make judgements for themselves on what is and isn't a positive influence in their lives and in the lives of the people they love.
Although the laws on drinking and driving and public smoking changed that was linked to changing public opinion as well.
For every article I can bring up supporting climate change you could come up with another "debunking" it. Same goes for porn and prostitution. We could have a war of the links. I'm not interested. In my opinion, knowing the statistics not just on the extreme of rape, but on the frequency of sexual harassment, men should be just as concerned as women.
Paladin, I apologize if I took your comment wrong. The topic of the thread is abrasive as are some of the comments.
Pondering wrote:
You are still nitpicking. However you define porn, it is free and widely available. There is no need for a legal definition in order for people, particularly men, to make judgements for themselves on what is and isn't a positive influence in their lives and in the lives of the people they love.
It wasn't me who brought up the issue of porn. If I remember correctly, it was you, trying to make a point about the consumption of porn and sexual attitudes.
All I did was point out that before you can arrive at any conclusion, you first have to define what is and what isn't porn, then show that consumption of porn is in direct ratio to sexual criminality. You haven't done either.
I'll give another for instance. Japan and the USA. Japan has a large porn industry, yet reported rape cases in the USA are 27 times that of Japan (per capita).
What that says to me is that there must be cultural differences between the USA and Japan that are more important in terms of sexual crimes than pornography is. Finding out what those differences might be, and how they affect overall sexual crime incidence, could be a step in the right direction.
Yes, I brought up the issue of porn including fashion porn. I provided a definition. I don't have to "prove" anything before arriving at a conclusion certainly not to you. That you aren't convinced is not my problem.
#MeToo Means Men Need to Step Up for Change
Women have done all the heavy lifting in bringing sexual assault and harassment to light.
Thank-you
Pondering, that's a very surpising view from a progressive. Do you have any science to back it up?
I think the easiest way for men to calm down their sex drive and behave like gentlemen is to watch pornography. Men behave more like pigs if their urges are not satisfied.
No, men are more likely to behave like pigs when they're relatively assured they can get away with it.
As are women, btw - it's just that we're unlikely to avoid censure or other negative consequences for our actions.
Can we just stop accepting the idea that this is about men's "urges" needing to be "satisfied"? Nobody's "urges" NEED to be satisfied. That kind of thinking ties into misogynist culture in that men are simple creatures who just can't help themselves and women are responsible - whether it's on a screen or in person - for preventing them from being violent.
You know who prevents men from being violent? Themselves. Any other answer is bullshit. Even my dog has better self-control than we give the average male credit for.
While this case originated prior to the rise of the #metoo movement, the way it was mishandled by UBC, ultimately resulting in Galloway receiving $167,000 in damages (but not reinstatement, which he waived) presents a timely example of the cost that must be paid when highly public allegations are made, but ultimately don't pan out the way they were initially presented.
Steven Galloway’s life the past two years-plus can be summarized aptly: a brutal firestorm. It’s included near-constant suicidal thoughts as he’s confronted the prospect of bankruptcy, being shunned by swaths of a literary community of which he was once stood at the shining centre and, worst of all, being depicted as a sexual predator.
While he takes responsibility for certain actions that preceded his firing as the chair of the University of British Columbia’s creative writing department, the acclaimed author also believes that what happened to him is unconscionable – not just the abysmal, ham-fisted way in which he believes the university handled the allegations levelled against him, but also the fact that charges he’s insisted all along were groundless have left his reputation in ruins.
“It’s darn near killed me,” Mr. Galloway told The Globe and Mail in the first interview he has granted since his ordeal began in the fall of 2015. “And truthfully, I still think about killing myself on a daily basis. I just don’t see much of a future for myself. I’m trying. I’m fighting it. But it’s hard.”
On Friday, an arbitrator awarded Mr. Galloway $167,000 stemming from a grievance launched by the UBC faculty association over the former chair of the creative writing department’s firing in the summer of 2016. The arbitrator found that certain communication by the university disseminated at the time of Mr. Galloway’s dismissal contravened his privacy rights and caused harm to his reputation.
While Mr. Galloway is satisfied with the award, it is a bittersweet victory. He says it doesn’t give him back the single greatest thing he lost in this whole saga - his name. And he believes that’s something that’s gone forever. He insists that the allegations of sexual misconduct made by a student he had a two-year affair with were always untrue and that many of the other complaints against him were frivolous.
That is one side of the story. And how a case is handled doesn't always tell you whether there is validity to the complaint. In this case, the award was based on a violation of his privacy, not whether the complaint was true:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/complainant-against-profe...
And I think lots of people who have suffered harrassment and assault understand about complaints "not panning out".
While this case originated prior to the rise of the #metoo movement, the way it was mishandled by UBC, ultimately resulting in Galloway receiving $167,000 in damages (but not reinstatement, which he waived) presents a timely example of the cost that must be paid when highly public allegations are made, but ultimately don't pan out the way they were initially presented.
I urge all falsely accused men to do the same.
I urge all professors to stay out of their student's beds.
I urge all falsely accused men to do the same.
Galloway was represented by a union that would have borne most or all of the costs associated with seeking this arbitration award. Unrepresented employees would generally have to go to court, which is more expensive, and fund such action out of their private resources, which is more difficult.
Also, while Smith appropriately points out that Galloway's account is not the only side to this story, if you choose to accept his account he says he has paid a significant price beyond that for which $167,000 would compensate him.
I urge all professors to stay out of their student's beds.
Sage advice, but often unheeded. The thing about sex is, a lot of people like it and usually seek it from those that are closest to them. Grad students and professors are just one example.
[/quote]
Aside from the fact that many universities now have policies forbidding sex between instructors and students, having sex doesn't give one free rein to commit sexual assault. That is what this accusation was about. Assault.
I urge all falsely accused men to do the same.
Galloway was represented by a union that would have borne most or all of the costs associated with seeking this arbitration award. Unrepresented employees would generally have to go to court, which is more expensive, and fund such action out of their private resources, which is more difficult.
Also, while Smith appropriately points out that Galloway's account is not the only side to this story, if you choose to accept his account he says he has paid a significant price beyond that for which $167,000 would compensate him.
I urge all professors to stay out of their student's beds.
Sage advice, but often unheeded. The thing about sex is, a lot of people like it and usually seek it from those that are closest to them. Grad students and professors are just one example.
[/quote]
The issue of cost is a seperate issue for the rest of what is raised here. All people should have better financial assistence with legal costs they cannot afford. It would be wrong not to point out that more women than men still earn below an amount that allows for legal representation.
The fact that you have to buy your justice if you can afford it or accept not to have any is offensive to the concept that we live under rule of law in a so-called democracy.
Aside from the fact that many universities now have policies forbidding sex between instructors and students,
Policies that exist in large part to protect the universities from legal liability, IMO, not to say that isn’t itself a valid concern nor that there arent other valid concerns underlying such policies either. But making something taboo doesn’t necessarily prevent it from occurring or continuing to occur, particularly when it is something so many find so appealing.
sex doesn't give one free rein to commit sexual assault.
Agree.
That is what this accusation was about. Assault.
That was indeed the original allegation. My understanding from the related Globe article describing the award is that it was based on invasion of privacy and reputational harm. If an allegation of sexual assault was substantiated I have trouble believing that an arbitrator would nonetheless find $167,000 worth of reputation harm to the assaulter, but I haven’t seen the Award so I don’t really know.
Read the article, robbie_dee.
This isn't about the complaints, but rather a grievance Galloway filed against the university for not handling the complaints properly. It is a completely different case, so no the outcome of one has no bearing on the other.
I read the articles. Both cases are about the complaints. Galloway originally grieved that the University lacked just cause to fire him based on the investigation it conducted after it received the complaints. He withdrew that claim. The university may well have had just cause for firing him just for sleeping with grad students if that violated university policy and the university only found out about what was going on as a result of the investigation, even if other, more serious allegations were not substantiated by the same investigation.
While Galloway withdrew his challenge to the termination, he maintained his claim that the university mishandled the complaints, mainly the publicity around them. He says the investigator’s report did not substantiate the sexual assault allegation. The complainant, MC, says there were redacted portions of the report that would support her allegations. The report, unredacted, was presumably available evidence in the hearing. I don’t believe that an arbitrator would find Galloway’s reputation was harmed by the publicity surrounding an allegation that he committed sexual assault, if the arbitrator believed Galloway actually committed sexual assault. If the allegation were true, where’s the reputational harm? But of course I haven’t seen the decision so I don’t really know what went down. Maybe the $167,000 damages were for something else that the university did. That seems unlikely to me, though, given that the assault allegation was the biggest one and, if it were substantiated, that fact alone would seem to dwarf any other matters that the university may have bungled. Maybe the university didn’t raise it? Although if not that begs the question why not.
I don’t really know what the truth is here anyways. I wasn’t there. I was really looking to just make the point, in response to some posters suggestions that false allegations are rare and/or of little harm to or, easily remediable by, the accused, here is a case where there is reason to believe that allegations were made that may not have ultimately been supported, and an arbitrator found at least $167,000 in damages were owing to the accused as a result. The accused claims his career has been ruined. There may be a problem here that is worth at least thinking about.
I read the articles. Both cases are about the complaints. Galloway originally grieved that the University lacked just cause to fire him based on the investigation it conducted after it received the complaints. He withdrew that claim. The university may well have had just cause for firing him just for sleeping with grad students if that violated university policy and the university only found out about what was going on as a result of the investigation, even if other, more serious allegations were not substantiated by the same investigation.
While Galloway withdrew his challenge to the termination, he maintained his claim that the university mishandled the complaints, mainly the publicity around them. He says the investigator’s report did not substantiate the sexual assault allegation. The complainant, MC, says there were redacted portions of the report that would support her allegations. The report, unredacted, was presumably available evidence in the hearing. I don’t believe that an arbitrator would find Galloway’s reputation was harmed by the publicity surrounding an allegation that he committed sexual assault, if the arbitrator believed Galloway actually committed sexual assault. If the allegation were true, where’s the reputational harm? But of course I haven’t seen the decision so I don’t really know what went down. Maybe the $167,000 damages were for something else that the university did. That seems unlikely to me, though, given that the assault allegation was the biggest one and, if it were substantiated, that fact alone would seem to dwarf any other matters that the university may have bungled. Maybe the university didn’t raise it? Although if not that begs the question why not.
I don’t really know what the truth is here anyways. I wasn’t there. I was really looking to just make the point, in response to some posters suggestions that false allegations are rare and/or of little harm to or, easily remediable by, the accused, here is a case where there is reason to believe that allegations were made that may not have ultimately been supported, and an arbitrator found at least $167,000 in damages were owing to the accused as a result. The accused claims his career has been ruined. There may be a problem here that is worth at least thinking about.
It does not compare to the damage done to women. In this particular case the only problem is that the University went public apparently without proof of their accusations. They could as easily have accused him of some other misconduct like plagerism. The nature of the misconduct is immaterial. The problem was that the university publicized it.
robbie_dee, you say in those last two paragraphs that you just assume there may be some connection between the outcome of the investigation, and the outcome of Galloway's grievance. In fact, if the university had handled this differently - specifically just holding their investigation and not sending out letters and making claims - there would have been no cause for the grievance, and no award.
The first grievance asserted, among other things, that the university erred when it sent a memo to faculty, staff and students that announced Galloway had been suspended pending an investigation into “serious allegations.”
The second grievance claimed the university’s communications regarding the termination had been misleading and caused both serious damage to his reputation and ongoing personal suffering.
http://nationalpost.com/pmn/entertainment-pmn/books-entertainment-pmn/ub...
Of course the fact the university mishandled this should have been obvious from what happened when Galloway was fired:
In November 2016, dozens of prominent Canadian writers, including Margaret Atwood and Joseph Boyden, signed an open letter calling for an external investigation of how the school dealt with Galloway’s case.
They were later criticized because of the potential silencing effect the letter could have on any woman who considered reporting allegations of misconduct at universities and a number of writers, including Yann Martel, removed their names.
In March, Atwood released a joint statement with fellow novelist Susan Swan apologizing for any perception of harm or silencing effects the letter may have had.
No surprise that the default here continues to be to undermine the complainants; that is usually how it goes in situations like this.
In case anyone was wondering why there was a need for a movement like MeToo in the first place.
I'll just remind everyone that sexual assault is a crime. Crime is dealt with by the court system, a process that has been developed over hundreds of years.
If I had been giving advice to Galloway, I would have told him to demand that he be charged with the crime of sexual assault. That would have short-circuited the university's kangaroo court, and forced the accuser into the open. In that the university didn't find evidence of a crime, chances are Galloway would have been acquitted, and would have retained his job. To fire him after a court acquittal would have cost a lot more than $167,000.
As far as his affair with a student, I can understand the problem if the student was one of his. That would be a clear conflict of interest. How could one assume fair marks for a student who was sleeping with the professor. However, if the student wasn't one of his, I don't really see the problem. We are talking university here, not high school. The student involved with Galloway was already married, as was Galloway, so it isn't like the student was a dewy-eyed naif from fresh off the farm. In fact the affair was carried on over two years. The innocence, if it had existed, would have been long gone by then.
One of the things this episode does is illustrate the dangers of trying to subvert the legal system which has been developed over several hundred years. If Galloway did in fact commit sexual assault he deserved to be tried and convicted. If he didn't, he deserved to be acquitted.
robbie_dee, you say in those last two paragraphs that you just assume there may be some connection between the outcome of the investigation, and the outcome of Galloway's grievance. In fact, if the university had handled this differently - specifically just holding their investigation and not sending out letters and making claims - there would have been no cause for the grievance, and no award.
I agree that if the university had handled this differently there may not have been cause for a grievance or an award. The university should not have made the public communications it did.
But if the outcome of the investigation had concluded that Galloway sexually assaulted MC there also likely would not have been cause for a grievance, and certainly there would not have been grounds for substantial damages. Galloway couldn't suffer reputational harm from a truthful rumor that he was a sexual predator, even if the university allowed that rumor to spread prematurely.
I'll just remind everyone that sexual assault is a crime. Crime is dealt with by the court system, a process that has been developed over hundreds of years.
If I had been giving advice to Galloway, I would have told him to demand that he be charged with the crime of sexual assault. That would have short-circuited the university's kangaroo court, and forced the accuser into the open.
Reverend, I think you take this argument a step too far.
An employer is entitled to independently investigate allegations of misconduct by its employees even if that misconduct may also be criminal. Indeed in a case like this the employer probably has to do so. Further, the employer generally does not have to meet the same standard of proof to discipline or terminate an employee as the state is required to meet before it imprisons someone, so it is entirely possible for an employment-based process to come to a different outcome than a criminal one. This is also a reason why complainants may prefer to take their complaints to an accused person's employer rather than to the police - particularly where the complainant is a colleague, client, or in this case student at the same school where the accused teaches. The complainant may have a greater chance of getting his or her complaint heard without being exposed to the same scrutiny that he or she would face as a criminal witness (and that scrutiny is tough even if the complainant is telling the truth) and/or without the same evidentiary burden in other respects.
That being said, the reverse is true. MC, like Galloway, appears to believe the investigation was mishandled but she believes that as a result her truthful allegations were disregarded. She would not have been a party to Galloway's arbitration hearing. She could have been called to testify as a witness (I have no idea if she was but the University certainly could have done so). If she wants to challenge the university's handling of the matter or she wants to allege Galloway committed the crime or tort of sexual assault she is still able to call the police or to hire a lawyer and sue Galloway and/or the University. Personally I get why she might not want to do that even if she is telling the truth but this is the flip-side of the argument Pondering has made in the past that if someone is falsely accused he or she should just start suing everyone.
I'll just remind everyone that sexual assault is a crime. Crime is dealt with by the court system, a process that has been developed over hundreds of years.
I am sure the women in this thread greatly appreciate you taking the time out of your day to explain this to them and how the courts protect women and all. There is a word for that type of explanation.
I'm not sure Rev. was addressing the ladies specifically.
And I think it's kind of salient to the thread that a man making a factual argument can be "rebutted" with nothing more than the exasperated claim that, since he's a man and saying something, it's "mansplaining" and he must be pompously edumacating a woman.
I'm not sure Rev. was addressing the ladies specifically.
And I think it's kind of salient to the thread that a man making a factual argument can be "rebutted" with nothing more than the exasperated claim that, since he's a man and saying something, it's "mansplaining" and he must be pompously edumacating a woman.
So you think some of the men here are unaware that sexual assault is a crime and we have a court system?
Pesky's point is probably that the university should have handed the investigation of the alleged assault to police but that isn't up to the university. It is up to the alleged victims whether or not they want a criminal investigation. Either way the university would still have had to investigate the other accusations.
The only problem I see is that the university publicized the accusation against him. Without that Galloway would not have a case.
I can see why a "put up or shut up" appeal to the supremacy of the courts might be a bit of an eyeroller. Not just because cases like this aren't always just criminal, but can also involve breaches of policy, or harrassment, or conflict of interest, other misconduct. Plus it was up to the university to decide on Galloway's place in the institution, not the courts.
Then there's the perennial assumption, as with the outcome of Galloway's grievance, that if there wasn't enough to prove guilt then obviously there was nothing there, and the accuser is to blame. Not the university for mishandling the case.
There's also the sterling record our court system has developed over the centuries for dealing with cases of sexual assault, and harrassment. I expect many who have suffered harrassment or assault, and realized there was no point in bothering going to the police or anyone else about it don't need to have that explained.
At least there are some new tricks - like the prosecution tactic in the Bill Cosby trial to offer testimony from women whose own complaints had lapsed because of the statute of limitations. I am sure some are crying foul over that.
It is up to the alleged victims whether or not they want a criminal investigation.
I know that's how it works on American TV, but is that how it works in Canada? Do we press charges, or does the Crown?
It is up to the prosecutor and the cops I believe, but in most cases a complainant can decide to not come forward or not testify. Unless of course she winds up getting arrested and brought to court in shackles.
Gotta love that court system:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/sex-assault-victim-jailed-judge-e...
It is up to the alleged victims whether or not they want a criminal investigation.I know that's how it works on American TV, but is that how it works in Canada? Do we press charges, or does the Crown?
I think the Crown presses charges but they need a witness.
It is up to the prosecutor and the cops I believe
You mean the Crown, yes?
I think the Crown presses charges but they need a witness.
To go to trial with any hope, yes.
But yes, it's the Crown who "presses charges". The rest is American television.
Pondering wrote:
Pesky's point is probably that the university should have handed the investigation of the alleged assault to police but that isn't up to the university.
That is correct. It is not up to the university. The minute they have evidence of a crime, they have to report it, or become an accessory to the crime.
This is what bothers me. People throw around accusations of sexual assault as if it is the same thing as somebody being a creep or an ashole. It most definitely is not the same thing.
The reason I have for suggesting Galloway should have demanded he be charged is quite simple. The court system is higher up the authority ladder than a university panel. If the court decided that Galloway was not guilty, the university could not have successfully defended their position.
By the way, anyone remember Rachel Marsden? Might pay for you to have a look at that case.
That is correct. It is not up to the university. The minute they have evidence of a crime, they have to report it, or become an accessory to the crime.
They didn't have any evidence. All they had was hearsay.
http://www.torontodefencelawyers.com/blog/general-category/crime-report-...
- Under section 22 of the Criminal Code of Canada, if an individual has an awareness of a crime because they have witnessed the crime or have been told that the crime has occurred, and by not reporting this crime to the police service or other relevant agency, this individual is in some way aiding or abetting the crime to take place, they may be charged with counselling an offence.
- Read more: http://www.torontodefencelawyers.com/blog/general-category/crime-report-crime-canada/#ixzz5IHVeOeG7
This is what bothers me. People throw around accusations of sexual assault as if it is the same thing as somebody being a creep or an ashole. It most definitely is not the same thing.
You seem to be the one conflating the two. Someone could be cleared of sexual assault but still be guilty of sexual misconduct. Private investigations are entered into as fact-finding missions not sexual assault investigations. If there is evidence of sexual assault it is still up to the individual to decide if they want to report it or not. The university's responsibility would vary depending on circumstances.
The reason I have for suggesting Galloway should have demanded he be charged is quite simple. The court system is higher up the authority ladder than a university panel. If the court decided that Galloway was not guilty, the university could not have successfully defended their position.
They didn't successfully defend their position. He was sanctioned for other reasons. I don't think he had the right to demand he be charged. That is not up to the university.
As to Rachel Marsden, women are not perfect. No one has suggested they are. Men have been found guilty of murder that were innocent. So yes, sometimes mistakes are made but we aren't going to stop investigating murders we just try to do a better job of it. The Cosbys of the world are far more common. Sexual misconduct in rampant in every field even the military and law enforcement and fire fighting and construction and entertainment and and and. In other words pretty much everywhere.
The he said she said nature of such complaints make them difficult to impossible to prove. Women know this and recognize the justice of innocent until proven guilty. They can't prove guilt so they don't make an official complaint be it a slap on the backside or rape. Women do warn one another on the down low. Do you blame us? Then multiple accounts turn up. Eventually women tell men they are close to and the grapevine takes over.
Lets be clear though. This isn't high school rumor. If only one woman has a complaint people immediately consider that she could be over-reacting or mistaken or have it out for the guy. People don't automatically believe a single accusation. It's when there are multiple accusations people become more convinced.
In the past that is where it stayed, on the grapevine. That can't and won't continue any longer. We have turned a corner, at least in organizations subject to public opinion. If management hears there is something on the grapevine they must investigate. No choice. If it becomes public that they were warned, however obliquely, and did nothing, the damage would be serious. Whichever executive decided not to investigate would be crucified.
On Galloway the university jumped the gun in their announcement. That is the only thing they did wrong. In the Marsden case it appears they also failed to investigate.
Steve Paiken handled his situation perfectly. He maintained his innocence without attacking his accuser or speculating on her motives or mental health. He knew he was 100% in the clear. he didn't even have to take a leave of absence.
Again, it is kind of interesting that at every turn (including the very title of this thread) a movement that is essentially about systemic attacks on women is evaluated based on how it affects men, and what we wind up talking about is every counter-example the boys can come up with. Not the over-arching reality that this is something which virtually every woman experiences in a way that men simply do not.
Men get trolled too: just check out the Twitter feed of the Tottenham MP David Lammy. But the gendered nature of the backlash against women who dare to have a voice is undeniable. So much so that when I raised it on a BBC politics show last week, the Brexit-supporting journalist Isabel Oakeshott, who has been at the centre of numerous online controversies, retorted that “being viciously attacked on Twitter is a way of life”.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/13/rape-threats-racis...
Indeed. What is worsening the divide is not that men attack and harrass women. It is that women dare to speak up about it.
I'm not sure Rev. was addressing the ladies specifically.
And I think it's kind of salient to the thread that a man making a factual argument can be "rebutted" with nothing more than the exasperated claim that, since he's a man and saying something, it's "mansplaining" and he must be pompously edumacating a woman.
He was arguing with mostly women about how well women are protected under the law from male aggression. If that is not mansplaining then please provide some alternate definition.
The focus on cases of false accusation (and I mean this in general terms rather than just what's happening on this thread, which is kind of a microcosm) is part of the pushback on #metoo. We're looking at the rare cases, the exceptions to the rule, so that we don't have to look the elephant in the room in the eye.
It's a fact that the Crown prosecutor (that's for you, Magoo - the Crown is represented by the prosecutor, so let's stop with the hair-splitting and distraction) can put forward a charge. A witness (or victim, if you prefer) can refuse to testify. There are a lot of reasons women don't want to take it to the law - and some of those reasons are what #metoo is trying to address. "Believing women" doesn't necessarily mean uncritically accepting an accusation. It means treating the accusation as credible until investigation shows that it is not. Up until now, many women who are assaulted or harassed are dismissed prior to investigation, and then the investigation does not happen. It's kind of like "innocent until proven guilty" in that women aren't treated as if they're guilty of lying right out the gate.
It's demoralizing that the discussion turns so quickly into what it is here. When #metoo started to gain traction, my daughters and I were talking about it, and they asked me if I had ever been harassed. And the answer to that was yes and that probably every woman I know has some experience with it. That we go through life knowing that if we make a naive decision regarding our safety that there's a chance - not a certainty, but a chance - that that decision will not only result in being harmed or harassed, but also that the very decision will be held against us if we make a complaint about it. This is what #metoo is trying to address.
I'm lucky. The harassment I've experienced has not resulted in major harm to me or to my prospects - although it has made some aspects of my life harder than they needed to be. What we all have to gain is that if we can deal with this, women can participate fully in work forces, social spheres, all of it. We shouldn't have to think about the potential negative consequences of not detouring that construction zone, going to that club, joining that table of managers. We're trying to address the division that already exists and that quite a lot of men don't want to acknowledge.
So is #metoo dividing men and women? No. The division is well-established. We're just shining a light on it and that makes some people uncomfortable. That discomfort is actually a good thing - because change never comes through comfort anyway.
Timebandit wrote:
"Believing women" doesn't necessarily mean uncritically accepting an accusation. It means treating the accusation as credible until investigation shows that it is not.
But the phrase wasn't 'believing women', it was 'believing survivors'. The problem in 'believing survivors' if that it dismisses the possiblity that there was nothing to survive from. I have no problem with believing women, and carrying on an investigation based on a woman's complaint. I still believe though, that an accused has the right to face their accusers, and to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
It's worthwhile to remember that star chambers were started with the very best of intentions. They were designed to allow the prosecution of very prominent people, where it was felt the ordinary courts would hesitate to convict.
It didn't take long for the powers that be to realize the value of the star chamber, and the next thing you know, star chamber is a synonym for injustice and oppression.
Oh that's why they leave the lights on above that cafe on Broadway. It must be the secret fake sexual assault star chamber. That explains why there are so many men rotting away in prison because they were falsely convicted of sexual assault on no evidence.
As it says on the source page, we have turned victim blaming and shaming into an art form.
http://www.ywcasaskatoon.com/why-do-we-continue-to-blame-victims-of-sexu...
I still believe though, that an accused has the right to face their accusers, and to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
Which they have. Men haven't lost any civil rights.
Timebandit wrote:
"Believing women" doesn't necessarily mean uncritically accepting an accusation. It means treating the accusation as credible until investigation shows that it is not.
But the phrase wasn't 'believing women', it was 'believing survivors'. The problem in 'believing survivors' if that it dismisses the possiblity that there was nothing to survive from. I have no problem with believing women, and carrying on an investigation based on a woman's complaint. I still believe though, that an accused has the right to face their accusers, and to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
It's worthwhile to remember that star chambers were started with the very best of intentions. They were designed to allow the prosecution of very prominent people, where it was felt the ordinary courts would hesitate to convict.
It didn't take long for the powers that be to realize the value of the star chamber, and the next thing you know, star chamber is a synonym for injustice and oppression.
This strikes me as a bit of a hysterical over-reaction. Star chambers? REALLY???
If you say "believing women", you get "Well, women aren't the only ones who are assaulted. You're excluding men and transpeople." So you find another term and there's something wrong with that. In the end, we find ourselves in a swirl of semantic arguments when we all bloody well know what the goddam point is, but we can't talk about it because there's too many objections to the terminology.
Which supports the point I made above. Let's argue about the peripheral details and not make eye contact with the elephant. Anything but addressing the actual problem: People, most of whom are female, being dismissed when they bring allegations to the correct authorities and are assumed to be liars before anybody looks into anything. I agree with you about innocent until proven guilty. I'm suggesting we extend that courtesy to the allegants as well as the accused.
But do let's go on about the semantics. Because I'm sure if we get just the right word, everything will fall perfectly into place and justice will reign.
Gary Mason in today's Globe & Mail:
After Galloway: Schools have no place in sexual-assault investigations
Last week, an arbitrator awarded the University of British Columbia’s former creative-writing chair, Steven Galloway, $167,000 in damages stemming from his shocking dismissal from the school in 2016. If ever there was a win that felt like a loss, this would be it.
Mr. Galloway was fired after it was revealed that he’d had a two-year affair with a woman in his program. But it was worse – the woman alleged that the once-celebrated author sexually assaulted her before they commenced their dalliance. These allegations, among others less serious leveled by some of his students, incited an investigation by the university that was magnificently bungled. This is largely why Mr. Galloway got the award amount he did.
...There were three central allegations made by the main complainant; that on two occasions Mr. Galloway sexually assaulted her and on another raped her, possibly after being drugged. There was a raft of other complaints from a handful of mostly female students that included everything from inappropriate comments and jokes of a sexual nature to creating a sexualized environment during a weekly social gathering he held with students in a bar.
The university hired a former B.C. Supreme Court justice, Mary Ellen Boyd, to look into it all. While on the bench, Ms. Boyd was one of the most respected jurists in the province.
She effectively dismissed all of the allegations leveled against Mr. Galloway except one: he hadn’t revealed to his superiors that he was in a relationship with a student in his program.
...There are many things postsecondary institutions in this country can learn from Mr. Galloway’s saga and one has to be this: It’s not a university’s job to investigate allegations as serious as rape. Sexual assault is a serious crime in Canada. Police have the mandate to investigate them, not educational institutions.
...Universities can’t be ...launching sexual-assault probes on campus every week. Having a retired judge rule that someone’s allegations of sexual assault don’t add up shouldn’t be the final word about something as grave a crime as rape. But it can’t be the first word either.
...Mr. Galloway’s story will be remembered as a debacle of extraordinary dimensions. No one is happy about the final outcome.
Strangely enough, the single thing I suggested should cause trouble for Galloway (outside of the criminal acts, of course), the affair with a student under his tutelage, would have been okay if he had notified his superiours the affair was going on.
However, we don't have to speculate any more about sexual assault or sexual misconduct. There wasn't any. Note also the complainant suggested she was assaulted before she began her affair with Galloway. Similar to the case of Jian Gomeshi, wherein the complainants accused him of beatings during sex, but then for some reason not only wanted to continue the affair, but went to the trouble of sending provocative pictures to him. I have to admit, I would be willing to have some woman explain that to me.
Just another couple of points. It may be splitting hairs to differentiate between the Crown and the prosecution. But lurking in that definition is another more important point. That is, crimes are not commited against the individual, they are committed against the state (Crown). Which is why judges are sometimes pretty hard on women who have come forward with a complaint, then refused to testify. By refusing to testify they legally become an accessory.
Referring to star chambers is hardly hysterical. One of the defining features of such legal proceedings was that the accused could not face their accuser(s). The demand for anonymity (for the accuser) is certainly one of the features of the current proceedings. Criminals, even heinous criminals, have protections built into the law. There's a reason for those protections, put in place over several hundred years of jurisprudence. The people who put those protections in place were not criminals, they were people who knew what happened when those protections weren't there.
You'd be willing to have some woman explain that to you? What does that mean?
Look Rev, you said it yourself. Criminal cases are between the state and the accused. And in addition to that, someone can't legally consent to assault (with a very few exceptions, like team sports and surgery). So whatever the complainant may have written after the fact, for whatever reason, it doesn't retroactively give consent to her being punched and choked. It is still a crime.
Lots of people are in abusive situations and would never go to the police about their abusers. It is still abuse.
And again, this is all off in the giggly bushes.
#metoo isn't just about cases that meet the criteria for prosecution in the criminal justice system. It's about the banal, day to day grind of comments, interactions and requisite second-guessing that women do in this culture. I have to say, there's very little sympathy for that in this thread. We've gone directly to what happens to men when women make unfounded accusations of criminal behaviour.
So we're talking about that, rather than the talk I had to give my teenaged daughter before she went to a bar the first time. Where I had to warn her about watching her drink. About scanning a room. About not leaving alone, even if her friends want to stay and she's ready to go home. Because if she makes the wrong choice at just the wrong time, she'll get hurt. Because I've been there, and by sheer luck have come out of it okay and I'm scared she won't be as fortunate. Because it's happened to my friends. Because all of us can say #metoo.
We're ignoring the forest for the trees.
However, we don't have to speculate any more about sexual assault or sexual misconduct. There wasn't any. Note also the complainant suggested she was assaulted before she began her affair with Galloway.
That they were dismissed does not mean nothing happened only that there was insufficient proof.
...There are many things postsecondary institutions in this country can learn from Mr. Galloway’s saga and one has to be this: It’s not a university’s job to investigate allegations as serious as rape. Sexual assault is a serious crime in Canada. Police have the mandate to investigate them, not educational institutions.
Police have the mandate if a complaint is registered with them to investigate and charge people with a crime. Employers also have a mandate to provide a safe environment therefore they also have the mandate to investigate if it seems that is not occuring regardless of whether or not the alleged behavior is illegal.
Referring to star chambers is hardly hysterical. One of the defining features of such legal proceedings was that the accused could not face their accuser(s). The demand for anonymity (for the accuser) is certainly one of the features of the current proceedings. Criminals, even heinous criminals, have protections built into the law. There's a reason for those protections, put in place over several hundred years of jurisprudence. The people who put those protections in place were not criminals, they were people who knew what happened when those protections weren't there.
In Canada the accused still has the right to face the accuser except perhaps in child molestation cases. You are equating legal proceedings with workplace proceedings. It isn't necessary to break the law in order to be fired.
Galloway left himself open to accusations because he failed to report his relationship with a student. Had he not hidden the relationship the university might have had more faith in him.
The court of public opinion can judge people based on whatever they like even including race. The court of public opinion doesn't care if the judge didn't think his behavior rose to the level of criminal. We get to decide he's a jerk and he shouldn't have a privileged public position with its rewards.
It isn't illegal to say the N word but no public figure in Canada could say that word and remain a public figure. Roseanne didn't break any laws but her show still got cancelled.
Sexual misconduct has become equally no-tolerance. Times-up. Ignorance is no longer an excuse. Behaving like a jerk with women isn't illegal nor should it be. It's like free speech. You can still be judged for it.
Timebandit wrote:
We've gone directly to what happens to men when women make unfounded accusations of criminal behaviour.
Let's be clear. In the case of Galloway it wasn't just false accusations of criminal behaviour, it was also false allegations of inappropriate sexual behaviour.None of the accusations against him were found to have merit.
Pondering wrote:
The court of public opinion can judge people based on whatever they like even including race. The court of public opinion doesn't care if the judge didn't think his behavior rose to the level of criminal. We get to decide he's a jerk and he shouldn't have a privileged public position with its rewards.
It isn't illegal to say the N word but no public figure in Canada could say that word and remain a public figure. Roseanne didn't break any laws but her show still got cancelled.
I'll begin by pointing out that Galloway was not a 'public figure'. He was a college prof. That may be somewhat higher up than a plumber, but Galloway didn't become a public figure until he was fired. As far as the court of public opinion, they may decide based on 'race', but they can't fire someone for being the wrong 'race'. Or would you have it that they should be able to?
further from Pondering:
Sexual misconduct has become equally no-tolerance. Times-up.
What sexual misconduct are you talking about? There was none in Galloway's case.
We've gone directly to what happens to men when women make unfounded accusations of criminal behaviour.
Shouldn't that just be a normal and expected part of the discussion? The way drug side effects should be a normal and expected part of the discussion about drug efficacy?
The side effects certainly don't have to dominate the discussion. But if it seems they're being deliberately denied or ignored, that should be worrisome, yes?
I find the Erin Weir thread interesting, in that it seems (to me, at least) that a significant number of posters seem to feel that Weir got the short end of the stick from #metoo. Is he the first and only person to get the short end? Is he a "one-off"? If it's possible that there may be others, that's the other "elephant in the room". How is it so impossible to hold predatory and malicious men to account, while not holding non-predatory, non-malicious men to account?
Is that an unreasonable question? Is asking that an expression of "man privelege"?
6079_Smith_W wrote:
So whatever the complainant may have written after the fact, for whatever reason, it doesn't retroactively give consent to her being punched and choked. It is still a crime.
Lots of people are in abusive situations and would never go to the police about their abusers. It is still abuse.
Did I say somewhere that it wasn't a crime? What I did do was ask the simple question why a woman would want to continue a relationship in which she had be assaulted?
I can understand a married woman with few financial resources staying in an abusive relationship simply because her options are limited. That is certainly not the case with Gomeshi, where the women involved were relatively well off, and would not have suffered by ending the relationship. This is also true of the Galloway case, wherein the complainant was already married, so presumably could have stopped the relationship at any time without consequence.
My question is, why, given the complete freedom all of the women in these cases had to just stop, not only didn't stop, but in fact tried very hard to continue on? That part I just don't get.
And frankly, 6079_Smith_W, I don't think you're qualified to answer.
Actually Magoo, I don't think too many here who had concerns about Erin Weir's treatment thought it had anything to do with Metoo (I don't think any did, actually; it was party politics). And when in the face of assault statistics at post #18, the only thing that is brought up repeatedly is alleged false accusations and victim blaming, yes it is a problem.
And Rev, it isn't relevant to what is criminal or not. So why even bring it up?
But why did she write that letter, or why did she wear those clothes, or why didn't she keep her knees closed, or why did she stay with him sure is relevant to the MeToo movement. As is you expecting that it is up to "some woman" to give you an explanation for what anyone else does.
But why did she write that letter, or why did she wear those clothes, or why didn't she keep her knees closed, or why did she stay with him sure is relevant to the MeToo movement.
None of those is an honest precis of the witnesses in the Ghomeshi trial.
Rev's right: they seemed to really, really want to hook up again. Were they adults who can certainly make their own choices? Or was their eagerness for more sexual encounters just more proof that that they were victimized?
Really, if they can make their own choice then they got it, yes?
But if they were trying to avoid Ghomeshi by inviting him over, it's not clear how that was supposed to work.
I'm hoping NOT to hear that "women are complex; they contain multitudes" as some sort of explanation for this. Nor any made-up crap about how women don't know what's what, and run directly back into the forest fire.
Timebandit wrote:
We've gone directly to what happens to men when women make unfounded accusations of criminal behaviour.
Let's be clear. In the case of Galloway it wasn't just false accusations of criminal behaviour, it was also false allegations of inappropriate sexual behaviour.None of the accusations against him were found to have merit.
You've completely missed the point of my comment.
This discussion is focused on the repercussions for men of the #metoo movement - the vanishingly rare false accusation. I guess it's easier to talk about that than the bigger issue.
