![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
1. Making some headway in my sci-fi novel, after weeks of writer's block. Came home and wrote a bit more.
Feeling a bit self-conscious about leaving it with my mother, although not that self-conscious. She's read everything I've written and is the most versatile and voracious reader that I know. Also a rather fair and objective book critic/analyst.
2. Read about something on a friend's blog that will not let go of my brain.
In some British advice column, no clue what it was, a 24 year old newly married woman wanted to know what to do about her hubby refusing to allow her to own or buy any books. He would not allow books in their house. He felt they were a waste of money, and she should just borrow from the library, since she'd clearly never read them again. (Now the man bought cigarettes and smoked, so there's an off-chance he will die of lung cancer early in the marriage. But it's not high. And he likes to buy wall paintings to put on the walls.]
After reading this, I thought, how in the hell did she end up with this control freak? Why? Also, how about buying an e-reader and not telling him about it? Set up your own account, and own credit card, with your own money. OR tell the bastard, and say either you let me buy books, or we don't have sex ever.
That said? I know people who only borrow books from libraries (and no, they can totally afford the books). (BTW? These people are the enemies of all writers everywhere. They make it impossible for many writers to make a living. Also, libraries don't carry everything.) I do not understand these people. I'm the opposite at this point in my life -- I avoid libraries (allergic, can't figure out how to do lending on ebooks, and bad experiences with library industry) and require a chaperone in book stores. In short, dear reader, I not only buy books, I hoard books -- both regular and e-books.
The idea of not being able to buy or own books would be hell for me. That's a non-negotiable situation. I'd most likely strangle the person who told me I couldn't buy or own any books, or find a way to prevent them from their passion. (That man would never be able to find his cigarettes.)
3. #MeToo and Time's Up Movement and the Due Process Slippery Slope...
Two articles have popped up over this already. I'm waiting for more. Of the two, only one appears to be credible. It's about the woman who over-reacted to her date with Ari Anzai (sp?), the lead of Master of None. Apparently it was an awkward date, which ended with Ari asking for a bit more than she was willing to put out -- and misreading her signals. It happens. More than it should, but it happens. An argument has erupted over it on FB and Twitter, apparently.
The other one is regarding Margaret Atwood's defense of Steven Galloway, and UBC's horrific handling of the sexual allegations against Galloway. This one is less credible, mainly because Atwood gets her facts wrong.
Anyhow, in Atwood's article -- a rather good point is made, which is lost because of the inaccurate context. So if we ignore the context and just look at the point as it reflects upon the broader picture?
What she appears to be talking about is the slippery slope of circumventing due process -- or innocent before "proven guilty" with the burden of proof firmly resting on the accuser not the accused.
The problem, which she is overlooking -- ironic, considering she doesn't appear to overlook it in her fictional works --- is that our justice system in regards to sex crimes, has favored the perpetrator over the victim. Sad, but true. It is insanely difficult to prove that someone raped, molested, sexually abused, or violated you. Mainly because most of the evidence doesn't survive the crime -- and even if it does, it can in many instances be evidence of consensual act. So, what it comes down to is "HE Said/SHE said" and which party is the most reliable or credible under the circumstances.
I discovered this while doing moot trials in law school, along with various domestic violence and legal aid internships. The movie, The Accused, was rather accurate in some respects, although it ended far happier than the majority of cases often do. Also if the perpetrator has an iota of power, good luck proving he did anything wrong.
Our system and power structure is unfortunately set up to support sexual predators. If you don't believe me, just look at the Bill Cosby, Woody Allen, Weinstein, Roman Polanski, Donald Trump, various athelets, the Catholic Priest scandal, the Campus Rape Scandals, the Gymnast Scandals, etc.
The very fact that a known sexual predator with more than 50 allegations of sexual misconduct, including a tape in which he admitted it, was elected President of the US, is proof that we are playing against a stacked deck.
Because this is the case, people are going another root. They've been given little choice. The justice system has failed them. And that's scary, because of the slippery slope. We do not want to live in a world where the burden of proof is on the defendant -- that would mean that anyone could accuse you of anything and you would have to prove them wrong. No one wants that.
So, I think right now we are all walking a tight rope between two extremes, the loss of due process or the abuse of it. Too many people in our justice system have abused their power to protect people who prey on others.
I'm not sure how it will balance out in the end. But, I do think, we need to keep a keen eye on the proceedings to ensure neither side slides towards one or the other extreme. Which is what Atwood is warning people about, albeit not necessarily in the best of manners. I admittedly have issues with Atwood, so not surprised by this. Her ideas aren't bad, but her intent seems to be slightly off-kilter.
Feeling a bit self-conscious about leaving it with my mother, although not that self-conscious. She's read everything I've written and is the most versatile and voracious reader that I know. Also a rather fair and objective book critic/analyst.
2. Read about something on a friend's blog that will not let go of my brain.
In some British advice column, no clue what it was, a 24 year old newly married woman wanted to know what to do about her hubby refusing to allow her to own or buy any books. He would not allow books in their house. He felt they were a waste of money, and she should just borrow from the library, since she'd clearly never read them again. (Now the man bought cigarettes and smoked, so there's an off-chance he will die of lung cancer early in the marriage. But it's not high. And he likes to buy wall paintings to put on the walls.]
After reading this, I thought, how in the hell did she end up with this control freak? Why? Also, how about buying an e-reader and not telling him about it? Set up your own account, and own credit card, with your own money. OR tell the bastard, and say either you let me buy books, or we don't have sex ever.
That said? I know people who only borrow books from libraries (and no, they can totally afford the books). (BTW? These people are the enemies of all writers everywhere. They make it impossible for many writers to make a living. Also, libraries don't carry everything.) I do not understand these people. I'm the opposite at this point in my life -- I avoid libraries (allergic, can't figure out how to do lending on ebooks, and bad experiences with library industry) and require a chaperone in book stores. In short, dear reader, I not only buy books, I hoard books -- both regular and e-books.
The idea of not being able to buy or own books would be hell for me. That's a non-negotiable situation. I'd most likely strangle the person who told me I couldn't buy or own any books, or find a way to prevent them from their passion. (That man would never be able to find his cigarettes.)
3. #MeToo and Time's Up Movement and the Due Process Slippery Slope...
Two articles have popped up over this already. I'm waiting for more. Of the two, only one appears to be credible. It's about the woman who over-reacted to her date with Ari Anzai (sp?), the lead of Master of None. Apparently it was an awkward date, which ended with Ari asking for a bit more than she was willing to put out -- and misreading her signals. It happens. More than it should, but it happens. An argument has erupted over it on FB and Twitter, apparently.
The other one is regarding Margaret Atwood's defense of Steven Galloway, and UBC's horrific handling of the sexual allegations against Galloway. This one is less credible, mainly because Atwood gets her facts wrong.
Anyhow, in Atwood's article -- a rather good point is made, which is lost because of the inaccurate context. So if we ignore the context and just look at the point as it reflects upon the broader picture?
There are, at present, three kinds of "witch" language. 1) Calling someone a witch, as applied lavishly to Hillary Clinton during the recent election. 2) "Witchhunt," used to imply that someone is looking for something that doesn't exist. 3) The structure of the Salem witchcraft trials, in which you were guilty because accused. I was talking about the third use.
This structure – guilty because accused – has applied in many more episodes in human history than Salem. It tends to kick in during the "Terror and Virtue" phase of revolutions – something has gone wrong, and there must be a purge, as in the French Revolution, Stalin's purges in the USSR, the Red Guard period in China, the reign of the Generals in Argentina and the early days of the Iranian Revolution. The list is long and Left and Right have both indulged. Before "Terror and Virtue" is over, a great many have fallen by the wayside. Note that I am not saying that there are no traitors or whatever the target group may be; simply that in such times, the usual rules of evidence are bypassed.
Such things are always done in the name of ushering in a better world. Sometimes they do usher one in, for a time anyway. Sometimes they are used as an excuse for new forms of oppression. As for vigilante justice – condemnation without a trial – it begins as a response to a lack of justice – either the system is corrupt, as in prerevolutionary France, or there isn't one, as in the Wild West – so people take things into their own hands. But understandable and temporary vigilante justice can morph into a culturally solidified lynch-mob habit, in which the available mode of justice is thrown out the window, and extralegal power structures are put into place and maintained. The Cosa Nostra, for instance, began as a resistance to political tyranny.
The #MeToo moment is a symptom of a broken legal system. All too frequently, women and other sexual-abuse complainants couldn't get a fair hearing through institutions – including corporate structures – so they used a new tool: the internet. Stars fell from the skies. This has been very effective, and has been seen as a massive wake-up call. But what next? The legal system can be fixed, or our society could dispose of it. Institutions, corporations and workplaces can houseclean, or they can expect more stars to fall, and also a lot of asteroids.
If the legal system is bypassed because it is seen as ineffectual, what will take its place? Who will be the new power brokers? It won't be the Bad Feminists like me. We are acceptable neither to Right nor to Left. In times of extremes, extremists win. Their ideology becomes a religion, anyone who doesn't puppet their views is seen as an apostate, a heretic or a traitor, and moderates in the middle are annihilated. Fiction writers are particularly suspect because they write about human beings, and people are morally ambiguous. The aim of ideology is to eliminate ambiguity.
What she appears to be talking about is the slippery slope of circumventing due process -- or innocent before "proven guilty" with the burden of proof firmly resting on the accuser not the accused.
The problem, which she is overlooking -- ironic, considering she doesn't appear to overlook it in her fictional works --- is that our justice system in regards to sex crimes, has favored the perpetrator over the victim. Sad, but true. It is insanely difficult to prove that someone raped, molested, sexually abused, or violated you. Mainly because most of the evidence doesn't survive the crime -- and even if it does, it can in many instances be evidence of consensual act. So, what it comes down to is "HE Said/SHE said" and which party is the most reliable or credible under the circumstances.
I discovered this while doing moot trials in law school, along with various domestic violence and legal aid internships. The movie, The Accused, was rather accurate in some respects, although it ended far happier than the majority of cases often do. Also if the perpetrator has an iota of power, good luck proving he did anything wrong.
Our system and power structure is unfortunately set up to support sexual predators. If you don't believe me, just look at the Bill Cosby, Woody Allen, Weinstein, Roman Polanski, Donald Trump, various athelets, the Catholic Priest scandal, the Campus Rape Scandals, the Gymnast Scandals, etc.
The very fact that a known sexual predator with more than 50 allegations of sexual misconduct, including a tape in which he admitted it, was elected President of the US, is proof that we are playing against a stacked deck.
Because this is the case, people are going another root. They've been given little choice. The justice system has failed them. And that's scary, because of the slippery slope. We do not want to live in a world where the burden of proof is on the defendant -- that would mean that anyone could accuse you of anything and you would have to prove them wrong. No one wants that.
So, I think right now we are all walking a tight rope between two extremes, the loss of due process or the abuse of it. Too many people in our justice system have abused their power to protect people who prey on others.
I'm not sure how it will balance out in the end. But, I do think, we need to keep a keen eye on the proceedings to ensure neither side slides towards one or the other extreme. Which is what Atwood is warning people about, albeit not necessarily in the best of manners. I admittedly have issues with Atwood, so not surprised by this. Her ideas aren't bad, but her intent seems to be slightly off-kilter.
no subject
The concept of due process, as a legal doctrine, doesn't apply to, say, being fired from one's job or getting a bad reputation. Now, I happen to think that employees should have true due process protections, but I can't get too sympathetic to those who reflexively defend the right of employers to fire people -- that's what "at will" employment means -- and then complain about lack of "due process".
If we get rid of the technical term and just talk about basic fairness, I think it's possible to make some distinctions. Again, that wouldn't and can't solve the problem that employers are free to fire people for any reason or no reason.* I guess it might make it possible to talk about gradations of offense and of punishment. In that case the people claiming that something was "unfair" need to start explaining why X offense was lesser or Y punishment was too severe. Generalized complaints about "due process" don't do that.
*Caveat that they can't fire someone for discriminatory reasons such as being black or female.
no subject
I agree -- unless you aren't an at-will employee or have a contract, then yeah, they can fire you without cause.
However under individual employment law -- you do have to prove misconduct, and I think the test is preponderance of the evidence? It's not as huge as criminal. Civil actually has a lesser burden, which is why OJ got slammed in the Civil Wrongful Death Suit, but off in the criminal. Criminal has a higher standard. It's also why a lot of women are going the civil route -- they did for Weinstein. I remember that vaguely from law school. It's also why a lot of people settle in Civil Suits - they will settle and then sign non-disclosure agreements.
It's actually easier to get justice that route than the criminal route -- because it's not as heavy a burden -- you don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, just have a preponderance of the evidence?
And you're right when it comes to employment law and civil law, due process doesn't really apply.
[* While you can't fire based on race or gender, there are weird ways around it that I've seen employers get away with here and there. Less so now. It was worse in the 1980s and 90s.]
[Also not sure if Canadian Law varies in regards to due process and employment vs. the US. I'm guessing not? Employment Law is an interesting and frustrating field.]
no subject
Now, if you could prove sexual harassment in CA, that would be a forbidden ground (like race). But the remedy is that you get to keep your job. Yippee -- you get to keep working for the asshole. So you're right that a civil suit is the preferred remedy. Even then it's harder to prove than it probably should be.
no subject
No, it's not that certain states are "at-will" or not "at-will", it's if the employee is under a contract (often union). Most government employees are under union contracts -- so not at will. So too are teachers, nurses, truckers, etc. If you have a "contract" or are "under contract" with the employer -- the contract supersedes the "at-will" legislation. A lot of actors are "under contract", so determination is based on their contract first, and to the degree that it does not contradict Constitutional Law.
It's very hard to get rid of employees who are under contract, particularly those who are union represented, regardless of where they reside.
no subject