Defending the indefensible

I have to write this.  I’ll likely get killed by many readers (thank God I only have a few!).  But I have to write this because for evil to be done, good people need only do nothing.  And sexual politics is going too far (in my opinion).  A massive double standard is emerging.  I could write books on this and a lot of it would go against prevailing mood and opinion.  Bottom line: the sexes are equal.  Different.  But equal.  Yin and Yang battle constantly.  It is the way of things. 

But….what prompted this blog? 

Real justice is a difficult thing.  And, because of that, we have laws and processes.  Clearly we need them.  Harvey Weinstein is a case in point.

Weinstein is innocent.  At least until the allegations are proven, he is.  And, make no mistake, all the accusations are still at the allegation stage.  He is innocent until proven guilty.

There have been no investigations (other than a brief one by the New York police who didn’t pursue it due to lack of evidence) and, as yet, no actual charges have been laid. Due and impartial process has not been followed and, further, he has claimed innocence in all accusations.   

But Harvey Weinstein has already lost his job, his status as a movie mogul, his friends, his wife and his standing in the Motion Pictures Academy, all on heresay.  He has been condemned and sentenced.  No proof.  The man has been tarred and feathered in the court of public opinion and convicted and punished without so much as a stitch of evidence or a minute of due process.

This is worse than the crimes he is accused of.

“How can you say that, Dave?  He is accused of gross pigginess in almost every case and, at least once, he is accused of indecent exposure.  One woman has even alleged rape!”

Until it is proven, he is innocent.  That’s the way the law is supposed to work and that is the way it should work.  Even if Weinstein is 100% guilty of everything (other than rape), the price he has paid so far is still greater than the law would prosecute for anyway.  You don’t go to jail for pigginess.  You don’t even go to jail for pussy-grabbing.  Or forced-kissing.  Just ask Donald Trump.  The President of the United States.

This convicting of people in social media makes a travesty of law and a mockery of justice.  It is all so completely unfair.  The accuser is often condemned by the supporters of the accused.  The accused is completely ruined simply by the allegations.  It’s a kangaroo court of the worst kind.  Unproven public accusations serve no one.

We have seen the gross injustices of sexual harassment and even sexual assault and we have written laws with which to deal with it.  These laws, when applied in a proper trial, have yielded some surprising results including unjust convictions. So, even with diligent due process, unfairness can result.  How could anyone think that it is fairer to dispense with the process?  Improve it, maybe.  But you need to be fair to both parties from the very start.  Unless facts mean nothing to you, then process must be served.  Weinstein is not getting that.

Neither are the alleged victims.

But let’s be fair, for a minute . . . let’s be human, anyway.  Realistic.  When almost thirty women come forward and make these allegations, most everyone believes it.  And why shouldn’t we?  Thirty women wouldn’t lie, now, would they?

I’ll leave that question alone for a minute (a long minute) but I will go so far as to say that none of the accusations surprises me.  Harvey is kinda piggy-looking.  He lacks what Brad Pitt and George Clooney have, that’s for sure.  Always has and always will.  But he has money.  Harvey didn’t get to swim in the gene pool without paying for it.  He was a make-a-career movie executive and starlets wanted careers.  Power corrupts.  People sell out.  Harvey was buying.  Some may have sold.  Harvey may have used power and money to stand in for good lucks and charm.  He would not be the first.

Moreover, there is perspective.  It all could have happened just as they said (intimidation).  Mind you, it could have happened just as he said, too (deal-making).  “It was consensual!”

I believe them both.  Harvey may have used coercion and money and they wanted the money and fame but felt pressured in the process.  Given that Harvey is a piggy, he might have employed what resources he had to swim in the gene pool – money and coercion.  He wanted sex.  They wanted career.  Not a pretty picture but not a new one either.

Everyone would like the world to be nice and Disney-esque.  No one wants that more than me.  But the truth is, it is NOT Disneyesque, it is also somewhat primal and layered with deceit.  Both sides.

But do I really think he is innocent of the allegations?  No.  Not really.  I have my suspicions.  Based on nothing but my ignorant, biased stereotypes and the heresay in the media, I am willing to believe he displayed piggy behaviour and paid money to get away with it.  All in an effort to get laid.  Disgusting.  Ugh.  But, is it a crime to approach a woman with the goal of having sex?  No.  Is it legislated that one must be good looking and polite and charming to make such an effort?  No.  Is it a law that you can’t tempt and bribe your way into the sack?  No.  And have not both genders used what they had to get what they wanted since the beginning of time?  Yes.  So except for bad manners and disgusting behaviour, what law was actually broken?

Don’t get me wrong.  Harvey could be a very nasty piece of work – like they say – and, if so, he should be punished.  But first let’s have due process to determine his guilt and, more to the point, exactly what he is guilty of.  Is Harvey guilty of anything worse than what the president of the United States has admitted to and bragged about?

And, if he is guilty as we all suspect of something punishable by law, then shouldn’t the law be involved and the eventual punishment fit the crime?

But here is the main point in all of this:  What are we doing?  The politically correct society sitting in judgment without a scintilla of proof–what does that make us?  Are we not also guilty of some form of harassment?  Some form of bullying?  Are we not guilty of unjust persecution?  Are we not guilty of similar behaviours as the ones Harvey is accused of–using our collective power and influence to make someone suffer for our own entertainment?

If anyone reads this as a defense of Harvey, they are mistaken. It is a defence of due process.  It is also a defence of fairness, perspective and a brief reference to real life versus the Disney version.


13 thoughts on “Defending the indefensible

  1. I totally agree.
    While I fully expect Weinstein to eventually be charged and convicted of something……
    He’s still innocent until proven guilty.
    And some of the organizations that have jumped on the bandwagon to throw him immediately under the bus better hope he’s convicted or they’re gonna be paying him millions…….
    I remember expressing shock and outrage at OJ Simpsons “not guilty” verdict…. to a high priced lawyer in an elevator one day after the trial.
    He looked at me and said, ” Once Detective Mark Furman’s testimony was put into question……Reasonable Doubt …..raises its ugly head”
    Thats the Law. Good or bad
    Take it or leave it.


    • I admit that the law is clearly an ass most of the time but the court of popular opinion is worse. The law is flawed but better than nothing. Hate it. Criticize it. But, as an arbitrator, I employed it and found it better than it seems most of the time. And, I agree, he better be convicted of nothing less than rape or else lawsuits will fly.


  2. Rule of law sets us apart from many regions in the world where lawlessness reigns. Have decisions been rendered that appear on their face wrong headed? Yes, but these can be appealed. Have there been miscarriages of justice in Canada? Yes. But mistakes do not impeach the entire institution. I agree with due process not trial by social media memes. Most professions are prohibited by law from exerting the sort of coercive influence of the type allegedly practised by Mr Weinstein. Society call upon us to act “ In loco parentis,” as a kind judicious parent, not as one using one’s power and position to coerce the vulnerable.


  3. I agree David. Due Process. But we live in the world of social media. And social media can lead us down some very strange paths. I read a piece last night from a woman who was blaming ALL men for this. Her argument was this. We men are supposed to monitor the behaviour of other men and if we see them acting in an inappropriate manner, we put a stop to it. l would say that most men I know already do that. The hitch in this is that most men who do this,make sure there is no audience. (Trump notwithstanding) The second part of the argument was this: raise your sons to be more respectful of women. If they turn out to be sexual pigs, it’s your fault! I have a serious problem with this. It’s the responsibility of both parents to teach their children to treat the other gender with respect. When you send them out the door you can only hope and pray the lessons you taught them have sunk in!


    • And I agree with you. Plus I could rant over a dozen spinoff subjects. The main point is that due process is the only way to determine what really happened. And sexual politics is getting out of hand.


      • I so agree with Paul, The only truly good thing I have accomplished in my life was to help raise 3 boys to know the social rules, that includes respect of women at the top of the list. It was really quite easy, they learned by observing how my wife an I treated each other, with respect and consideration. So many parents are at a failing grade that I feel a strong downwards spiralling doom for our current way if life. But do not dispare as the pendulum will at some time reverse its course!


  4. Many professions follow a Code of Ethics. The ethical codes describe behaviours that constitute conduct unbecoming. It falls upon individuals to know or ought to have know what behaviours are disreputable and unbecoming of their ethical code. But without an ethical compass abuses of power arise. As Lord Acton observed, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”


  5. I believe the term “casting couch” was invented in Hollywood about 80-100 years ago.
    So any “revelations” about what a pig Weinstein is and the “shock” displayed by the Hollywood “elite” is a tad disengenuous at best and self serving at worst…..
    Watching him die a death of a thousand cuts in social media is almost worth it…..until you realize….he hasnt been convicted of anything.
    My biggest anticipation is……..who’s next?
    Because you know Weinstein wasnt the only one doing this…….


    • If the criteria for persecution is based on simple pigginess, then every young inebriated man and women is a target. Being young and horny lends itself to being less than subtle and sometimes coercive and even (gasp) manipulative. And I believe SOME of what Weinstein is facing is only that kind of pigginess. Example of overkill: look at Weiner’s weiner…(if you can)….he didn’t assault anyone except their sensibilities and he’s in jail. 18 months, I believe. So the criteria bar for sexual offense is pretty low. Too low. Time to learn that some things should just be ignored or receive a sharp rebuke. Maybe a slap across the face. Vulgar is not a crime or else Trump would be doing life sentences of hard time.
      Well…..I am wrong….NOW vulgar IS a crime in the kangaroo court system. And that’s crazy wrong.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.