Tuesday, August 06, 2019



#MeToo lost integrity when it turned on Lady Justice

In the early days of the #MeToo movement, women sought solidarity by sharing experiences of sexual abuse online. In the dying days of the movement, women sought publicity by holding famous men guilty without charge. The fate of #MeToo was sealed after the sisterhood turned its back on Lady Justice and marched down the path of social justice. Never before has a single movement done so much damage to women’s welfare in the name of feminism.

On October 5, 2017, The New York Times published allegations of sexual harassment and assault against Hollywood media executive Harvey Weinstein. Investigative reporters Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey found Weinstein had paid hush money to women to cover up sexual abuse allegations.

The list of famous women speaking out against Weinstein grew. Angelina Jolie joined Ashley Judd, Heather Graham, Gwyneth Paltrow, Mira Sorvino and Rosanna Arquette in alleging he had made unwelcome sexual advances towards them. Damning evidence included the revelation that Rose McGowan had reached a $US100,000 settlement with Weinstein after an unwanted encounter in a hotel room during the Sundance Film Festival in 1997. Salma Hayek wrote an article for The New York T imes in which she claimed Weinstein subjected her to several unwanted sexual advances and threatened to kill her when she rejected him. She wrote: “The range of his persuasion tactics went from sweet-talking me to that one time when, in an attack of fury, he said the terrifying words, ‘I will kill you, don’t think I can’t’.” Weinstein has pleaded not guilty to multiple sexual charges.

TV actress Alyssa Milano used social media to announce she too had experienced sexual abuse. She encouraged other women to express solidarity online using the hashtag “me too”. Within a week, thousands of messages appeared on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook from women and some men who said they were victims of sexual abuse or harassment. The reality that men are victims too is important, but was largely overlooked as activists began to frame the contours of the #MeToo movement with a sledgehammer. Before a single verdict was reached against the accused, MeToo-ers had created a meta-narrative featuring a system of patriarchal control in which all men are cast as beasts of prey and all women their unwitting victims.

Despite the strength and volume of allegations that inspired the #MeToo movement, it began to falter as the personal became more political and the political became more partisan. The tipping point was the campaign against Supreme Court nominee and conservative Brett Kavanaugh.

Academic Christine Blasey Ford accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her in the 1980s when they were teenagers. She agreed to testify before a Senate judiciary committee. Despite the #MeToo movement’s belief in the virtue of women and the vice of men, problems with Blasey Ford’s account of events became readily apparent. In a memo to Republican senators, prosecutor Rachel Mitchell provided a damning analysis of the allegations. Mitchell noted inconsistent accounts of when the alleged assault occurred; that Blasey Ford had neglected to identify Kavanaugh by name in historical marriage therapy notes on the alleged assault; and her apparent inability to remember key details about the night during which the assault allegedly took place.

After Donald Trump questioned the veracity of the Blasey Ford allegations given their timing with Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, Milano leapt to her defence. She wrote an anecdotal piece for Vox that exposed the increasingly partisan nature of the #MeToo movement: “The courage of survivors will always be stronger than Donald Trump’s misogyny. The lives of survivors will always be more important than Brett Kavanaugh’s career.” Milano had drawn a battle line between sexual abuse survivors and conservative men. The #MeToo movement became a partisan political bloc against conservatism and right-leaning men.

In The Philadelphia Inquirer, columnist Solomon Jones illustrated how the pursuit of social justice could trump the presumption of innocence: “In the midst of a #MeToo movement that seeks to punish sexual abusers, powerful men like President Donald Trump … are supporting an accused sexual abuser’s bid for a lifetime Supreme Court appoint­ment. This, despite the Senate testimony of Christine Blasey Ford, a white woman who said Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her.” After a federal panel of judges dismissed all 83 ethics complaints against Kavanaugh, he called the allegations “a calculated and orchestrated political hit fuelled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump … revenge on behalf of the Clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups”.

Only a year after the #MeToo movement began, it had been corrupted by partisan politics, peer pressure and groupthink. The persecution of men the mob declared guilty without trial shows how social justice perverts the course of justice. However, as men started to fight back against their accusers, the alleged victims began to look more like rebels without a reasonable cause.

In Australia recently, actor John Jarratt was accused of sexual abuse. Jarratt was acquitted of a historic rape charge last month. The jury took less than two hours to find him not guilty, yet the actor had to suffer months of reputational damage from the charge.

The #MeToo movement proved beyond a doubt the power of social media in the information age. It has reduced innocent men to tears and destroyed reputations in the court of public opinion. Never has a movement for women so closely resembled the witch hunts that fed on mass hysteria and hearsay to condemn the innocent.

Throughout history, Lady Justice has been venerated. She was often depicted as blind or blindfolded to represent impartiality in the weighing of evidence and the application of justice. If women want a heroine, forget about the #MeToo narcissists. Set your sights on Lady Justice.

SOURCE 






Bigot loses her job

A Florida McDonald's worker was fired after a paramedic complained on social media that she refused to serve him because he had a badge.

Sunstar paramedic Anthony Quinn took to Facebook to reveal the fact that he was allegedly denied service by an employee at a McDonald's in Madeira Beach, Florida, on Wednesday night.

The revelation resulted in the employee, who has not been named, being fired from the fast food outpost, according to WFTS. 

In his Facebook post, Quinn wrote: 'I am at work, in my Sunstar paramedic uniform. I walk into McDonalds [sic] just to use the bathroom and an employee goes we don't accept officers in here.

'I tell her I'm not an officer. She then says anyone with a badge. then says it to my partner as he walks in to order food, says we don't serve your kind here. Just insane how people are.'

Quinn then invited people to 'Feel free to share and repost.'

Quinn also left a negative online review of the McDonald's in question, writing again that he went into the McDonald's to use its bathroom and order food and that was when 'an employee told me they don't serve badges here.' He added that when his partner walked in five minutes later, he was told the same thing.

'Corporate will be notified' of their treatment, Quinn wrote, ending the post, with '#shamemcdonalds #mcdonalds #totalinsanty #thishastostop #icallbs.'

Quinn's initial post was spotted and forwarded to Caspers Company, the managers of the particular McDonald's, a Caspers spokesperson told the Miami Herald.

In a Facebook post of their own Thursday, Caspers Company wrote that it had fired the worker who claimed the restaurant didn't 'serve badges.'

'We are aware of the unfortunate incident that took place at one of our restaurants last night. We, like you, were upset and disappointed and took immediate action. The employee has been terminated,' the post read.

'What occurred does not reflect the values of our brand, our franchise, or the love and admiration we have demonstrated consistently for our friends in law enforcement and first responders. We have reached out to offer our sincerest apology.' 

SOURCE 






Covington Catholic High School students file lawsuits against dozens of public figures including Elizabeth Warren, CNN, New York Times reporters and Kathy Griffin, claiming their comments after THAT encounter were defamatory

Attorneys for the Covington Catholic high school teens accused of harassing a Native-American protester on Capitol Hill back in January have filed a new defamation lawsuit against several of their most well-known Twitter detractors.

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), New York Times White House correspondent Maggie Haberman and CNN correspondent Ana Navarro were among 12 defendants named in the new suit, which seeks a maximum payout of $600,000 ($50,000 per defendant).

Activist Shaun King, U.S. Rep. Deb Haaland (D-Ariz.), comedian Kathy Griffin and historian Kevin M. Kruse were also named in the suit along with ABC News political analyst Matthew Dowd, Mother Jones Editor-in-Chief Clara Jefferey, Rewire Editor-in-Chief Jodi Jacobson, Kentucky entrepreneur Adam Edelen and former CNN correspondent Reza Aslan.

The eight boys listed anonymously as plaintiffs in the complaint, which was filed in Kentucky's Kenton County Circuit Court, claim the named defendants, who are all prominent figures on Twitter, falsely smeared them as bigots and damaged their lives and reputations in the process, according to Law & Crime.

'A field trip to our nation’s capital for a group of minors from Covington, Kentucky turned into a social media nightmare that changed their futures forever,' attorneys Robert Barnes and Kevin Murphy wrote in their complaint, the legal news site reported.

'Several of our Senators, most-famous celebrities, and widely-read journalists, collectively used their large social media platforms, perceived higher credibility and public followings to lie and libel minors they never met, based on an event they never witnessed,' the lawsuit states. 'These defendants called for the kids to be named and shamed, doxxed and expelled, and invited public retaliation against these minors from a small town in Kentucky.'

The suit was filed less than a week after a federal judge dismissed a $250 million lawsuit filed against the Washington Post for its coverage of the January 18 confrontation between Covington student Nicholas Sandmann and Native-American military veteran Nathan Phillips on the National Mall in downtown Washington D.C.

Sandmann is the teen seen in a viral video smirking at Phillips as Phillips plays a Native-American drum near the teen's face.

Judge William O. Bertelsman concluded Sandmann's lawsuit was meritless because the Washington Post quoted Phillips, who gave his opinion about what happened, which is protected speech under the Constitution.

'The court accepts Sandmann's statement that, when he was standing motionless in the confrontation with Phillips, his intent was to calm the situation and not to impede or block anyone,' the judge wrote in his ruling.

'However, Phillips did not see it that way. He concluded that he was being "blocked" and not allowed to "retreat." He passed these conclusions on to the [Washington Post]. They may have been erroneous, but, as discussed above, they are opinion[s] protected by the First Amendment.'

In their latest suit, however, the students' attorneys argue the defendants they named used Twitter to spread lies about the Covington teens and declined to correct the record when video evidence allegedly showed the teens were innocent of what they were accused.

'The defendants were each individually offered the opportunity to correct, delete, and/or apologize for their false statements, but each refused, continuing to circulate the false statements about these children to this very day on their social media platforms they personally control,' the attorneys wrote in their complaint.

Warren, CNN and the New York Times did not immediately respond to emails and calls seeking comment on the lawsuit.

The Times told Law & Crime: 'Ms. Haberman has not yet been served with this complaint. The lawsuit is entirely without merit and we will vigorously defend it if necessary.'

SOURCE 






Australia: Leftist homosexual is ‘sick of the sexism in politics’

Underlying all his complaints is a refusal to confront the  differences between men and women.  Men and women are treated differently because they ARE different in important ways

Neil Pharaoh

The biggest double standard in politics is sexism. On all sides of politics, the way we treat women differently to men astounds me. And this is coming from a man who has been involved in politics.

If you got through that far in this opinion piece, you will either be quietly agreeing or telling me I don’t believe in “merit”; if the latter, stop reading now.

Why is it when a male is stiff as a board, monotone and boring that we call him “statesmanlike”, yet when a female is she is “detached, cold and ruthless”? Why is it that men don’t get asked about who will look after the children, yet women do?

The sexism in politics has reached epic proportions.

On the Labor side, this week we saw the settlement between Emma Husar MP and Buzzfeed. Let’s revisit the situation: unproven allegations, six-week media cycle against Emma, no proof, Emma forced to not recontest her seat, political career over, nothing ever proven — female.

Take her circumstance versus Greg Barber MLC, where a bullying claim led to a settlement of $56,000 (that is your taxes paying for a bullying settlement for a MP), and he was still able to continue as a MP, even after the “hairy-legged feminist, power pussies” comments (coupled with his “men’s room” to boot).

So why can an allegation kill a female MP’s career, but not a male? Even when the male has settlement payments for bullying on the taxpayer funded books? Not to mention Barnaby and his affair — all proven, yet none lost their career. Emma? She is gone.

Let’s look a bit deeper at sexist comments directed at women; Fiona Scott being called “sex appeal” during the Lindsay 2013 campaign, which then clouded her time in office — meaning everywhere she went, the “sex appeal” comment remained. Now, what man has had such an equivalent comment levelled at him? And has it stuck? Exactly. Silence.

Sarah Hanson-Young, in court commentary: “Mr. Leyonhjelm called me a hypocrite because I have sex with men,” said the Greens senator during cross-examination over Leyonhjelm’s comments about her in the media following a debate in the Senate last year.

“What’s sexist about that?” Leyonhjelm’s barrister, Tony Morris, QC, replied. “He wouldn’t say it to a man,” she replied. Again, double standards of behaviour.

Globally women’s participation in parliament is a tad above 24 per cent, yet accounted for only 8 per cent of national leaders and 2 per cent of presidents’ posts. In Australia, Labor has 47 per cent and Liberals 23 per cent after the last Federal election.

We all know the story of how Julia Gillard was taunted with tag lines like “ditch the witch” and described as “barren” as well as many other names. Name for me a male who has got equivalent levels of vitriol in public debate and discussion.

Julie Bishop — an amazingly capable, talented woman — looked over for Scomo and Dutton. Jane Prentice: lost preselection to a former male staffer, Julian Simmonds.

Ann Sudamalis: again another male, Grant Schultz (whose bullying complaint and review has still not announced its findings).

On Labors ledger, Lauren Palmer lost preselection to James Martin in Hasluck, and Lyndal Howlison in NSW for Brian Owler. Time and time again we walk past more capable and qualified women for men — it can’t continue.

Even Bronwyn Bishop and the helicopter affairs stinks of double standard, when a number of male politicians have undertaken similar activities without consequence — Bronwyn had to go after a helicopter flight to a Liberal Party Fundraiser. Yet Tony Abbott charged taxpayers over $3000 to attend the birthday party of Santo Santoro without consequences.

That’s right, a birthday party. Again, one standard for women another for men.

Susan Ley had to resign from a role over a taxpayer funded trip to the Gold Coast to purchase an apartment, something she admitted was within guidelines but failed the pub test. Yet Darren Chester did EXACTLY the same thing for an apartment purchase in Melbourne and yet no consequences for him, no resignation or role reduction. I mean, can the hypocrisy be any more obvious?

I can’t tell you the number of times in Labor preselection that I have seen amazingly qualified women looked over for men — let alone discussed it with friends who are Members of the Liberal Party and say they are continually disadvantaged during preselection.

Margaret Fitzherbert (Liberal) undertook professional polling on this issue and found 38 per cent of Liberal preselections think it is OK to ask a women who will look after her children if she is elected into parliament. A question which she rightly says has no right answers (not focused enough on family and too focused on career etc). And in the private sector, that question is illegal.

And don’t let the Greens Party claim moral high ground; the majority of their Federal leadership is also white men.

And while Labor is better on Parliamentary benches, peel back the curtain to the backrooms of power and you will find the “powerbrokers” behind the politicians is usually a room full of men.

Look to the number of single mums we have around Cabinet tables in Australia? None that I know of, for I have seen when a single mum wasn’t supported to sit in Cabinet because a Leader won’t assist with a reduction in portfolios, or offer other support to keep her in the Cabinet. I am sorry, but I want my taxpayer dollars to fund a full-time nanny just so we can have a single mum (or dad) in Cabinet. That is the Australia I want to live in.

Ironically, in the 2019 election there is one seat which was won by Labor. Labor won’t learn the lesson in it though. That is: that Fiona Phillips MP won Gilmore, and she had never worked as a staffer or advisor, was a local through and through, had deep strong roots to the community, and was a female running against a male. Coincidence? I think not.

I have personally alleged sexism within the Labor Party against a certain Parliamentarian — an accusation which after an internal investigation was found to be legitimate and accurate — only to be personally disadvantaged and brought before the disputes committee of the Labor Party for “disloyalty” and “bringing the party into disrepute” (for calling out sexism against a Parliamentarian). How is that for double standards?

If a male bystander receives a harsher penalty for calling out sexism than the person who was independently found to have been sexist, there is an issue. (Oh, and he got away with a simple written apology to the victim, not made public of course).

What I have learned from the many amazing women I have seen survive in politics, who try and try again and again, is that even those who never get preselected, those who don’t sit on parliamentary benches, have overcome so much more and are often so much more connected to the community than the men who succeeded them.

We need to change the discussion. We as men need to start calling this for what it is, whether Liberal, Labor or other. It is sexism and it needs to change.

SOURCE  

******************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here

************************************


No comments: