#MeToo

[rustled]

The link you've provided does not contain the quoted material.

You're suggesting a child's response to an adult in a position of authority in her life who made her uncomfortable with unwanted sexual touching is adequately equivalent to the Ford allegations to draw a parallel in how people should view Ford's lack of action until decades after an unambiguously criminal, unambiguously non-consensual incident that occurred when she was already an adult.

The results for the accused and the accuser will be similar: the accused will pay a significant penalty whether he is guilty or not, and the accuser will have to deal with public disbelief because in our world, a) for the time being, at least, we collectively believe that men who are accused of a crime are also innocent until proven guilty, and b) we know there are women, too, who accuse others of crimes against them for a wide range of reasons.

[Silverstarqueen]

The link you've provided does not contain the quoted material.

You're suggesting a child's response to an adult in a position of authority in her life who made her uncomfortable with unwanted sexual touching is adequately equivalent to the Ford allegations to draw a parallel in how people should view Ford's lack of action until decades after an unambiguously criminal, unambiguously non-consensual incident that occurred when she was already an adult.

The results for the accused and the accuser will be similar: the accused will pay a significant penalty whether he is guilty or not, and the accuser will have to deal with public disbelief because in our world, a) for the time being, at least, we collectively believe that men who are accused of a crime are also innocent until proven guilty, and b) we know there are women, too, who accuse others of crimes against them for a wide range of reasons.

There are some similarities, not that I was saying they are exactly the same.
Both were minors when the offence first occurred (much longer period of grooming in the gymnasts allegation, without reporting, obviously intimidated at the thought of it). It sounds like the gymnast was not raped (although they may not publish all the details understandably), nor was Ford. Both reported as adults, years past when actual physical evidence could be collected, one while in her 30's the other in her 50's (?) (shorter time frame for gymnast). The alleged offender was known to both, so not a case of mistaken identity as some accused Ford of not knowing who assaulted her. One major difference seems to be that the coach is not alleged to have been very inebriated, so if he did it, would be likely to remember, but not necessarily any more likely to admit it of course.Whereas I think it is quite possible Kavanaugh was so drunk he honestly might not have remembered what occurred.
The questions that I posed, were the same issues that apply to both i.e. how do you prove it years after the alleged incident? consent or effort to resist, or lack of it is always an issue, Ford resisted actual physical force and feared physical harm, the gymnast it appears did not. Even tho she was not of age to consent, the fact that she did not resist will still be used against her( as if victims are somehow responsible for stopping their abuser).
The accused is not quite so prominent perhaps at the time of reporting, but a gym coach at that level is somewhat prominent, and reporting him would be intimidating I should think for anyone.
And Kavanaugh was not investigated, interrogated, or charged in court, so obviously no conviction is even possible at this point.

One big difference in the two cases, would be that reporting a sexual assault in 1982 was nothing like, reporting sexual assault in 2002, a twenty year difference in the avenues available for reporting this type of incident. Still resulted in several years delay in the accusations actually making it to authorities.
To me it looks like neither case is really provable, even though there is some evidence, it probably would not be sufficient to convict on assault.

[rustled]

I stand corrected: Ford was not an adult at the time. This timeline clarified a few things for me (subject to corroboration, of course):
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/17/politics ... index.html
Another major difference: Kavanaugh was a minor (17) and a peer in terms of relationship to Ford, not an adult in a position of authority over Ford.

It's my understanding Kavanaugh was subjected to some (albeit very limited) investigation:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... ford-trump

Another timeline includes Ramirez and Swetnick:
https://www.axios.com/brett-kavanaugh-t ... 7be9b.html

Back to the bigger problem with these murky and too-often unprovable accusations:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley on Thursday referred Julie Swetnick and her attorney Michael Avenatti to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.

... In a sworn declaration last month, Swetnick accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of targeting girls at parties with spiked alcohol so that they could later be "gang raped" by groups of boys, and claimed that she was a victim of such an attack. Grassley alleges that Avenatti and Swetnick engaged in "potential conspiracy to provide materially false statements to Congress and obstruct a congressional committee investigation" during the course of Kavanaugh's confirmation process.https://www.axios.com/michael-avenatti- ... fbb73.html

(It would seem likely Kavanaugh will fall under more scrutiny through this investigation.)

[fvkasm2x]

Another timeline includes Ramirez and Swetnick:
https://www.axios.com/brett-kavanaugh-t ... 7be9b.html

Back to the bigger problem with these murky and too-often unprovable accusations:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley on Thursday referred Julie Swetnick and her attorney Michael Avenatti to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.

... In a sworn declaration last month, Swetnick accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of targeting girls at parties with spiked alcohol so that they could later be "gang raped" by groups of boys, and claimed that she was a victim of such an attack. Grassley alleges that Avenatti and Swetnick engaged in "potential conspiracy to provide materially false statements to Congress and obstruct a congressional committee investigation" during the course of Kavanaugh's confirmation process.https://www.axios.com/michael-avenatti- ... fbb73.html

(It would seem likely Kavanaugh will fall under more scrutiny through this investigation.)

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/ ... estigation

[Vacancyrate]

Another innocent man's life ruined over a accusation.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/ch ... al-assault

Pay attention "believe the victim" supporters, because this man is suing the people who keep throwing labels at him after he was cleared.

[Silverstarqueen]

Allegations made, ignored, because no one believed the victims or cared enough to do anything about it. The fallout lasts for decades for those victims. No one stopped it. Continuous cover-ups and looking the other way. At least one of these perps was getting psychiatric help for decades, all while he was still abusing children in his care.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/s ... -1.4907245

[Silverstarqueen]

Hundreds of rape kits destroyed . Which means hundreds of perpetrators will never ever be nailed.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/29/health/d ... index.html

Hundreds of rape kits detroyed by hospitals. Which means hundreds of perpetrators will never be nailed.

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/ ... since-2012

[Glacier]

Another innocent man's life ruined over a accusation.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/ch ... al-assault

Pay attention "believe the victim" supporters, because this man is suing the people who keep throwing labels at him after he was cleared.

But George Steve Galloway is white, so who cares. Believe ALL women unless the person being accused is Neil degrasse Tyson. In that case, believe him, not the women.

[Silverstarqueen]

Another innocent man's life ruined over a accusation.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/ch ... al-assault

Pay attention "believe the victim" supporters, because this man is suing the people who keep throwing labels at him after he was cleared.

I wonder how Galloway proposes to prove that his alleged victim made a false claim. That would almost be more difficult than proving a rape.

[Vacancyrate]

I wonder how Galloway proposes to prove that his alleged victim made a false claim. That would almost be more difficult than proving a rape.

He was cleared of all charges and she continues to call him a rapist.

Feels do not equal reals.

[Silverstarqueen]

I wonder how Galloway proposes to prove that his alleged victim made a false claim. That would almost be more difficult than proving a rape.

He was cleared of all charges and she continues to call him a rapist.

Feels do not equal reals.

So how does he propose to prove that his alleged victim made a false claim?
This is not the same thing as not being found guilty of rape. Rape is rarely proven at the best of times.
Now the onus is on him to prove she made a false allegation.If every alleged rape victim was prosecuted for bringing her case forward, there would be no one bringing forward any case.

[Vacancyrate]

So how does he propose to prove that his alleged victim made a false claim?

There is no alleged victim because there is no victim, when the court found him innocent this was established. If you make slanderous and false statements in a effort to ruin someones reputation, you can be sued.

When these people called him a rapist and slandered his name it was after the court had cleared him of any wrong doing. Calling him a rapist after he had been cleared of rape charges is making a false statement. Doing it with malicious intent is defamation.

He doesn't have to prove anyone statements are false. He only has to prove that these people made certain statements at a certain point in time and that they did it with malice. Considering what they said and how they said it (date stamped social media posts) this is a open and shut case and will serve as a warning to people who refuse to consider things like "evidence" and "proof".

Additionally I do not wish to continue a debate with you because there are way too many red flags going off. It took awhile for me to understand the point you are trying to twist out of this, but I am staying the hell away from this one.

[Silverstarqueen]

Well we can't just skip over this point, especially as it relates to every person who would ever claim to be sexually assaulted. These(sexual assault) cases are brought to the court, and are rarely proven. So for the alleged victim to then be sued, certain things have to be proven. One of them is that the allegations made by the victim were false. Which it seems to me, he is going to have to prove that a sexual assault never happened in order to prove that she was making a false allegation. His not being proved guilty of sexual assault, does not prove that a sexual assault didn't happen. So until the court rules, it seems we really don't know if she is guilty of his charges or not. It will be a very interesting case, and could seriously affect any future allegations brought by any future alleged victims.
If she alleges that she is a victim of sexual assault (which is what you stated) , she is, by definition the "alleged victim" of sexual assault.


"Defamation laws protect the reputations of individuals and other entities (such as businesses) from untrue and damaging statements. Libel refers to statements that can be seen (typically written and published), while slander occurs when a defamatory statement is spoken or otherwise audible (such as a radio broadcast). To prove either type of defamation, plaintiffs must prove the following four elements:

First, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff.
Second, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made an unprivileged publication to a third party.
Third, the plaintiff must prove that the publisher acted at least negligently in publishing the communication.
Fourth, in some cases, the plaintiff must prove special damages."

[Silverstarqueen]

Why would police destroy a child's rape kit? CNN is delving in to how and why hundreds of rape kits were destroyed, essentially eliminating any chance of prosecution in those cases. What is going on?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/01/opinions ... index.html

[Terris]

Until we make some substantive investigations and admissions, as to the moral direction of our society, and how much more liberalizing of moral standards we can accept, this whole #MeToo issue is moot...

When; on the one hand, you have heads of state and celebrity types being charged and hung in the court of liberal media without trial simply on allegations of improprieties from decades previous, some being quite minor and on the other hand;
you have readily available (to the young generations) web porn sites with explicit images of millions of women being what?.. Abused? Mistreated? Forced? Without consent?; than, I suggest, we have a double standard of blame and responsibility that seems to apply only to men.

Time to put the brakes on some of these, so called, sexual freedoms and rights and get back to the basics of societal propriety before it all ends up in a giant orgy.

I'm sure the ancient Romans would feel right at home in our current world of debauchery...