"The problem with such matters is that the allegation has started to assume a substitute force of conviction. It has become sufficient for individuals to lose their positions because allegations, untested by the wearing rigour of cross-examination and investigation, have assumed the force of de facto law."

Professor Daphne Patai, actually wrote about this happening around the time she published Heterophobia.

If I recall correctly world leaders would be judged not on their leadership and abilities, but on their private lives and sexual behaviour.

quotes from Daphne Patai

quote/
Despite Peggy Noonan’s current views, he said/she said situations are notoriously difficult to disentangle, especially when much time has elapsed between the event and its reporting. Abandoning the presumption of innocence because women “must be believed” is a dangerous step, but sufficiently commonplace these days that it’s not surprising to see some of those accused grovel, apologize publicly even while claiming to have intended no harm, declare their readiness to undergo sensitivity and harassment training, enter rehab or counseling, and otherwise attempt to redeem themselves via excuses intermingled with abject mea culpas.

The Blurring of ‘Sexual Assault’

To make matters worse, the ever-expanding allegations against prominent men display the indiscriminate current use of the term “sexual assault.” This is a rhetorical move designed to efface distinctions between highly disparate acts, and it follows on the well-established tradition in the sexual harassment literature of including everything “unwanted,” from a look or “elevator eyes,” to a leer, a phrase, a joke, an invitation, a touch, a grab, and even rape.

unquote/

It happened years ago, the victims should have gotten over it! Apparently fits Binroy's peculiar sense of natural justice?

It was "normal" consensual sex between consenting couples wasn't it?

Even if like alleged in the Crosby files, the victims were allegedly sedated with prescription medicine?

There's only one way to end this once and for all! That is with space age lie detection! Not the usual badgering of vulnerable traumatised witness as proposed by the totally indifferent prosecutorial author?

Whose apparent calloused indifference toward the victims, might be matched in Nazi death camps?

Ask the victims if they want their evidence tested by unbeatable space age lie detection and all bogus claims will disappear, where that occurs?

Perjury charges and real jail time should follow, along with suitable compensation!

However if they don't fail the test, which can be deployed completely covertly! And by their legal counsel, who could find themselves the liable party, if compensation is awarded?

Conversely, if the alleged perpetrator fails to convince the court that the claim is without foundation and that he/she failed the aforementioned space age unbeatable lie detection test? Their "offended" reputation ought not protect them!

Currently justice would seem to be the exclusive preserve of the rich and powerful rather than the victims they've preyed on and even now, without a single shred of remorse!

Let the full facts be known and published! And then let the chips fall where they may!

The only thing that matters here is the truth rather than as completely consumes the legal profession! Winning!

And wouldn't a compulsory unbeatable lie detection test make a train wreck out of that business as usual, "legal profession" operational method?

No wonder this author is back here arguing the same defective case thoroughly done to death over the weekend?

Simply put, badgering already traumatised vulnerable proves little, except they can be forced to withdraw by repeated further traumatizaion!

And apparently Binroy thinks that's some kind of justice? Or that the offended are not more important than goods and chattels or mere bagatelle?
Alan B.

Isn't this the same article as the one on Friday, with the comments removed. The title is certainly the same. Duh!

ttbn. Not quite the same, with circles of fire, deleted. But very similar and arguing the same failed, blame the victim, "I'll rephrase the question", case?

And understandable, given the last thing any criminal defence lawyer could ever want, is for jurisprudence to seriously consider, unbeatable space age lie detection, to more thoroughly test the evidence by both plaintiff and defendant?

Which has the potential to make both courts and lawyers almost completely redundant!

Besides, must be holiday time or something?
Alan B.

I'm sick of all this BS. All of a sudden it seems it's trendy to attack a celebrity or two. Do I have to remind everyone who was alive during the period all these 'crimes' were alleged to have happened, will remember how boys and girls interacted back then. All I have heard about these 'serious' BS allegations was the norm back then. These guys have done nothing wrong! OK you PC soft cocks, let's just compare what we do today to what we did back then. If it was so bad back then stuff your BS excuse that the women were too scared to come forward etc; etc: The morons who are pushing this crap have something to gain, just imagine if we were to charge people for retrospective 'crimes', which were not crimes back then, but due to these PC mongrels and their influence in high places, we are now questioning actions of the past judged by laws of the future. The accusers need to be punished not the accused.

ALTRAVE

This is a crime that has been continually committed, but past social norms disallowed its reporting, because it was not seen as a crime.

However, I'm suspicious as to why it's suddenly become such a media celebration, because sexual assault and harrassment of women has always been viewed as something women just have to live with.

I suspect that it's a backdoor assault on Trump, to do with his locker-room admission of grabbing women's pussies as one of the privileges of male power.

Whatever the reason, it's now a matter of public debate. The likelihood of women presenting frivolous claims against much admired celebrities in the face of aggressive legal scrutiny is extremely low.

Killarney,

I agree with you and the the author, Binoy and Wooly B. The last mentioned introduced Professor Daphne Patai, who is a most interesting and informative read.

To an extent this is being media driven, but at the same time most here would be aware of the sly manipulation of the media by political interests. - That in the case of people like currency-dealing billionaire George Soros may the the puppeteers seeking to de-stabilise society for their own agendas, and unlike politicians are not subject to scrutiny in any people's house.

Of course it is good that some of the slimes are being called to account and yes, natural justice should still apply otherwise we are no better than them.

However, what is easily missed is that the situation is NOT being improved at all for women, for humanity, it is sliding very rapidly back to the Fifties and before and because of the very forces who claim to be improving the lot for women. Maybe if I just present an example without the pages of argument. That example could the sexualisation of children, especially girls, that is an unintended negative consequence of left 'Progressivism'.

The dramatic increase in girls having sex before 16 (and of course much younger) and servicing males in accord with their role according to the porn industry should be very worrying indeed. There is a political correctness that turns a blind eye to some of the major abuses of girls and women, such as girls reporting a new and high, incidence of anal penetration. The anus does not require consent, how does that work?

Yet 'Progressives' may claim those sorry numbers and the nasty denial of women's sexuality (there are many layers of wrong there) as 'wins', 'proof' to normalise anal sex, which is their higher priority.

While the public is being entertained with celebrities shirt-fronting celebrities over past history, far greater wrongs affecting women are becoming commonplace and legitimised.

maybe all these men were lone wolfs who had drug and mental health problems, you know kind of like all the lone wolf muslims blowing up and ploughing cars into people.

Whilst what I am reading has some validity, I am troubled by the fact that too much is being made on the topic of the abuse of women and girls. The fault actually lies squarely in the womens camp. There has been a very aggressive push to liberate and promote women to a level regarded as 'equal to men'. It is beyond comprehension why women would want to seek such hollow glory. By suggesting such a thing they have clearly betrayed themselves. By aspiring to be like someone else the women are denigrating themselves by implying that they are less than men. Women will never be like men it's a fallacy that was started by feminists and both men and women have been conned into this belief and in doing so we have seen parents 'grooming' their daughters into something which, quite frankly, is disgusting. I have never seen such un-feminine images on TV as I have over the past few decades. All this to be like men! Whatever the reason for this surge in disgusting (including sexual) behaviour, there is no blame. Unless the man rapes the woman, anything else is consensual. Never mind justifying who said what. One would expect the 'once bitten twice shy' to come into play. All I know is if I don't like something after having experienced or tasted or seen it once, I will ensure I never re-visit it again. Another very important and relevant fact. I am appalled that this current system of law charges someone for an act of the past on a law of the future. That is bad law enforcement. These old accusations were the norm back then and that's where they belong. If someone wants to de-fame someone by all means embarrass them via whatever means possible, but to take it through the process of law, is wrong. How stupid and vindictive has society become that we attack someone with a law of the future for an act of the past, especially when that act was common-place.

leoj

I'm not sure I follow your argument. Could we not accept that sexual exploitation exists in the film industry?

For now, let us acknowledge that there have been less than 6% of female film directors over the last hundred years of film history. Why is this so?

This article written by Salma Hyek may provide some insight.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/13/opinion/contributors/salma-hayek-harvey-weinstein.html

The sexploitation film industry has prevented women from producing and directing films, from telling women's stories about women's experience, in favour of female roles that view women through men's eyes.

Yes, all you say about pornography and anal penetration is important, but it is outside of this discussion.

ALTRAV

Even in the past, the perpetrators knew that what they were doing was morally and criminally wrong. They acted in the knowledge that they were powerful and wealthy and thought that they were above the law.

Now that the worm has turned, they are now being brought to account for their actions.

As I've said before in this commentary, I'm suspicious of the mainstream media's intentions. I suspect that this is a back-door assault on Trump for his locker-room video.

Whatever. Creative women, who want to advance in the film industry, have learned to submit to powerful men's perversions if they want the roles they covet. Blame the victim all you like, but victims and perpetrators operate within a strict system.

Killarney, "Could we not accept that sexual exploitation exists in the film industry?"

The risk is that the public and influential people can just shrug it off as an 'already known' about the entertainment and arts industry.

Some of the used-to-be celebs in Australia who are commenting or may have stories from their own reconstructed memories to relate, have been known for their own lurid stories and boasting of the parties after Logies and as part of their usual social whirl.

It is salacious entertaining stuff, the stuff of Hollywood. It is not so one-sided either. I do not believe that replacing the men (power brokers) with women who are the same, makes a jot of difference.

What is needed is a forensic examination of governance, what controls are in place and what causes the controls to fail.

Killarney, NO, NO, NO! In the past THEY did not KNOW what they were doing was criminally wrong, as you put it. You must understand, if it was 'criminally wrong', they would have been punished back then. It's no different than the era of slavery. It was the norm and quite acceptable back then. Please don't try to suggest the two were equal in criminality. This nonsense of groping and whatever else is going on is a distraction as you say. It has NO validity in the 'real' world. What I don't understand is why these people (the men) have 'given in' to this low level pressure. If I was being accused of such things I would respond with a laugh and suggest the accusers 'get a life'. Then I would proceed to mock and knock them to a level equal to or greater than the their implied accusation. I do believe their is another agenda at play, and I am not beyond believing the feminist involvement at some level. To repeat my previous point. Rape is bad, because people get hurt. This is not because no physical harm came to anyone. If anyone dares to respond with rubbish like, hurt feelings or pride, these things are not enough to compare to what is being unleashed on the guys. They are the real victims here, not the precious little Nancys who got 'touched up'. Big deal!

leoj

Further to your earlier comment:'That example could the sexualisation of children, especially girls, that is an unintended negative consequence of left 'Progressivism'.

The sexual revolution brought all kinds of unintended consequences, including the massive rise of pornography, commercial sexualisation of women and young girls and increased pressure on women to submit to practices like anal sex.

However, it also brought an unprecedented sexual freedom for women and girls. Prior to the sexual revolution, women were pressured to keep their virginity until marriage (while men were encouraged to sow their wild oats), to believe they were 'bad' or nuerotically unbalanced for having sex (but for men, having sex was normal and healthy), to live with laws that denied them access to contraception and abortion while the threat of an out-of-wedlock pregnancy would ruin their lives and dishonour their families.

How many women would seriously prefer to return to those times?

'What is needed is a forensic examination of governance, what controls are in place and what causes the controls to fail.'

Well, isn't that exactly what is starting to happen? Both radical (not liberal) feminist analysis and conservative women's advocacy are at the forefront of this 'forensic examination' and have been for decades. Their research and writings have been ridiculed as prudery and man-hating, not just from the progressive mainstream, but also from liberal feminism. In fact, radical feminism has been totally excluded from mainstream discourse. It's only now that I can see the progressive mainstream finally listening to them.

ALTRAVE

'[Men] are the real victims here, not the precious little Nancys who got 'touched up'.'

My heart goes out to those real victims - all those precious little Nigels. The pain of being brought to account for their unwanted groping, lewd jokes and innuendos, porn addictions and womanising, and the protection of a system that treats such predatory behaviours as typically male, must be unbearable. Is there a Precious Nigel charity I could donate to?

No Killarney, they don't need your patronising smart arse attitude or your PC soft cock money. Based on your attitude you must be at least 10 years old. Anyone, yes, anyone who was around back then and alive today, if they throw PC down the toilet where it belongs, will tell you that was the norm! Stop trying to show off. I'll say it again. If this was as big an issue as todays Nancys and their neutered followers want it to be, the matter would have been resolved in the past, where this all belongs. Emotion has NOTHING to do with these type of events. You and your unics can carry on as much as you like, you obviously lack life's experiences. When you have crushed your dependence on PC and stop thinking like a girl, you can comment. Until then we'll treat your comments as fiction.

ALTRAVE

'Anyone, yes, anyone who was around back then and alive today, if they throw PC down the toilet where it belongs, will tell you that was the norm!'

Yes, of course it was the norm back then. Therein lies the problem. Norms are flexible and also vulnerable. I'm somewhat older than 10 years, and have been around long enough to see the celebratory 'game's up for gropers' trope disappear into the patriarchal ether many times over. This latest round of media outrage is also vulnerable to patriarchal backlash.

But the outrage keeps coming. Sooner or later, the outrage sticks. Sooner or later, the gropers will run out of excuses. And so will you.

Killarnay, you may choose to back the 'cry wolf' pack. More's the pity. What outrage? All I hear is whinging and whining, from a pack of insecure little children who are still craving the attention they didn't get from years gone by. All we need now is all the maggots who got wasted with one drug or another back when and were happy to drop and spread and give their all for the cause to suddenly decide they too were taken advantage of. Pe-lease! You animals are disgusting. At least the accused were consistent and all they did was, NOTHING! The accusers are opportunists of the worst kind, using social and PC point scoring to push a fictional encounter from a forgotten past, armed with toothless and irrelevant laws, created by an emotionally retarded people.

ALTRAV, it very clear that some have used their power and networks to ensure that anybody who dared to lodge a complaint would suffer a massive personal penalty. Harvey Weinstein appears to be a pretty clear example of that.

There appears to be a compelling case that others such as Crosby used drugs and their own status to get away with actions that were clearly abusive.

The case that Bill Clinton was a serial sexual abuser appears to be pretty strong as is the case that Hillary was involved in silencing his victims. Christopher Hitchins gave a couple of interesting interviews on the topic while he was still alive and as far as I can put the pieces together his early work on that topic was while he was still otherwise on side with the Democrats.
I have no sympathy for those who have used power to assault others or hinder their careers unless personal favours of some kind were given. I have no sympathy for those who have forcefully or with the aid of drugs assaulted others.

I do though have concerns that the climate of an accusation being treated as guilt so popular with some appears to be becoming more common place.

I do have concerns that we may not have a viable balance in the way the reputations of accused and accuser are handled, especially where it may be that establishing guilt or otherwise is not viable. Raising an accusation will harm the reputation of the accused sometimes even when clear evidence is available that the accusations are false, we don't have from what I can see any viable way of protecting the reputation of accused when the case is not proven (nor dis-proven).

It does appear that public coverage of accusations gives others the courage to come forward, what we have learned from institutional child abuse should teach us some pretty strong lessons in that space.

It's a messy space and blaming either men in general or women in general for the choices of others is never a good approach.

R0bert

Robert, I agree with punishing anyone who drugs someone and then proceeds to rape them or take advantage of them.

But, what we are talking about here is far from this.

I am quick to point out that using todays laws and morals in matters of the past is a dangerous path to follow.

I openly admit to 'chatting up' women in my past, because that's what men did and might I add, are supposed to do.

What this new self proclaimed 'moral' generation has to get into their thick heads is, we have a certain instinctive pre-determined program within us which defines the men from the males or worse, and it is as old as creation itself.

They don't want to hear it because, they/we can't change our DNA and, it would stop them and their cause in their tracks.

We MUST accept what we are and not allow PC and the softies of this world to push their mis-giuded agenda.

My message is. Stop pushing this idiotic and childish agenda and leave the past in the past.

Even if the same occurred today, my message would be. So what, move on.

ALTRAV, I think to current focus on this covers a range of scenarios. There are genuine abusers being outed but also a fever to believe allegations even when it's clear the allegations have holes in them.

I've not noticed any hitting the media that cover what I'd consider reasonable interactions but have seen commentary on the topic over time that strongly in the area you were talking about. A lot of women of my generation are very strongly of the view that men must make the first move, I grew up with playing hard to get being a thing and the expectation that should make the male try harder if he was genuinely interested. I never did well with either but was well aware of the pervasiveness of those views.

I agree that it's unreasonable to judge the past based on today's values (which are still not universal).

I never want to be so bogged down in a side though that I ignore evil because of its caught up in another issue.

R0bert

RObert,

It isn't messiness that is the problem. It is most usually board directors in the private sector and ministers, politicians, in the public, who are NOT fulfilling the roles they are being paid for.

Historically it has often been the case that many directors, like politicians where the public sector is concerned, sit back and 'don't make waves'. -But what that really means is them taking the dough and benefits and being slack. Performing due diligence only requires some questions of the responsible persons, especially senior management, and It is part of the responsibility of the directors of the boards (and politicians!) to be asking them.

I went into this on another thread, on sexual harassment, saying,

"The control environment is set from the top. Also, behaviour generalises.

Where for example, a grub can repeatedly offend against children and over years, as occurred in the case of Jimmy Saville and the BBC, it is very likely indeed that there is other corruption occurring, such as the (very common) conversion of the organisations' assets to private use and another, favouritism in appointment, promotions and conditions of service.

It suits the tabloid media and some predictable elements to portray sexual harassment as a male abuse of power against women. However that trivialises what is really going on and ensures that while there is the occasional scalp for that particular offence, the far greater problem of abuse of position and power to the detriment of the organisation and shareholders (taking the public as the shareholders in public bodies) continues.

There is nothing like having an effective audit committee (with outside appointments), a program including comprehensive audits and publication of audit reports to deter offenders and to ensure that robust and effective controls are in place and working...(tbc)

continued
It is the absence of these and particularly an environment where audit is belittled and seen as the enemy by management that is the red flag that something nasty is going on. An audit program would be noticeably incomplete if the organisation's cub-contractor and outsourced functions are not included."
Posted by leoj, Wednesday, 29 November 2017 8:02:07 AM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8043

I would add that for the boards to be effective, independent external directors are necessary. Where political parties (and governments) are concerned, internal democracy of political parties is a prerequisite, for obvious reasons. In Australia the latter will require regulation.

The reason why radical feminists don't pursue the due diligence solutions (discussed above) that are well laid down already in available regulations,in accountancy standards and audit standards as examples, is because they only want a changing of the guard, with them replacing those who are already in the envied positions of power and privilege. They do NOT want real, sustained change, a new deal. Quite the opposite in fact, as can be seen from the favouritism and business as usual where 'Emily's Listers' have taken the reins in Australia.

Good to hear from people with reason and common sense.

It is a rare thing to experience when discussing controversial topics.

Thank you all.

leoj

'The reason why radical feminists don't pursue the due diligence solutions (discussed above) that are well laid down already in available regulations,in accountancy standards and audit standards as examples, is because they only want a changing of the guard, with them replacing those who are already in the envied positions of power and privilege.'

I think you are confusing radical feminists with liberal feminists. There is an intractible divide between liberal and radical feminists, the former acknowledging and accepting the status quo and wanting to improve women's position within it, the latter rejecting the status quo and challenging the political and economic order that prevents women from ever achieving their full rights as human beings.

Radical feminists almost never appear in mainstream media. Julie Bindel is a notable exception, but her published articles only appear to smear her views on men and trans-gender issues.

Radical feminists are not interested in changing the guard. They basically despise the guard and all it represents,