These few years, we have seen and witnessed the growth and impact of the #Metoo and #Churchtoo movements. Originating in the US, these campaigns have expanded their influence around the world and have birthed smaller movements like the #sexforgrades. Thanks to these movements, the ills of sexual assault have been brought to the forefront and several perverts and predators have been brought to justice. It has forced people with such tendencies to have a rethink, consequently institutions have sought to improve their sexual harassment policies and its enforcement.
While these causes gained acceptance, legitimacy and popularity, some people, like myself, cautioned that to maintain its credibility and independence, these movements should be true to their cause, follow the dictates of the law and avoid being exploited, politicised and weaponised. Unfortunately, within its short history, it is evident that this caution was not heeded.
As the movements grew, not only did they jettisoned the ancient principles of “hear the other side”, “an accuser must prove” and “an accused is innocent until proven guilty” they also called advocates of these principles unapologetic, rape apologists, misogynists and enablers of patriarchy. Rather than follow the rigour and sometimes slow operation of due process, they preferred the swift guillotine of the social media and the unbridled passion and sentiments of the uninformed public.
Indeed, the reason sexual right activists prefer this shortcut is known. Their preference, they opine, is based on the fact that the legal standard is so high it can hardly be met, and as such it favours the accused more than the accuser. Unfortunately, sexual right activists make it seem as if these legal precepts are peculiar to crimes of sexual assault or if this law was enacted specifically to protect sexual offenders and to frustrate claims of sexual harassment.
These principles of law are age long and they apply to ALL crimes and the sole reason is to protect the innocent person (no matter how little they may be) little wonder Benjamin Franklin said, “it is better 100 guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer “and this maxim has been incorporated in our laws for centuries. Albeit high and imperfect, it’s the most perfect standard that the human mind can fathom and except there is an alternative, we are stuck with it.
This shortcut coupled with stories of victims and survivors and mantras – believe all women – has no doubt, led to the success of #Metoo in causing earthquakes, it is not unlikely that #Metoo will one day be a victim of its own upheaval.
Though founded over a decade ago, #Metoo got prominence when it went after the big fishes in the entertainment and corporate world and it reached its peak when it got involved in politics which ultimately led to the toppling of high-profile men. Worthy of note, is its role in the confirmation hearing of Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh and the resignation of Al Franken (a sacrificial lamb for the Democratic Party). For Brett Kavanaugh amid the lack of corroboration, he was insulted, maligned and was told he was not qualified to sit on the US Supreme Court bench.
This was championed by the #Metoo promoters, Democrats and various media outlets like CNN, the New York Times.
In less than two years, the Democrats and their #Metoo partners have been put in the most awkward of positions, with the accusation by Tara Reade that she was sexually assaulted by Joe Biden in 1993. The accusations against Joe Biden and Brett Kavanaugh create a litmus test not only for media objectivity, but to test the sincerity of the Democrats and the #Metoo promoters who requested we drop the age long principle of due process and fair hearing and ascribe to “believe all women”. It will also test their consistency or will they backtrack on their previous reasoning thereby exposing their hypocrisy and double standards?
It also provides an opportunity to question what really constitutes sexual harassment, should different types of sexual misconduct be lumped together and be meted the same punishment, can it be ever late to speak out, is there a limit to penalise people for their past bad actions, is the possibility of change of behaviour a mitigating factor, is admittance and apology also a mitigating factor, should all allegations be an automatic disqualification to political office or any office at all? Should all allegations be taken seriously or only those that have high political implications?
Also, we are forced to ask, what is the place of the victim in all this? Is the focus of the movement, the victim or the accused/predator? Is the focus to heal the victim and provide relief or to punish and destroy the accused/predator’s life so as to serve as a deterrent? If this is the essence, has it helped the victims, are they better off seeing their assaulters punished, or are the victims just pawns who are used to achieve political and economic gains, after which they are left, forgotten and exposed to more ridicule and trauma?
Interestingly as it relates to Biden, many promoters and supporters of the #Metoo movement like Nancy Pelosi Dianne Feinstein, Amy Klobuchar, Kristen Gillibrand, Rose McGowan, Alyssa Milan, Ocasio-Cortez, Linda Hirshman all support the candidacy of Joe Biden notwithstanding the allegation of Tara Reade, indeed they agree that both Joe Biden and Tara Reade are telling the truth. One wonders how there are two truths to one event? This indeed is the height of confusion; it negates the principle of non-contradiction.
Interestingly, Kristen Gillibrand who was the first in the Senate to identity Al Franken as the victim of sacrifice and requested that he resign, even before investigation said “it would be better for our country if he sent a clear message that any kind of mistreatment of women in our society isn’t acceptable, by stepping aside to let someone else serve”. But as it relates to Joe Biden, she still supports his candidature and she won’t offer him the suggestion she offered Al Franken.
Even in 2018, while speaking on Brett Kavanaugh, Joe Biden said, “a Supreme Court hearing is not a trial; it is a job interview and you don’t have to prove beyond reasonable doubt anything as to why you shouldn’t put so and so on the Court”. Indeed, they have issued purity tests, they themselves cannot pass.
The mainstream media aren’t left out of this, they were eerily quiet and only reported the accusation several weeks after they have been criticised for their hypocritical silence, even when they spoke about it. They tried to report both sides of the story without reaching any conclusions, a chance they did not offer to Kavanaug or other. Unsurprising. In their reports or articles, they engage in “whataboutism”, by veering off to raise similar allegations against Donald Trump.
Indeed, in a hyper-politicised environment, we cannot be oblivious to the political undertone that lurks behind people’s decision with regards to treating cases of sexual assault.
In America, abortion is a big issue which has permeated deep into the society’s fabric and has created two camps, those for and those against. The main reason behind the attack of Brett Kavanaugh was that with his nomination, it was feared he would vote to upturn Roe v. Wade, a case that legalised abortion in the US. As such he had to be stopped by all means. As regards Joe Biden, he has been touted as being pro-women rights, particularly the right of women to unilaterally decide to terminate the life of their unborn child thus he can’t be said to be unfit for public office.
Linda Hirshaman captures this in an op-ed in New York Times, “Suck it up and make the utilitarian bargain. All major Democratic Party figures have indicated they’re not budging on the presumptive nominee, and the transaction costs of replacing him would be suicidal… So, what is the greatest good or the greatest harm? Mr Biden, and the Democrats he may carry with him into government, are likely to do better for women and the nation than his competition, the worst president in the history of the Republic. Compared with the good Biden can do, the cost of dismissing Tara Reade — and, worse, weakening the voices of future survivors — is worth it. And don’t call me an amoral realist. Utilitarianism is not a moral abdication; it is a moral stance”.
Hirshaman, unlike others, has come out boldly to state what is at stake and she isn’t in doubt that it’s worth, “weakening both Tara’s voice and other future survivors voice”. Indeed, the politicisation of these allegations is a big defeat to victims of sexual harassment, because rather than focus on the allegations, people are focused more on the political implications and this denies justice in this situation.
I am not writing to exculpate anyone, my sole point is that we cannot determine the guilt of a person solely upon the word of an accuser without a “thorough, respectful and critical investigation” particularly when the consequences of such an allegation have extremely far-reaching implications for people’s families, careers and lives and this should not be derogated from, either for political or personal benefits.
Thanks to Tara’s accusation, Joe Biden, his supporters and promoters of #Metoo are now admitting the above. Indeed, the taste of the pudding is in the eating and Joe Biden has been served the pudding and he hasn’t found it tasteful.
No doubt, this allegation and the responses so far, has put the credibility of the movement on the line but I hope this phase doesn’t kill the #Metoo movement, rather I hope it purifies them and sets them back on the right and noble path.
