I
have in my hand a list of 37 State Department employees who are
members of the Communist Party or are fellow travelers.
McCarthyism.
Bad.
9
women have accused X of making the workplace uncomfortable.
Accusations
of sexual harassment. Good.
-
- - - - - - - - - - -
He
is running in the election against our president. He is an enemy of
the state. Send him to Siberia.
Political
dissent. Unacceptable.
Burning
the flag and your draft card. Fleeing the country.
Political
dissent. Laudable.
-
- - - - - - - - - - -
Buying
products made in China.
Supporting
a unfriendly government. Risky.
Buying
American.
Prices
may be higher but it's for our own benefit.
-
- - - - - - - - - - -
Supporting
the Founding Fathers (bigots) and the Constitution (bigoted).
You're
a bigot too. (Acceptance of a contrary idea constitutes – requires
– a label.)
Letting
the president and supreme court decide what's in our best interests.
They know better than we what's good for us. Forget Congress. They
can't make up their minds anyway. They'll never pass the Taylor
Swift act even though American lives are involved.
You're
a patriot.
-
- - - - - - - - - - -
“I
know you're an atheist but I pray for your eternal soul.”
Hate
speech. Bad.
Rape.
Clearly
a crime of love. Good.
-
- - - - - - - - - - -
Stand
for the National Anthem.
Support
for our country. Perverse.
Kneel
for the same.
Loyalty
to justice. Opposition to fascism. Admirable.
-
- - - - - - - - - - -
You
may not agree with all these assessments. That's up to you. You
have a right to your own opinion. You're free to express your own
ideas. But you have no right to impose them on others. Sure, you
have no sanction for harming another, but, as the German folk song
says, “Die Gedanken Sind Frei.”
The
American Constitution, which you may or may not support, includes
this position, although there are different interpretations of what
the guarantee means – especially when it seems to conflict with
another right. Still, it's there. In the First Amendment. It's
part of the basis of the American system of justice. As is the
presumption of innocence until guilt is proved.
That's
not the way it always works, however. The only swift justice we
provide is a lynch mob.
I
heard on the radio yesterday that Garrison Keillor was fired by PBS
because he is alleged to have touched a woman in an uncovered part of
her back. What part of her back was uncovered and why, were not
disclosed, but Mr. Keillor claims that he was only giving her a hug
of comfort at a time she was saddened. In an age where hugging is in
fashion it's difficult to fault such an act. In any event, the
System decided that no explanation or justification was necessary
when they terminated him, and the media decided that the incident was
newsworthy.
But
that's the current Zeitgeist.
Trials no longer are reserved for the courts but are the arena of
politicians, the media, police departments, and the public. And the
last category includes industry leaders, who fear the public
relations and economic implications of association with someone
tainted by public and media outcry. There has been a sudden rush to
reveal past indiscretions – mostly the responsibility of others –
which they feared to mention earlier. Skin contact is harassment,
though I must admit that I shook a woman's (ungloved) hand once.
It's important, as Mr. Keillor has learned, to find out what skin is
off limits and if there are any exceptions. The presence of a duéna
(chaperon) at all times would help to solve this problem.
A
similar topic is dress codes. Men are justifiably accused of
exposing themselves to attract a woman's attention. A woman may
achieve the same goal by covering herself in alluring clothing –
long splits in long skirts or none (needed) in short skirts, see
through clothing, exposed undergarments (especially from Victoria's
Secret), and clothing that emphasizes or discloses body parts. Women
claim that they like the outfits, but they are designed (usually by
men) to attract men's attentions. And if they are successful it is
those wearing them who are being harassed.
Notwithstanding
the long delays in the disclosures (by the way, as a child I was a
liberal, though that is not true any more, since I want to distance
myself from the left's predisposition to prejudice – especially
antisemitism and Islamophilia), Ill take them at face value and
support trial on the evidence (though it is hard to imagine what
evidence apart from claimed personal recollections my be available
decades after the incidents) if that is the wish of the involved
parties, but if not, or there is no conviction, they should be
presumed innocent (though it's hard to regain a reputation tainted by
conviction in the press which, at times, acts as judge and jury).
That's the way it is with most other accusations. And even if we
suspect jury tampering or threats, if a court finds a defendant “not
guilty” he is not guilty. And it's virtually impossible to get
your name off the sexual offenders registry. (And the drunk drivers
and bank robbers registries for that matter. Oh, wait. There are
none.)
That's
enough ranting about the specific. In general, however, my concern
is that we get what we contracted for – swift justice and the
presumption of innocence unless legally convicted
of whatever it is that we are accused
of doing. It may not get the press as much attention as current
practices, but it's a lot fairer. We cannot correct the wrongs of
the past with wrongs of the present. It's clear that society now
encourages speaking out so that arguments in the future about not
doing so will be less believable. And early trials, in the
courts, are needed without
overexposure in the press.
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I
said just yesterday that the essays to follow would only be
fragments, but the situation with Garrison Keillor was more than I
could handle in a short note. I'll try to prevent the long- winded
ones in the future.
November 30, 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment
I know you agree, but you can leave comments anyway.