Connect with us

Culture and Religion

What are the criteria for resignation following #MeToo accusations?

Published

on

What are the criteria for resignation following MeToo accusations

Women should be believed. Does that instantly mean men who refute their claims should not be believed? It’s a more difficult question to answer than most are acknowledging because we’re in murky waters. The era of #MeToo has raised to much-needed awareness and even justice for many women in America. But it has also weaponized the accusation, which introduces a whole new set of problems.

When is an accusation enough to end a career? What are the criteria that must be met in order to designate an accusation as sufficient reason for a person in power to resign?

The old methodology was similar to the right to due process. In the recent past, an accusation alone wouldn’t be enough to force a resignation without clear evidence backing the accusation. Things have reversed somewhat in the current era as we are called to “believe all women.” This often translates into a need to believe all women every time. That’s a dangerous stance because that makes it possible for an woman who can prove a sexual assault was possible can take down a person in power for any reason whether there was sexual misconduct at play or not.

We can’t go back to the idea of due process being the criteria. Not only is it impractical considering how far we’ve come from those days, but it’s also immoral. For too long, sexual misconduct has been a part of professional life for many women and it needs to end now. Unfortunately, that creates the situation we find ourselves in now where many will call for resignations at the first sign of a credible accusation.

The balance we need lies somewhere in the middle. It should include certain criteria that makes accusations powerful but not so powerful they become easy to abuse. Is the accuser reputable? Is there incentive to accuse outside of the truth? Was there opportunity for the alleged crime to take place?

Of course, the big criteria which seems to be the missing link in all of this is corroboration. What counts as corroboration? If someone files a police report, as in the case of Katie Brennan, is that enough corroboration to force the man she’s accusing to lose his job? If someone tells their therapist, as Christine Blasey Ford did, should that hold enough corroborative value to derail Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation? It’s tough to define the level of corroboration necessary to destroy a career.

The latest example of this problem is with Justin Fairfax, the Lt. Governor of Virginia who now faces two accusations of sexual assault over the past two decades. Should he resign? Many are calling for it. His accusers are credible. There seems to be no incentive to make a false accusation; Dr. Vanessa Tyson is a fellow Democrat and was with Fairfax at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, which satisfies the final criteria of opportunity.

Should he resign? Before the second accusation, was made public, my colleague said, “No, not yet.” Now that a new accuser has stepped forward, is it time to say, “Yes, he should resign?”

I believe show, but I’m not fully in that camp just yet.

To be direct, I have no idea what the criteria needs to be. I fear a world where accusations are unheard just as much as I fear a world where accusations can be weaponized. Something needs to be established soon.

 


Subscribe on YouTube

Advertisement

0

Culture and Religion

The false narratives behind Portland’s Antifa versus Proud Boys

Published

on

The false narratives behind Portlands Antifa versus Proud Boys

Depending on which news outlets you use, there are two primary narratives that are being pushed. Narrative one is, “Far-right group and Antifa clash in Portland.” Narrative two is, “Antifa gets violent. Again.”

The first narrative is what you’ll get from progressive legacy media outlets as they offer cover for the violence being perpetrated almost exclusively by Antifa as they clash with the Proud Boys. The latter is being classified as a “far-right” group, but they’re actually more of an “alt-right” group that does not believe in true conservative principles. Nevertheless, anything “right” is painted by the media as part of the conservative movement, the GOP, and President Trump’s base. This is important to understand because in the narrative the left is painting, their goal is to make the Proud Boys appear to be white supremacist and therefore attached to President Trump because according to their latest agenda, they have to portray him as a racist at every turn.

The second narrative is the reality, and you won’t find it reported this way by many news outlets, even on the right. There’s a disassociation some publications are actively engaged in where they believe reporting that seems to favor the Proud Boys makes the news outlet seem like it’s supporting white supremacy. This is the progressive propaganda machine at work; even conservative journalists are hesitant to lose credibility over perceptions.

Quillette journalist Angy Ngo is reporting live on Twitter. We’ll try to update it as he adds more:

As you can see from Ngo’s reporting, the violence seems to be undertaken exclusively by Antifa. But legacy media will only report it as clashes “between” the two groups and not as violence instigated solely by the side that holds the left’s progressive mantle. All of this is secondary to the overarching narrative they’re driving, that the Proud Boys represent the right and their white supremacy beliefs are defended by the President.

On cue, the President chimed in:

The left pounced, as they’re wont to do, by saying this is evidence the President is sympathetic to the Proud Boys because he singled out Antifa in a “mutual” conflict. What they won’t tell you is Antifa is starting the fights. They’re bringing the weapons. They’re pepper-spraying people. They’re attacking buses. One does not have to believe in the Proud Boys’ rhetoric to realize Antifa is instigating violence here.

As Beth Baumann reported, even journalists are being targeted:

So Much For Being ‘Peaceful’: Antifa Attacks Reporters And Conservatives In Portland (Again)

Not quite seven weeks ago, conservative journalist Andy Ngo was attacked while covering an Antifa protest in Portland, Oregon. Mayor Tom Wheeler ordered police to stand down at the time and received backlash for doing so. The city prepared for the Proud Boys to hold a rally on Saturday, with Antifa showing up to counter protest. Wheeler made it clear that Portland is taking a “zero tolerance” policy during Saturday’s activities.

Despite the warning, Antifa, once again, became violent.

At one point, Antifa protestors had The Washington Examiner‘s Julio Rosas surrounded. They wanted him to report on what was taking place from the other side of the street because he “wasn’t with” them.

Rosas attempted to explain that he was simply reporting on the events for his job but Antifa didn’t care. They thought he was “spying” on them.

The irony in all of this has become a recurring theme between Antifa and their supporters in progressive media and the Democratic Party. They claim Antifa is simply “anti-fascist” while ignoring the fact that they’re the ones using fascism to promote their ideas and to quash opposing ideas. Reports on the ground in Portland demonstrate this clearly.

Here are Rosas’s Twitter reports:

The left’s narratives: (1) Proud Boys and Antifa are equally to blame, (2) Proud Boys are white supremacists while Antifa are anti-fascists, and (3) President Trump support white supremacists. Don’t believe the lies.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Romans 3:23 – all have sinned

Published

on

Romans 323 for all have sinned

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; – Romans 3:23

Our Father wants obedient children but we have proven time and time again since the beginning of our existence that we are not obedient. Rather than let us destroy any chance of salvation, He gave us a final hope: Jesus Christ, our Lord, our Messiah, our Savior.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conspiracy Theory

Alleged Philadelphia shooter Maurice Hill attended radical Wahhabi Islam mosque: report

Published

on

Alleged Philadelphia shooter Maurice Hill attended radical Wahhabi Islam mosque report

Wahhabism, the anti-American fundamentalist Islamic sect that drives the religious culture in Saudi Arabia, has as one of its stated goals to spread their beliefs around the world through any means necessary. Mosques promoting their radical ideology have been popping up across America over the last few years, including in Philadelphia. Alleged cop-shooter Maurice Hill attended one of them.

According to Clarion Project:

The mosque, called Masjid Ahlil Hadith Wal Athar, is known for preaching the Islamist ideology promoted by Saudi Arabia referred to as “Wahhabism.”

Clarion Intelligence Network has been aware through its sources that the area where the shootings took place is known for trafficking in guns, drugs and counterfeit items. This criminal market has a strong Islamist element that includes extremist gangs.

Hill’s older sister said he “occasionally attended” an unnamed mosque, confirming initial reports from our sources that Hill is a Muslim. The sources do not yet have first-hand evidence of the shooter being personally involved in Islamist extremism.

Clarion Intel’s sources report that Masjid Ahlil Hadith Wal Athar is a Salafi mosque which follows the theocratic teachings of Saudi Arabia’s top Wahhabist scholars.

At this point, there is no indication that Hill’s shooting of police officers was motivated by Islamism or anything other than a desire to resist arrest.

Today, a march was scheduled to “Free Maurice Hill” by Black Community Control of Police, a group adamantly opposed to law enforcement. There are no indications the group is aligned with Masjid Ahlil Hadeeth Wal Athar, but it is a common practice among radical Islamic groups to disguise their associations and operate apparently independent from one another.

The details surrounding the gunfight seem to indicate it was not prompted by Wahhabism as Hill was apparently approached as a result of a separate warrant enforced against a neighbor. But the clear disregard for police authority and the willingness to attempt to murder multiple law enforcement officers indicates an ideology that is prepared to kill and die. Was this ideology sparked at the radical mosque Hill attended?

As expected, the appetite of legacy media to cover Maurice Hill died down quickly despite the rampant calls for gun control. His story has too many things that go against the progressive media’s narrative.

Any connections to Islam in situations like these are automatically dismissed as Islamophobia. But it’s highly unlikely Maurice Hill’s alleged actions were completely disparate from the radical teachings of the mosque he attended.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending