Thank you, but I didn’t actually get cancelled in any meaningful way. Valiant attempts were made to drown me (figuratively), but since I don’t have a job I can’t be fired, I’m a tough old bat, I’m too elderly to give much of a poop about my future “career,” it’s not the first hanging party and book-burning featuring myself, and it seems that my Dear Readers were having none of it. Thank you, Dear Readers. It is for you, after all, that I write, not for some craven scholar trying to save her own behind by beating herself up in public for having built her reputation on studies of my oevre. (You know who you are. I accept apologies.) Why the posse tried to take me down: I signed (and refused to retract, Bad Me!) an open letter to the University of British Columbia (“UBC Accountable”) calling for due and fair process for writer Stephen Galloway, who had been accused — dubiously, it now strongly appears —of rape –a violent criminal act, lest we forget. Nine years later, this claim has still to be thoroughly investigated in a court of law, due to the prolonged and frantic efforts by those being sued for defamation to keep such a trial from happening. But enough preliminary court cases have gone on so that a number of folks have now reversed their snap judgments, and some have gone full Mea Culpa. You can read all about it in Brad Cran’s Substack called Truth and Consequences; start at the bottom and scroll up. It just gets worse and worse. What was amazing to me was the casualness with which the posse — mostly academics — tossed the Declaration of Human Rights and the Canadian Rights and Freedoms out the window, with cries of “Burn it all down” and the like. But every sword has three sides: your side, the other side, and the Oh Shit! side you didn’t anticipate. Some are now beginning to smoulder themselves, as folks set fire to their feet. Darn, where are those Rights and Freedoms now that a person might need them?

The novelist Margaret Atwood responds in an acerbic style to the attacks she received for having called for due process when the writer Stephen Galloway was accused of rape.

The fact that calling for due process was treated like a crime, while presuming an accusation was true without due process was treated as normal behaviour, shows the level of dystopian tyranny that has overtaken Canadian institutions.

It shows how academics are at the forefront of trashing fundamental pillars of civilisation for the sake of their own ideologies and malignant self-righteousness, which includes smearing and threatening anyone who dares to disagree.

When we acknowledge that many malign tyrannies have been spearheaded by academics (Nazi racism was promulgated by German academics in the 1920's; China's Revolution of 1949 thrived in the universities), then we cannot be surprised by examples such as this.

Such conduct wouldn't be nearly as effective if so many refused to be intimidated and toe the line. When the majority are cowards more concerned about their reputations than about justice, brave voices such as that of Atwood and others who have dared to displease the disciples of currently fashionable movements are seen as radicals: easy to intimidate, abuse, and threaten.

It's time for people to stand up to such intellectual thuggery by defending freedom of speech and the right to the presumption of innocence. When the bullies see that people have a backbone and can't be threatened into silence, they lose their repugnant air of impunity and imagined righteousness.

The presumption of innocence is a good thing in personal life too. This week, AOC didn't go to a public event for, she said, security reasons and got roundly attacked on social media as though she was just a deadbeat or insincere in her commitments. She gets a lot of death threats and spoke candidly about how severely traumatized she was in the January 6, 2021 coup attempt, so I'd take 'security reasons' at face value. But also we're in a moment when most people are overwhelmed, reorienting themselves in changed worlds and lives, exhausted, often grieving some kind of loss or other, and if they're not available or not showing up for something it might be because they're helping someone else whose suffering they don't need to broadcast or need help themselves or are just drained and recharging by being quiet and self-protective. Many years ago, I had a yoga teacher who reproached me for not trying hard enough when I was at a point where just showing up while struggling with the inertia and exhaustion of depression took a lot of effort. If he'd asked I would've told him, but he presumed he fully comprehended what I should be doing and what my capacity was. You cannot learn what you assume you already know, and you cannot teach well if you cannot learn. I never took his class again. This reminds me of the others who affirm that if you're not focused on their particular cause (or them) You Don't Care when it's actually that you're working your heart out on some other cause (or person or project) That Also Matters. But mostly this is a post about the fact that mostly we don't fully know what's going on with other people (sometimes they don't know themselves) and the assumption it's about you is often wrong. As is, often, any assumption that you know what it's about. The sister of the "presumption of innocence" is "the benefit of the doubt," but the doubt is in your own comprehension, even if the benefit is to others. Not knowing is one of the hardest things for people to master, it often seems, in an era when people like to jump to conclusions in the opposite of a leap of faith. We fill in not-knowing with all kinds of assumptions, assertions, projections, because not knowing is about confronting the essentially mysterious nature of life and consciousness, about the fact that we have to navigate by guesswork, prepare to be wrong, and at best be open to discovery. Even if you ask someone how they are, there may be reasons why they can't or won't give a full answer. We walk in fog; we walk on a twisting path through an intricate landscape and cannot see what is ahead; we walk through forests in which we cannot see past the first few stands of trees but know that life is going on there. We don't fully know who we ourselves are, who others are, what's going to happen, what else is happening, how something will play out. And if you're already stuffed full of assumptions there's no room for discovery. Not knowing is the openness and spaciousness that can reside in mystery or invite in understanding. p.s. A related thing is when people make assumptions about your family member, partner/ lover/spouse, boss, coworker/ collaborator, or other figure based on comparatively casual acquaintance. Or someone of high status who assumes that the person who treats them well treats everyone well, when that person has a different face if you're low-status, voiceless, powerless. (We see this so much around sexual abuse. By presumption of innocence I mean, innocent of what people tend to presume or assume: people can assume someone is trustworthy or safe who is not and do, as readily as the reverse.) You don't know how someone is in different circumstances, and often someone who is good at friendship can be terrible at partnership; someone who is fun in public has terrible anxiety or terrible rage in private, and so forth. Perhaps I should add that sometimes we don't know ourselves, haven't yet unpacked our burdens to find how heavy they are, seen what toll something took, understood why we can't when rationally we should. The less you assume the more you can know. Knowing you don't is a huge gift to everyone, yourself included.

[Rebecca Solnit]

Find Common Ground

One gets the sense that Seneca, like many smart and active people, was often frustrated by other people. It is inevitable that someone like him—someone creating art, actively participating in government, managing properties, etc—would have regularly found his interest and his will thwarted. Perhaps a neighbor opposed some changes he was making to his land. Or an intriguing enemy at the palace sought to undermine him with the emperor. Maybe his brother jostled for an inheritance. Maybe he bumped into a rude person in the street.

These are timeless and common occurrences. And, quite naturally, they are prone to make us angry—especially if we impute the least charitable motivations on the other party. My neighbor is trying to screw me over. So and so wants my job. My brother is up to his old tricks. This guy is a selfish jerk.

When we think this way, we get angry. It’s hard not to. Which is why Seneca—from experience—said that we have to resist. Instead, we should try to go through life like a lawyer…or rather like a public defender. We must, he said, “plead the case of the absent defendant despite our own interests.” That is, really take the time to think about what is motivating other people. Take the time to act as if we are trying to help them escape punishment from the judge and jury that is the emotional and vindictive part of our mind (Oh, he really just wants what’s best for everyone. My brother doesn’t know better. This guy didn’t mean to bump into me—he’s just having a hard day). Don’t just fight to see the worst, fight to see their side.

When we do this, when we give people the benefit of the doubt—the presumption of innocence instead of the presumption of guilt and ill-motives—everything relaxes. We can forgive. We can find common ground. We can focus on what is actually important…our own behavior.

- The Daily Stoic

If you support the presumption of innocence while at the same time opposing bestiality and human trafficking, you either need to admit that these stances come from Deuteronomy 17:6, Exodus 22:19, and Exodus 21:16, or that these stances are derived from moralistic therapeutic deism. The Christian cannot drop the law of Moses like a sack of bricks wholesale.

Hope everyone had a good weekend. Tomorrow, there will be more drama, more business; the world continues to turn.

The Sixth Amendment: Safeguarding Fair Trials and Due Process

Welcome to the sixth installment of our "Constitution Matters" series, where we delve into the significance and impact of each amendment in the United States Constitution. In this edition, we shine a light on the Sixth Amendment, which plays a vital role in safeguarding fair trials and upholding the principles of due process. Let's explore how this amendment protects the rights of individuals within the criminal justice system and ensures justice is served.

Right to a Speedy and Public Trial: At the core of the Sixth Amendment is the right to a speedy and public trial. This crucial safeguard ensures that individuals facing criminal charges are not subject to undue delays or languish in legal limbo. It promotes efficiency in the judicial process while preserving transparency by allowing public scrutiny of court proceedings.

Impartial Jury of Peers: The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to an impartial jury of one's peers. This means that individuals accused of a crime have the right to be judged by a group of impartial individuals from the community who will fairly evaluate the evidence presented and determine guilt or innocence. This principle helps prevent bias and ensures that decisions are reached based on an objective assessment of the facts.

Right to Confront Witnesses: Another critical aspect of the Sixth Amendment is the right to confront witnesses. Defendants have the opportunity to face and cross-examine witnesses who testify against them. This right ensures that the accused can challenge the credibility and accuracy of the evidence presented, fostering a robust and reliable adversarial process.

Right to Assistance of Counsel: The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to assistance of counsel, which ensures that individuals accused of a crime have access to legal representation. This right recognizes the imbalance of power between the accused and the prosecution and aims to level the playing field. Competent legal counsel helps defendants navigate the complexities of the legal system, protects their rights, and ensures a fair trial.

Right to Compulsory Process: The Sixth Amendment also encompasses the right to compel witnesses to testify on behalf of the accused. This enables defendants to gather evidence in their favor and present a complete and thorough defense. The right to compulsory process empowers the accused to challenge the prosecution's case and provide a comprehensive account of the events in question.

The Sixth Amendment stands as a cornerstone of the American justice system, guaranteeing essential rights to individuals accused of crimes. By ensuring speedy and public trials, impartial juries, the right to confront witnesses, access to legal counsel, and the ability to compel witnesses, this amendment upholds the principles of fairness, due process, and the presumption of innocence. It serves as a vital safeguard against potential abuses of power and helps maintain the integrity of the criminal justice system.

Stay tuned for the next installment of our "Constitution Matters" series, where we continue to explore the remaining amendments that shape our democratic society.

You think everyone in Ace Attorney is certifiably insane, but then you get older and realize that’s just what law school does to a person.

you know i do think its incredibly abnormal for us-american police to publicly publish peoples mugshots when they get arrested

I think one of the most charming aspects of Ace Attorney is that other than, I think, like, two cases where you’re given the option to tap out (though of course you don’t) even if you’ve proven without a doubt that it couldn’t have been your client, unless you can get a confession out of the actual guilty party, your client is still convicted if you lose.

Watch "Rumble Responds to Orwellian Letter from UK Parliament Regarding Russell Brand (THE SAAD TRUTH_1597)" on YouTube

It looks like the UK government is going to skip all the fiddly trial and justice stuff and go straight to the lynching.

it would be great if drivers didn't start assuming rbr are guilty too before anything is said by the fia 😒

Are the Trump indictments election interference? asked someone whose question I will take in good faith against my better judgment.

The American presidential election (November 5, 2024) is more than a year away. There is more than a whole year for these four (4) trials to occur. If candidates want to start campaigning (and have already been campaigning) year(s) in advance, that is not the American judicial system's problem. Do not let anyone tell you that "I DECLARE CAMPAIGN SO YOU CAN'T TOUCH ME" is how this works.

I welcome criminal charges of actual substance for any candidate of any party. If you have dozens of pages of carefully documented charges against any/all Democrats, please have a DA call a grand jury whenever you would like. Political parties are not sports teams to me. Justice can do what it gotta do, whether it's convenient or not.

If someone doesn't want to get pulled up on racketeering charges (RICO), they maybe shouldn’t have racketeered. Or falsified business records, or mishandled documents to the tune of 31 charges under the Espionage Act, or incited an insurrection, the latter of which, I don't know about you, but which I personally watched on TV, live, for several hours, including coverage of the Trump rally that sent crowds marching over to the Capitol. We have heard the Georgia phone call that is part of the fourth indictment. We have seen pictures of classified documents piled in a random Mar-a-Lago bathroom. I am confident that these are not frivolous accusations.

District Attorney Fani Willis was careful to state that there should be a presumption of innocence (a standard American judicial doctrine). That said, I consider (as one example), this fourth indictment to be “charges of actual substance” because she delivered a 96-page document describing the racketeering (which, ironically, WAS ITSELF ELECTION INTERFERENCE):

u/code_archaeologist: The math on this is easy. For a jury to find a person guilty on a RICO charge in Georgia the prosecutor has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they engaged in two incidents that predicated the overarching conspiracy. The RICO charge lists 161 predicating incidents. So Fani Willis has 161 shots at each defendant, and only has to hit twice.

(I like to read r/politics.)

Fani Willis has 161 predicating incidents of conspiracy to work with. I am pretty confident that, while a defendant is innocent until proven guilty in the American justice system, these charges have some weight and deserve to be heard in court.

tl;dr if you don't want to campaign under a legal cloud, don't do crimes.

Also try not to publicly intimidate witnesses. And prosecutors. And judges.

If anyone reading this truly wondered if the substance or timing of these proceedings are warranted, sincerely, I hope laying it out like this helped.

Biblical answers to MRA’s questions

Q: What is the appropriate response to a woman beating her male partner?

A: Eye for an eye (Lev. 24:19-20) is the maximum appropriate response regulated in Scripture. Remember that this works both ways.

Q: What is the appropriate response to a woman accusing a man of sexual violence or misconduct?

A: The same for any accusation by anyone of any gender, towards anyone of any gender, for any kind of act: presume innocence, according to Deuteronomy 17:6. Remember that this works both ways.

Q: What is the appropriate response to a woman falsely claiming a man is the father of her child?

A: The ninth commandment.

Q: What is the appropriate response to a woman misusing child support money provided by who is assumed to be the biological father of her child, conceived in intercourse rather than IVF, etc?

A: The mother and father should have been married before considering intercourse (Genesis 1:28, 2:24). If the woman is, in fact, misusing the money in this fashion, she is violating the eighth commandment.

Q: What is the appropriate response to women taking everything from their ex-husbands during a divorce?

A: Divorce should be a method of last resort, when absolute push meets absolute shove, for reasons relating to adultery (Matthew 5:31-32, 19:9). The Bible has no direct teachings on division of goods as a result of divorce, but Biblical divorce is subject to strict legal processes and permits a divorced woman to marry, suggesting the intent of Biblical divorce law is to ensure the woman survives (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). It is arguably appropriate, then, for a man to pay his ex-wife alimony as long as she does not remarry. Jesus tells us to seek out-of-court settlements, and to be on guard for being deprived of all our wealth if we proceed with a lawsuit (Matthew 5:25-26). This is a complicated issue that is to be resolved on a case-by-case basis.

Q: What is the appropriate Biblical response to intercourse between a female teacher and her male student who has not achieved the age of majority?

A: The Bible rejects any concept resembling an age of accountability (Psalm 51:7, Romans 3:23, Ephesians 2:3). Before we concentrate on the teacher, we need to concentrate on the young man. His parents were responsible for teaching him (Proverbs 22:6), and that includes the seventh commandment. So if he has intercourse with someone to whom he is not wed, both he and his sexual partner are guilty of violating the seventh commandment; if this is in violation of his parents’ clear instruction, he is also guilty of violating the fifth commandment. If, however, we was not instructed to pursue his personal purity, it would have been better for his parents to be tossed into the sea with millstones around their necks (Matthew 18:6).

Q: What is the appropriate Biblical response to young men conceiving children before the age of majority, borne and birthed by women above the age of majority, and being required to pay child support?

A: Fathers have a primary duty to ensure the survival of their children (1 Timothy 5:8). Notice, it says, “And whoever does not provide for relatives and especially family members has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever,” rather than, “And whoever has not achieved a certain age to be arbitrarily defined 2000 years after this writing does not provide for relatives and especially family members has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” Even the controversial laws regarding slavery in the Bible, found in Deuteronomy 20, are to ensure the survival of POWs, war widows, and their children. If a father cannot find a means of employment, then the child’s grandparents, who should have instructed the father on proper conduct, would be responsible.

Q: What is the proper Biblical response to male-only conscription?

A: The Bible is actually more vocal on which men shouldn’t go to war than should (Deuteronomy 20:5-8). It is worth noting that after the Conquest of Canaan, ancient Israel never fought a war of choice unless it was in a state of mass idolatry. If conscription constitutes chattel slavery, as has often been argued, it violates Exodus 21:16. Thus, regardless of what’s between a soldier’s legs, there is nothing in Scripture to support conscription, and plenty to suggest that conscription and the sociopolitical situation which usually belies it are transgressive.

Another hallmark of "just asking questions" coverage of detransition is a tendency to focus on individuals who were assigned female at birth. Similarly, proponents of "ROGD/social contagion" often claim that the supposed condition disproportionately impacts "young girls," especially those with autism or mental health issues, although the statistics and rationales they cite in support of such claims are deeply flawed. This emphasis on "girls" and "mental illness" appears to purposely play into traditionally sexist and ableist presumptions that these groups are inherently fragile, susceptible to persuasion, and incapable of making informed decisions about their own bodies and lives. After all, the "cisgender people turned transgender" trope is most effective when its imagined "victims" are constructed as "innocent" and "vulnerable." Perhaps the most illustrative example of this tactic can be found in Abigail Shrier's 2020 book, Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters. The book is focused squarely on protecting "our girls" from "ROGD/social contagion," relying heavily on the aforementioned traditionally sexist and ableist sentiments. Trans female/feminine people are largely absent from the book, with the exception of one chapter (featuring interviews with Ray Blanchard and J. Michael Bailey) that depicts us as sexually obsessed "autogynephiles." Given that chapter, in concert with the book's provocative subtitle, readers may be left with the impression that it's trans female/feminine people who are responsible for this "transgender craze seducing our daughters" (emphasis mine; other anti-trans activists have argued this more explicitly). While Shrier's book never mentions "grooming," its subtext conveys deep connections between "social contagion," the "cisgender people turned transgender" trope, and imagined sexual predation.

—Julia Serano, Whipping Girl (3rd Edition), p 380-381

this passage illustrates so clearly how even the transphobia aimed specifically at afab trans people nearly always comes with the quiet implication that there are more nefarious forces behind it. in misgendering trans people who were afab, reducing them to helpless and sympathetic victims, shrier still manages to evoke the image of the transfeminine sexual predator "grooming" these victims into identifying as transgender. she never makes this connection explicitly, but the subtext of the work leaves the reader to draw that as the only obvious conclusion. when trans women name transmisogyny as the basis for many other forms of gendered oppression, this is what we mean.

There’s a reason why the western goyishe left is so preoccupied with labeling people as Zionists, and why there’s so much hypocrisy coming out of these spaces night now. It’s because there’s a broader problem regarding leftist views on violence. There’s a belief that violent cruelty is only morally reprehensible if it is forced upon the “innocent”, and that any and all violence is justified against perceived wrongdoers.

It’s the reason why we always hear that“Six million innocent Jews” died in the Shoah, as if six million dead in a genocide isn’t worthy of condemnation on its own. It’s the reason why debates on the internet about oppression always focus on innocence as opposed to violence.

“George Floyd was innocent,” they say, “there’s no evidence he paid with a counterfeit bill!” The left and the right spent endless time debating that three years ago. Why does it matter if Floyd had intentionally used a counterfeit bill or not? Hell, even if he ran a counterfeiting empire— death by suffocation is not a just punishment for counterfeiting. But for many leftists, a lack of “innocence” would somehow validate the unjust violence he suffered and died from.

“There is no excuse for bombing a hospital,” is the response when they think Israel bombed a hospital. But when it turns out that Hamas actually bombed the hospital, suddenly there is an excuse. “There is no excuse for ethnic cleansing,” is what they say when Israel cleanses Gazans. Meanwhile, they maintain their full support for Hamas, whose stated goal is to ethnically cleanse Jews from the Middle East. Excuses are only offered to those deemed innocent. They view Palestinians, even Hamas, as universally innocent. Israelis and Zionists, even children, are seen as universally guilty.

That’s why the antisemitic stream of the anti-Israeli narrative clings so tightly two ideals: That all Israelis are colonists, no matter what, and that Hamas isn’t actually a terrorist organization committing war crimes. If either of those ideological columns fail, then either the presumption of universal Palestinian innocence fails, or the presumption of universal Israeli guilt fails. Then leftists start asking themselves questions:

Have I been in the wrong? Have I been antisemitic? Am I innocent in all this? And if I’m not, does that mean that violence against me could be justified? Most will choose cognitive dissonance and reaffirm their harmful beliefs, rather than face the answer to any of those questions.

But the truth is that innocence doesn’t have an effect on the justification of violence. There isn’t an excuse for bombing a hospital, intentionally or accidentally. There isn’t an excuse for ethnic cleansings of Arabs or Jews or anybody else. Violent oppression is still bad when it happens to harm people you disagree with. Violent oppression is still bad when it harms bad people.