Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by PuerkitoBio 3478 days ago
> A) I don't doubt it can be difficult for women - but my statement holds true.

That doesn't make any sense? You said:

> If a girl feels harassed - then that's it. Guilty.

Yet you go on and acknowledge that it may be hard to get their harasser convicted. In all those 3 cases I mentioned (including Ghomeshi), there were many victims that felt harassed. Yet no one in any of those cases was convicted. How does that make your statement true?
3 comments
mst 3478 days ago
I think it makes sense if I rephrase it this way:

"Many valid incidents of harassment are dismissed/ignored, and many invalid/borderline incidents are punished unfairly, and therefore the current system sucks for everybody".

Which seems entirely possible.

link
stcredzero 3478 days ago
Yet you go on and acknowledge that it may be hard to get their harasser convicted

The structure of western government and judicial systems is set-up to make it hard for the individual to get convicted. This is why there is a 5th amendment. This is why "innocent until proven guilty" is a part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (Supported by Eleanor Roosevelt.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human...

It's about protecting the individual against the group, even if the group is operating under the auspices of the state. If such principles are abrogated to convict a guilty man, then the state can start to abuse its authority to start convicting innocent men. Precisely such actions are what spurred the creation of the Magna Carta.

Just because someone advocates free speech for a White Supremacist, doesn't make them a White Supremacist. Just because someone advocates the 5th amendment for a an organized crime chief doesn't make them a mob supporter. Just because someone advocates for due process and innocent until proven guilty for an accused harasser doesn't make them an advocate of harassment.

link
edblarney 3478 days ago
"In all those 3 cases I mentioned (including Ghomeshi), there were many victims that felt harassed. Yet no one in any of those cases was convicted. How does that make your statement true?"

That's a fair point.

Because it was a criminal trial - not civic or employment suit, also, by blatantly lying, those women destroyed their own credibility.

He was definitely fired by the CBC - and I don't think anyone is questioning that. No trial or legal examination needed.

He should have been fired by the CBC long time ago - then those suits would have never come up.

link