Let's 'Believe Survivors': The Latest Leftist Lunacy
IN THE WAKE of that unfolding drama in the run up to the recent appointment of American supreme court judge Brett Kavanaugh (which, for brevity, I will not reiterate here but assume familiarity) it is difficult to find something fresh to say, something that hasn’t already been said before. That the accusations of attempted rape levelled at Kavanaugh have been thoroughly investigated by the FBI, who apparently found no evidence to ground or substantiate the claims made by his accuser, Dr Christine Blasey-Ford, appears to have been of little consequence to the frothing left-wing feminazi and their supporters throughout the United States.
This is the sorry, pathetic, state the USA now finds itself in. A large proportion of it’s population (though thankfully nowhere near the majority) have become so irrational, so deluded, or at least wilfully misled, that they think (and they truly do think this) it’s just ok to circumvent inconveniences like evidence, facts, and truth because claims put forward by accusers like Blasey-Ford are in and of themselves of sufficient weight to imply guilt of the accused (beyond a reasonable doubt?).
So, what, according to these feminist intellectuals, gives abuse survivors words such weight and force that they must be believed (which appears to be understood as accepted without question as incontrovertible fact)?
The answer appears to be that, in the main, they are women that claim to have been abused, raped, molested, etc. We can, again for brevity, skip the fact (a real ‘fact’) that by asking us to ‘believe survivors’ assumes the claimant is actually a ‘survivor’ of something in the first place. In this case that ‘something’ is being a victim of rape or other assault - which itself stands in need of evidence. But let’s put aside, for the moment, any demands for such verification and assume the ‘survivor’ is a victim of such a heinous crime. The question remains, why must the victim’s, that is the ‘survivor’s’, version of events be believed without question or evidence?
This is, of course, a crucial point; for the victim of such a crime, indeed any crime really, should absolutely be listened to, heard, and what they have to say taken seriously. But it absolutely should not be believed by default – at least if this means accepting their claims as incontrovertible facts without evidence to corroborate and substantiate those facts. The victim’s claims are, before the measure and test of evidence, a starting point for investigation, not the finishing point. Moreover, post investigation, if the evidence points elsewhere then the conclusion should be that the victim’s beliefs (regarding the perpetrator) are not substantiated by verifiable facts, not evidence-based, and therefore again not to be believed (where ‘believing’ is, as above, understood to mean accepted as a true and justified account of events). The survivor, moreover, may well believe their account of events but this doesn’t mean they match the facts of the matter. Believing something to be true does not make it true.
Returning to the Brett Kavanaugh case and the recent ‘Believe Survivors’ movement sensible, rational, people will no doubt have already seen just how ludicrous this is. We can, of course, put aside any issues that might arise from the assumption that the person claiming to be a survivor is in fact a ‘survivor’ (because, yes, it might not be true). For present purposes let’s assume this is the case. What’s more important is the subsequent demand that the survivor be ‘believed’. For this is not simply a demand that the survivor’s testimony, including the identity of the perpetrator, be taken seriously by investigating authorities. If it was, then you and I, and surely most people would support the petition.
No, what they’re demanding is that the victim’s account of what happened, including ‘who did it’, is to be believed as a matter of bare fact, without question, or further ado. The ‘survivor’s’ version of events on this, much stronger, interpretation of ‘believing’ requires that the contents of the account, including the identity and guilt of the offender, be taken as concrete facts based on nothing more than its being asserted by the victim, the ‘survivor’. On this account being a ‘survivor’ accordingly adds considerable weight to any testimony they provide – or so it would seem.
Consequently, for the ‘#believesurvivors’ campaigners, no doubt along with the ‘#metoo’ mob and no end of other irrational left-wing acolytes, Brett Kavanaugh’s guilt hinges not on careful investigation of relevant evidence and/or facts compelling that conclusion. Not at all, his guilt is by default assumed, evidenced, and proven simply because that is what Dr Blasey-Ford says happened – period.
Now look at just how dangerous this kind of thinking (we can’t say reasoning) is – and it is truly dangerous. In cases where a survivor of rape, sexual assault, or harassment, etc, makes a statement which identifies her assailant the guilt of the accused will be assumed. The onus then falls to the accused, assumed before the fact to be a rapist, sexual predator, stalker, or pervert, etc, to prove his innocence. The burden of proof shifts from the traditional assumption of innocence to the assumption of guilt, and this is a very, very, dangerous ground indeed.
What underpins this appalling, disgusting, approach to justice and fairness is, as pointed out above, a relatively recent shift in certain views of what actually matters in cases like this. One dominating view here, now pursued quite aggressively by the left, has it that emphasis and priority should always be given to things like emotions, feelings, and gender. And it places such things above any previously required standards of evidence, any notion of proof, any need to actually ‘know’ what might have happened. Blasey-Ford's account must be believed as a concrete truth because she is a woman, she provides a credible performance, and that is what matters (because women don’t lie, make mistakes?).
Final thought and message for the deranged liberal left: I don’t know whether Brett Kavanaugh is guilty or not. For all I know he might be, but then again, he might not. This is not the issue. What really matters is not his guilt or innocence but that he is given the benefit of doubt, not an assumption of guilt. There are very important reasons why this is so and it has been for a long time in the West – learn them, you will benefit greatly.
The FBI not finding sufficient evidence is not a declaration of Kavanaugh’s innocence, it proves nothing of the kind. However, neither does it suggest, or even hint at, his guilt. What it shows is that despite the diligent work of a reputable investigative department, and the best efforts of a nasty-minded, hate-fuelled, left-wing liberal and retarded feminist campaign, along with the usual persistently biased reporting of a vicious and hostile media hell bent on thwarting anything even remotely connected to ‘Trump’, Brett Kavanaugh has not been shown (so far) to be guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, of anything that Christine Blasey-Ford accused him of – now get over it and take a good, long, look at yourselves.