 |
| Zerlina's Finest Hour as She Stands Up for Morality |
We should believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says. Ultimately, the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist. Even if Jackie fabricated her account, U-Va. should have taken her word for it during the period while they endeavored to prove or disprove the accusation. This is not a legal argument about what standards we should use in courts; it’s a moral one...
I find the above shocking. What happened to rights of the accused? Due process? Why does the United States bother to insist on such civilized behavior. Well, people like Zerlina Maxwell are the answer. If she had her way ... OMG! It's shocking to me that the Post allows this kind of rights-trampling diatribe disguised as intelligent commentary. But she's popular, an attorney, an ardent feminist. And make no mistake. The arrow points in one direction, people, from the tip of Zerlina's finger to every man in this country: YOU ARE GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. UVA, and everyone else, should be MORALLY OBLIGATED TO DENY RIGHTS TO THE ACCUSED IF THE ACCUSER IS A WOMAN.
Zerlina appears to be creating her own form of feminist hip-shooting morality, a kangaroo court of her own legal reality wherein any female accuser must be believed or the "costs" will be high. In her article, she argues that regardless of circumstances, female accusers must always be believed from the onset no matter how wrong-headed or outrageous their claims, and let's face it, the Jackie UVA rape claim was outrageous by anyone's standard. As of the date of this posting, lives and organizations and a proud school have been smeared by the media, and Zerlina is perfectly at peace with that? It doesn't matter to her whether or not the media makes a lynching circus out of UVA or anyone else in the near future? It doesn't matter to Zerlina how her philosophical take on smearing and lies will encourage more smearing and lies? After all, if you just point the finger and open your mouth to do as much damage as you can, you MUST be believed in Zerlina's world because "wrongly disbelieving a survivor" (a woman) outweigh the costs of wrongly bludgeoning men and institutions and anyone else who might seek to question an accuser's validity at any particular time.
Zerlina Maxwell should have lived in the Salem witch trial era. She would have loved it. Everyone believed the witch accuser without question. The women just pointed and shrieked, fell on the floor, rolled around and screamed like hyenas. And nothing stopped them. No courts, no common sense, no one to stop rushes to judgment, and best of all, a pile of victims getting bigger and bigger with no one to raise a red flag (until the rich people were accused). In a backdoor way, Zerlina Maxwell is arguing for the rights of the media to slash and burn also without waiting for the facts to come in--which is what they do anyway. Look at UVA, it's all there.
Zerlina's world.
UVA took the accuser's word for it, obviously, and began punishing the frats and making sweeping statements before the truth came out. Wasn't that good enough for Zerlina? And doesn't it all remind you of Duke University and their damning of the lacrosse boys who turned out to be completely and overwhelmingly innocent? Another rush to judgment, another huge mistake.
Zerlina's utopian paradise.
No one "wrongly disbelieved" Jackie. They behaved as if her claim had validity and the press did also before the facts were in. The costs are tremendous if you are at the vengeful end of the stick. What have been the costs to this Jackie? We don't even know who she is, and this also points out the extreme danger of feminists making ever louder arguments for allowing anonymous accusations. That is giving accusers far, far too much power.
