american justice system on trial
DEFENDING HARVEY WEINSTEIN
by
DAVID SOLWAY
______________________________
David
Solway is a Canadian poet and essayist (Random Walks)
and author of The Big Lie: On Terror, Antisemitism, and
Identity and Hear, O Israel! (Mantua Books). His
editorials appear regularly in PJ
Media. His monograph, Global Warning: The Trials of
an Unsettled Science (Freedom Press Canada) was launched
at the National Archives in Ottawa in September, 2012.His latest
book is Notes
from a Derelict Culture. A CD of his original
songs, Partial to Cain, appeared in 2019.
The trial of Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, who is charged
with five counts of rape and predatory sexual assault, has become
a cause célèbre for the #MeToo movement. When
I speak of justice for Harvey Weinstein, I am not thinking of
vigilante justice, mob justice, or moral comeuppance. I am referring
to the concept of impartial justice, based on the principles
of “due process” and “beyond a reasonable
doubt,” conducted in an atmosphere of evidence-based fair
procedure. My suspicion is that Weinstein will find himself
judged in a kangaroo court fueled by moral outrage, irrelevant
testimony, and the drive toward emotional sentencing.
To
be clear, I have no qualms with describing Weinstein as a moral
barbarian, an irredeemable narcissist, a sexual raptor, and
a thoroughly reprehensible character. I have no sympathy for
the man. Cathy Young called him “loathsome,” Tucker
Carlson dissed him as a “creep,” Christina Hoff
Sommers dubbed him a “monster,” Roger Simon branded
him a “pig,” Andrea Widburg called him a “sociopathic
brute,” and so on. Indeed, I know and know of quite a
number of such people, some of them famous, and you do as well.
But, all things being equal, one does not go to prison for being
a douchebag.
Weinstein
is accused of rape, a crime that must be punished in law. But
the problem for the prosecution is that the evidence substantiating
the ostensible crime is far from “beyond a reasonable
doubt.” It seems that Weinstein abused his position as
an influential movie producer, using his power in return for
sexual favors. He exploited young women seeking careers in the
Hollywood glitter world, but this is not a felony since these
budding wannabes and actresses were free to reject his advances
at any time. He made them an offer they could refuse. What actually
took place seems to have been a long series of personal trade-offs
in which both parties agreed to exploit one another for mutual
gain: sex in one case, parts in movies in the other. Fair if
sordid trade.
A
brief, personal anecdote. Many years ago when I was first seeking
employment at a teaching institute, I found myself in an embarrassing
position. With a wife and young infant, my situation was rather
pressing. I soon discovered that the job hinged on embarking
on a sexual affair with the head of the department, a bossy,
unattractive woman (shades of Weinstein) used to getting her
own way. One can see the dilemma—providing for the family
on the one hand, prostituting oneself on the other. I walked
away, as any self-respecting person would, regardless of consequences.
It was, as they say, a no-brainer. Perhaps the 19th-century
American Transcendentalist Theodore Parker was right when he
assured us that the moral arc “bends toward justice,”
for I soon found another job, far less remunerative but adequate.
I can’t see why the aspiring petitioners at Weinstein’s
hotel room door could not have done likewise. Desire is not
necessity. There is such a thing as personal integrity. And
there are other jobs out there, even if they are not those one
covets or prefers.
At
any rate, the essential claim is that Weinstein forcibly assaulted
his victims. But the evidence plainly shows that his supposed
victims continued to seek him out, were seen convivially together
with him in public during and after the time of the alleged
assault, sent him friendly and affectionate emails, and failed
to come forward until many years had passed.
Moreover,
of the hundred or so women he is said to have molested, only
two are at present facing him, both of whom had persisted in
meeting, wishing to meet, and appealing to Weinstein in many
different ways. A so-called “expert forensic psychiatrist,”
Barbara Ziv, reportedly testified that continuing an intimate
relationship with one’s assailant or even pretending that
the atrocity never really happened is actually a coping behavior.
These alleged victims, she argues, lie to themselves and others
about the event—but we are, apparently, to believe they
are not lying when they come forward even a decade later.
This
is perfectly circular feminist logic. If a woman avoids her
rapist, that makes sense. If a woman pursues her rapist, that
also makes sense. If a victim persistently lies, then she will
tell the truth. Win-win for the plaintiff. As Janice Fiamengo
points out in a corrosive
video on the Weinstein travesty, The #MeToo Trial of the Century—and
I urge the reader to access it—“The fact that such
empty theorizing as Ziv’s is now considered authoritative
and is quoted with respect by pretty much every news source
covering the trial gives us some indication of feminism’s
terrifying success in the realm of psychological theory.”
(Full disclosure: as some readers will be aware, Janice is my
wife, but I can assure them there is no special pleading on
my part.)
Let
me go on record saying that I not only despise Weinstein’s
squalid behavior; I also detest his pro forma, Hollywood-vetted
leftist politics. Sexually, morally, and politically, Hollywood
is a cesspool. There are only a few exceptions to the general
rule. In one way or another, just about everyone seems complicit
in discreditable behavior. But this is not what is at issue
here. It is not only Weinstein who is being judged but also
our judicial system. In my estimation, there is no credible
case to be made for rape, which is precisely what the trial
is attempting to establish. Despite photographs, tears, and
panic attacks, the evidence manifestly does not rise to “beyond
a reasonable doubt,” especially considering the email
documentation attesting to the alleged victims constantly pursuing
a sexual and affectionate relationship with him during and after
the events in question, the lamentable Ziv notwithstanding.
In addition, although corroborating witnesses may refer to Weinstein’s
past behavior, this is not the issue that the trial is focusing
on. There are only two plaintiffs and their depositions are
problematic.
I suspect
as well that the judge may fear that his career may be in jeopardy.
Running counter to massive public sentiment, standing up to
the media, defying the baying mob, and dealing with the case
exclusively on its merits is hazardous to the health. One remembers
the fate of Justice Aaron Persky in the Stanford University
Brock Turner case, whose fair verdict predicated on law led
to his being torn to shreds by a maenadic mob, eventuating in
his recall, his loss of status and earnings, and his inability
to find subsequent employment even as a tennis coach.
As
Fiamengo concludes her video exposé: “If we really
care about seeing a loathsome predator get his just deserts,
it would make sense to ensure that he is convicted in a fair
trial. Whichever way things turn out for Weinstein, it’s
not a great moment for American justice.”
