“No one with a contemporary understanding of the dynamics of sexual victimization and its aftermath would be so insensitive and patriarchal as to try to dictate to a survivor what her healing path should be, much less goad her,” Mr. Butt said. Globe and Mail, 2018-02-14
That is just fascinating. Patrick Brown defied the woman who made allegations against him to go to the police. Of course, if you go to the police, questions will be asked, and consistency demanded of you. Her lawyer responded, as above. This is a master craftsman at work, devising language to describe, in an appealing way, the process of denying the need for facts or evidence in support of nasty allegations of bad behavior by a politician. Apparently, asking for actual evidence would be “patriarchal” and “insensitive”, because the woman who lied about Patrick Brown, is on a “healing path”, which, apparently, consists largely of slandering Patrick Brown.
Facts.
Here’s another remarkable quote from Mr. Butt:
There’s no requirement to do that, according to Marcy Segal, a former Toronto criminal defense lawyer who is now a litigator and advocate for victims’ rights. “I wouldn’t say it’s appropriate to bait these people, because if you’re a victim you don’t have to go to the police in order to prove you have been sexually assaulted,” she said. “There’s no requirement to do that.”
It’s something that might be derailed by inconsistencies and contradictory stories, not just by her and Patrick Brown, but by other witnesses, like the man who denies that he drove the young woman to Patrick Brown’s house.
By the way, I’m not making up his last name. Of the lawyer.
I also heard on the CBC today a woman describe how she had had an affair with her boss years ago. The boss’ partner, a woman, became jealous of the relationship and demanded that he fire her. I think– the woman was a bit vague. After describing what sounds for all the world like an affair, she was invited by the CBC hostess to consider whether the relationship fell under the #metoo category because, nowadays, we understand that even consenting adults can decide to be victims later, if they wish. She thought aloud: maybe. Maybe now I realize that instead of an adult consenting to a casual, sexual relationship with my employer, who, she admits, treated her well, she was a victim. She was weak and incapable of resisting his advances. Yes, that’s it. I was a victim. That’s what I was.
If that last line didn’t trouble you, it should: I am a victim if I say I am a victim. I can choose to be a victim in a previous situation, if I decide to.
Would anything about this whole movement make sense if those leading it did not seem to share a presumption that even unforced sex is evil and shameful and sinful? The horror with which they react even to stories of consenting couples having sex somewhere… it’s weird.
[whohit]The Healing Path to Victimization[/whohit]