A good read, for anyone interested!
=================================================
How many of us go through our lives on a daily basis taking part in numerous interactions with other people without thinking about our reputations?
"Reputation".
How is it possible for such a small word to contain so much power?
And yet it does as this quote from Psychology Today shows us:
"We only ever have influence over our reputation—never control—as is the case with all things external to us, but it remains one of our most precious assets (far more important than any one job, house, car, or even, some would argue, money)."
A little over four hundred years ago, William Shakespeare wrote a few lines in "Hamlet" which both captures the importance of preserving your reputation and explains why stealing someone else's benefits no-one.
"Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls.
Who steals my purse steals trash. 'Tis something, nothing:
'Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands.
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him
And makes me poor indeed.
Think about that for a moment yet even a brief moment's thought does not go far enough. But in the age of #MeToo, it has become all too easy to ruin a person's name and reputation. All one has to do is allege abuse and there's no abuse more vilified than sexual abuse. Especially that towards a child.
Here we are in March 2019 and a documentary called "Leaving Neverland" has already broadcast in North America as well as in parts of Europe. This centres around the allegations made by Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck alleging Michael Jackson sexually abused them when they were young boys.
Before we go on, let me be very clear that it's right to seek justice through the appropriate channels if and when necessary. After all, we don't have a legal system for no reason, do we?
It is sometimes forgotten that our legal system in the West has the Presumption of Innocence doctrine as a starting point. It's also a guiding principle and for good, sound reason.
"Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”
."
One might then think that a documentary such as "Leaving Neverland" must have some credible, convincing evidence to support Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck's allegations against Michael Jackson.
But you'd be wrong.
In his interview with Billboard magazine, the director, Dan Reed, admitted that he has ZERO evidence to support the allegations against Michael Jackson.
"In the end, there is no video of Michael Jackson abusing Wade and James. There is no cache of photographs. So what you’re doing is listening to the person and making a judgment about whether there is any truth or not.”
There is literally nothing except for the word of the two accusers. But how can it be possible that this has been allowed to be broadcast on air in multiple countries with potentially millions of people watching?
Simple - there is no law to protect the deceased from defamation. According to one human rights charity:
"......a right to sue in defamation for the reputation of deceased persons could easily be abused and might prevent free and open debate about historical events."
Likewise, the Attorney-General's Department of the Australian Government took the view that:
"three main arguments have been advanced against proposals to introduce an action for defamation of the dead: first, defamation law is about protecting reputation, and the dead have none; secondly, the death of the person defamed makes it impossible for defendants to establish truth through cross-examination; and thirdly, a new cause of action would inhibit contemporary historical writing."
As far as I currently understand the situation in regards to the law in general, Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck cannot be prosecuted or sued for their allegations against Michael Jackson.
Additionally, it is my understanding that Wade Robson cannot now be prosecuted for perjury in the 2005 trial brought by the allegations made by Gavin Arvizo.
It would appear that the Me Too movement is ripe for being used as a Trojan Horse by unscrupulous individuals. Even more worrying, you are demanded to believe every single person who alleges abuse of one type or another. It seems that questioning the honesty, truthfulness and/or credibility of any alleged victim is discouraged on a large scale.
Yet such serious accusations has the power to damage a person's reputation and, with it, ruin their whole lives. Surely, in the interests of judicial impartiality, the preservation of democracy and general fairness, we must be able to doubt?
A few weeks ago, I was reading a book on the Northern Ireland Troubles when a few lines relevant to these situations became seared into my mind.
"Finding fault is the mindset...The filter of healthy scepticism normally found in assessing the validity of a criminal complaint is missing.....if this is the case, evidence is not being followed but an agenda."
This is significant because the Me Too movement has grown in power and increasing numbers of people aren't confident enough to question any alleged victim's account. The peer pressure to conform is increasingly too strong for a growing number of people to resist which means it becomes ever more likely that certain individuals lose the ability to maintain a healthy degree of scepticism.
Is an agenda being followed in the case of Michael Jackson?
As one publication put it:
""Leaving Neverland" is nothing more than an effort to sensationalize the case and to allow it to play out in the court of public opinion."
It does appear that an agenda is being followed in this case.
The stage is set for the erosion of the principle of Presumption Of Innocence. Certainly, in the case of Michael Jackson which has wider reaching implications.
After all, if it can happen to Michael Jackson, it can happen to anyone.
As the legal historian Pennington correctly observed:
"It has been true in the past and it remains true today that procedural rules are broken and rights violated most often when judges have faced crimes that strike society’s most sensitive nerves. The cases in which I have found that the presumption of innocence is discussed again and again are those that dealt with marginal groups, especially heretics, witches and Jews’."
Michael Jackson himself has been put into the marginal group labelled "weird". And the crime Michael Jackson has been accused of posthumously by Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck most certainly does "strike(s) at society's most sensitive nerves."
Indeed, society's nerves are reflective in the kind of paedophilia hysteria that saw Bijan Ebrahimi beaten and burned alive by his neighbour, Lee James in 2013. Stephen Norley admitted helping Lee James. The judge, Mr Justice Simon described it as" a vigilante crime" and "an act of murderous injustice".
How does an individual defend themselves against such accusations in the Me Too era, especially if an individual is deceased?
That takes us back to the title of this article - "You Say It's Not A Sword". And the erosion of the Presumption Of Innocence principle.
How easy it is for each of our reputations to be tarnished, ruined or destroyed!
Not even the legal principle of Innocent Until Proven Otherwise can come out of it unscathed. Such is the power of the accusation.
Yet how many people stop to consider this?
As Michael Jackson said at an NAACP event in Pasadena, United States of America in January 1994:
"I never really took the time to understand the importance of that ideal until now, until I became the victim of false allegations, and the willingness of others to believe and exploit the worst before they have a chance to hear the truth."
Now, more than ever Michael Jackson needs the Presumption of Innocence doctrine.
But it is also in the interests of every person alive NOW for the same doctrine we all rely on to be protected, upheld and maintained.
Who knows which of us may need it in our darkest hour tomorrow?
There, but for the grace of God go I.......
Sources & further reading:
Psychology Today's Alex Lickerman M.D. "The Value Of A Good Reputation"
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/happiness-in-world/201004/the-value-good-reputation
Scottish Government "Death of a Good Name - Defamation and the Deceased: A Consultation Paper"
http://www2.gov.scot/Publications/2011/01/11092246/5
Kenneth Pennington "Innocent Until Proven Guilty: The Origins of a Legal Maxim"
http://legalhistorysources.com/KrakowLectures/Law508/InnocentGuilty.htm
Linda Woods "The New Lynching of Michael Jackson"
https://medium.com/@lrixwoods/the-n...rland-may-in-fact-leave-blood-on-2a9e2193f818
