"Me too" - Social media influence - Political changes
Photo by Makhmutova Dina on Unsplash
My Canada commentaries are getting more difficult to write because subject matter everywhere is repeating similar to politics. For instance how many real programs or projects are proposed or initiated by all levels of government creating discussion get much public input. Very few become more then suggestions it seems since attack is the only sense of political direction. The other party whether governing or opposing is always trying to eliminate the other party's public favour on anything proposed. Destroying even needed or wanted and suggested new legislation or ideas which result in heated, angry rebuttal by parties or alternatively lashing out by the politicians proposing the idea is TV news fare. The art of negotiation for the good of the masses is all but dead. Attack the other party’s credibility of proposed changes and upgrades, or if that isn’t working attack the other side’s members reputation with accusations of impropriety. That is happening at most if not all levels of elected government.
In that respect there aren’t many men or women for that matter that don’t have something in their background that could be exploited as sexual negatives even if it is only making a statement such as “go (something) yourself” or some other off-color remark. Another example might be a remark while two people consisting of a male and female are sharing a dinner table alone in a nearby restaurant during a conference or some other meeting. The conversation could lead to an accusation of impropriety. For instance if it happened to involve the female commenting on being currently saying in the throes of marital problems such as a partner’s suspected infidelity. In all likelihood the other person might indicate a willingness to spend more time with the complaining person before shortly afterwards one or either changes their mind ending any semblance of wanting things to go any further than the shared dinner. If one of those sharing that dinner were to rise to a prestigious position a few years later and the other person happened to be involved with another political faction looking to discredit the long ago dinner partner the possibility of claiming an inappropriate sexual suggestion might not be beyond the realm of possibility.
That’s not to say the accusations surfacing since the “me too” scenario began are all false. The main reason many people do not believe some happened is the time lapse between when the allegation was supposed to have happened, the reason the accuser does not want to be identified in many cases, and why the person not only didn’t file a complaint at the time, but often admitted going back or remaining with the accused and even returned allowing further advances to occur after the initial alleged impropriety.
There are circumstances when the aggrieved party should rightfully complain after the fact but there are alterative means to have the complaint heard aside from immediately involving police, although the law would need to be involved eventually as would the courts. Reputations will always be shattered when such cases arise but in all instances the act must be the reason for public airing not a desire to hurt another person’s reputation or revenge for a personal rejection or some other reason.
In the past the police were often, if not usually, reluctant to pursue sexual accusations unless rape was evident. Even spousal abuse was often overlooked but recently most cases attributed to sexual behaviour or spousal abuse are taken seriously by all police agencies.
Whether that includes the way those agencies react to Indigenous citizen accusations is still uncertain as indicated by the recent murder acquittal in Saskatchewan involving an Indigenous youth. That’s another issue and all the details must be made public before the whole situation is revealed which will probably never happen since jury findings are not subject to public scrutiny. Nor should they be since sitting as a juror is a very personal matter not one that should ever become media or even a public issue after the trial ends.
Then there is the matter of media practices now the social media is such a powerful entity. It is difficult to read, see or hear about any issue without reporter and columnist opinions. The reason of course is anyone can get an unidentified personal opinion on one of the social media sites, so in retrospect why shouldn’t identifiable media people be allowed the same right. The only difference is media people usually research the subject to be certain the comments are truthful and not subject to legal recourse. Social media commentary is based mostly on supposition even by the most powerful man in the world currently elected as President of the United States of America.
It is truly difficult to determine where these issues will lead. It is doubtful with the current political atmosphere based on the culture of attack anything will change for the better in the near future regardless of who is elected as voter's representatives since to be elected undivided support of the political party directives trumps any consideration for electorate wants or even needs.
My Canada commentaries are getting more difficult to write because subject matter everywhere is repeating similar to politics. For instance how many real programs or projects are proposed or initiated by all levels of government creating discussion get much public input. Very few become more then suggestions it seems since attack is the only sense of political direction. The other party whether governing or opposing is always trying to eliminate the other party's public favour on anything proposed. Destroying even needed or wanted and suggested new legislation or ideas which result in heated, angry rebuttal by parties or alternatively lashing out by the politicians proposing the idea is TV news fare. The art of negotiation for the good of the masses is all but dead. Attack the other party’s credibility of proposed changes and upgrades, or if that isn’t working attack the other side’s members reputation with accusations of impropriety. That is happening at most if not all levels of elected government.
In that respect there aren’t many men or women for that matter that don’t have something in their background that could be exploited as sexual negatives even if it is only making a statement such as “go (something) yourself” or some other off-color remark. Another example might be a remark while two people consisting of a male and female are sharing a dinner table alone in a nearby restaurant during a conference or some other meeting. The conversation could lead to an accusation of impropriety. For instance if it happened to involve the female commenting on being currently saying in the throes of marital problems such as a partner’s suspected infidelity. In all likelihood the other person might indicate a willingness to spend more time with the complaining person before shortly afterwards one or either changes their mind ending any semblance of wanting things to go any further than the shared dinner. If one of those sharing that dinner were to rise to a prestigious position a few years later and the other person happened to be involved with another political faction looking to discredit the long ago dinner partner the possibility of claiming an inappropriate sexual suggestion might not be beyond the realm of possibility.
That’s not to say the accusations surfacing since the “me too” scenario began are all false. The main reason many people do not believe some happened is the time lapse between when the allegation was supposed to have happened, the reason the accuser does not want to be identified in many cases, and why the person not only didn’t file a complaint at the time, but often admitted going back or remaining with the accused and even returned allowing further advances to occur after the initial alleged impropriety.
There are circumstances when the aggrieved party should rightfully complain after the fact but there are alterative means to have the complaint heard aside from immediately involving police, although the law would need to be involved eventually as would the courts. Reputations will always be shattered when such cases arise but in all instances the act must be the reason for public airing not a desire to hurt another person’s reputation or revenge for a personal rejection or some other reason.
In the past the police were often, if not usually, reluctant to pursue sexual accusations unless rape was evident. Even spousal abuse was often overlooked but recently most cases attributed to sexual behaviour or spousal abuse are taken seriously by all police agencies.
Whether that includes the way those agencies react to Indigenous citizen accusations is still uncertain as indicated by the recent murder acquittal in Saskatchewan involving an Indigenous youth. That’s another issue and all the details must be made public before the whole situation is revealed which will probably never happen since jury findings are not subject to public scrutiny. Nor should they be since sitting as a juror is a very personal matter not one that should ever become media or even a public issue after the trial ends.
Then there is the matter of media practices now the social media is such a powerful entity. It is difficult to read, see or hear about any issue without reporter and columnist opinions. The reason of course is anyone can get an unidentified personal opinion on one of the social media sites, so in retrospect why shouldn’t identifiable media people be allowed the same right. The only difference is media people usually research the subject to be certain the comments are truthful and not subject to legal recourse. Social media commentary is based mostly on supposition even by the most powerful man in the world currently elected as President of the United States of America.
It is truly difficult to determine where these issues will lead. It is doubtful with the current political atmosphere based on the culture of attack anything will change for the better in the near future regardless of who is elected as voter's representatives since to be elected undivided support of the political party directives trumps any consideration for electorate wants or even needs.