Someone left a comment on my blog. Most of the comments I get are nonsense and/or abuse. This one was better than most, raising arguments I want to address. Part of me wants to allow the comment past moderation to let everyone see it, and who wrote it. I might do that eventually. However, the number of misrepresentations of what I have argued thus far is stopping me doing that.
I find it hard to believe that anyone could descend to so many inaccuracies without it being deliberate falsification. That means either I have to expose him as a malicious liar or else as a rather stupid individual.
I tried to find out who he is by research on t’internet. Apparently he is one of my Facebook friends. Can’t work out what organisation he is a member of or was a member of or is close to. I thought about unfriending him but I have decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. I am going to work on the basis of his being confused. Part of my task, the way I see it, is to convince people like him why they have fallen victim a mass hysteria. I think some such people are persuadable. Maybe this individual will be one of them. Maybe not. We shall see.
This individual, who shall remain nameless, has accused me of taking sides in an alleged crime. I really have not. I have seen no evidence one way or the other. Neither has this individual. However, this person tells me that he does not need evidence. Because few women make up stories about sexual assault then every man who is accused has to be counted as guilty.
He is male. What if he was accused of rape? Should everyone just toss him in a cell and throw away the key? What about Owen Jones? Would Laurie Penny dismiss Owen Jones protestations of innocence if a woman accused him of rape? To ask the question is to answer it.
We demand due process. We cannot know in advance of the evidence what really happened. We need both sides to be given their right to make their case, to have what they say tested in a court of law by a jury of ones peers. Society needs to see if the allegation stands up to scrutiny. Maybe it does. Maybe it does not. No one should be deemed guilty in advance of a fair trial, with legal representation for both sides. That, alas, is precisely what Richard Seymour argued for when he hoped to hollow out the SWP from within, in a blatant and outrageous witch hunt, a witch hunt he is now continuing with but from beyond the gates of the party, where he should be been cast out months ago. This is also what some SWP members still insist on defending. Every one of these people are trying to deny every man the right to a fair trial, insisting that any woman who makes an accusation must be telling the truth. And that anyone who dares to challenge it is ipso facto a rape denier. That is utterly pathetic.
If Laurie Penny’s arguments hold water, then that is the end of male participation in the socialist movement. It will no longer be possible for any man to take part in the socialist movement because all it is going to take to force us all into a prison cell is for MI5 to pay a woman to make an allegation having lured an assigned target into a compromising position. This is what is called a honey trap. And it is a ploy that has been used by intelligence agencies all over the world for a century and more.
Socialists are not going to fall for this nonsense.