n
Drlee wrote:I know of no such claims. There may never be any court cases. I was simply articulating that there are laws that should protect someone from being fired in some circumstances. Many of these celebrities have contracts. We will see what kind of settlements they reach. My suspicion is that many of the firings are simply strategic rather than based upon some moral outrage. So a check will be written and the "offender" go away quietly. All the richer for the experience.
Right, there are no cases.
People accusing sexual assault victims and their supporters of circumventing due process are getting worked up over nothing because there is no actual circumventing of due process. And this is what makes the accusations of “hysteria” so hypocritical and ironic.
Even if we look at the accusations of Atwood, we see her also using the term “due process” incorrectly.
Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due process violation, which offends the rule of law.Please note that the definition clearly states that it is a limit on state power, and is a legal term. It is not about getting fired.
In the case of Galloway, this all happened before the MeToo campaign, so blaming this on the MeToo campaign makes no sense unless you guys believe in magic time travel.
Also, due process does not mean “complete transparency when people are fired”, despite Atwood’s confusion. It makes more sense to think that the university is not being transparent
in order to avoid liability, instead of imagining some conspiracy of feminists out to take power and money away from men.