The United States of America, United Kingdom and most of the western world adhere to a very important legal principle: the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. The presumption of innocence is the legal principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. In many countries and states, presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, and it is an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must collect and present compelling evidence to the trier of fact. We are currently living in a world where some very prominent and influential people are trying to remove this basic human right, which is not only in contrast to the previously mentioned law but is deeply irresponsible and we will set about explaining why in this video. Let’s start with Tarana Burke; social activist and community organiser and founder of the #metoo movement who recently tweeted her insistence that we MUST start by believing alleged victims. As commenters on twitter rightly pointed out, this is problematic for many reasons: <ul> <li>It defies law within the united stated and many other countries</li> <li>It is deeply irresponsible to believe any and all accusations made against an individual when the evidence overwhelmingly points to a case of false accusation</li> <li>It encourages witch hunts and trials by media. Any reasonable person would agree that serious accusations against a person should be dealt with in a court of law and not on twitter.</li> </ul> Likely, when Tarana refers to ‘events in the news’ she is talking about the alleged hate crime hoax involving Jussie Smollett. One the strangest and biggest celebrity news stories of the year so far. On January 29<sup>th</sup> 2019, Smollett alleged that he was attacked in Chicago's Streeterville neighborhood, in what was initially investigated as a hate crime. He told police that he was attacked outside his apartment building by two white men in ski masks who called him racial and homophobic slurs, and said "This is MAGA country,” and used their hands, feet, and teeth as weapons in the assault. According to a statement released by the Chicago Police Department, the two suspects then "poured an unknown liquid" onto Smollett and put a noose around his neck. Smollett said that he fought them off. The police were called after 2:30 AM; when they arrived around 2:40 AM, Smollett had a white rope around his neck. Smollett said that the attack may have been motivated by his criticism of the Trump administration and that he believed that the alleged assault was linked to the threatening letter that was sent to him earlier that month. On January 30, many public figures expressed support for Smollett on social media. Entertainment industry figures and celebrities such Shonda Rhimes and Viola Davis, tweeted their outrage over the attack and support for Smollett. Democratic senators and presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Cory Booker both described the attack as a modern-day lynching. The news quickly went global, was discussed on every single major news network around the world and instantly went viral on social media platforms. People from all 4 corners of the earth were outraged at what appeared to be an utterly repugnant act of racism and homophobia. Shortly after, Smollett began to face scepticism regarding his allegations due to apparent inconsistencies in his account of events. He responded by saying that he believed that, if he had said his attackers were Mexicans, Muslims or black people, "the doubters would have supported me much more... And that says a lot about the place that we are in our country right now." Smollett gave a detailed and emotional account of the alleged attack shortly thereafter to ABC news. Footage emerged of Smollett at his first performance since the alleged attack, seemingly relatively unscathed and defiantly referred to himself as "the gay tupac" On February 13, Chicago Police raided the home of two "persons of interest" in the case. The men were two brothers of Nigerian descent, who were paid extras on <em>Empire</em>, the show that Smollett stars in. Police recovered bleach and other items from the home. The brothers were held in police custody on suspicion of battery but were not charged. According to the brothers' attorney, they know Smollett from working on the show, and have also spent time with him at a gym. The two men were released without being charged with a crime, with Chicago Police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi stating their release was "due to new evidence" from the interrogations. On February 16, two unnamed Chicago police sources informed CNN that Chicago police had discovered evidence indicating that Smollett had paid the two brothers $3,500 to stage the attack. Financial records indicate that the brothers purchased the rope found around Smollett's neck at a hardware store in Ravenswood over the weekend of January 25. Surveillance footage was released of the two Nigerian brothers, who were seen buying masks, gloves and caps hours before the alleged attack: On February 20<sup>th</sup> , Smollett was charged with a class 4 felony for filing a false police report. Members of the LA civil rights activist group, who originally supported Smollett, distanced themselves from him and called for his arrest as the new evidence came to light: On February 21, 2019, Smollett surrendered himself at the Chicago Police Department's Central Booking station. CPD spokesman Anthony Guglielmi confirmed that Smollett was named as suspect in a criminal investigation for filing a fake police report, under a class 4 felony. Smollett faces a maximum penalty of three years in prison. Despite the heavy evidence currently against Smollett, it is important to note we do <strong>still </strong>believe in the presumption of his innocence and a fair trial and that applies to Jussie as well. But at the same time, we ask – is it reasonable that 2 presumably innocent men were, by many, immediately believed to be guilty at the word of one man, who had, according to the police, a financial motive to lie? Had the surveillance evidence not been found – would those two men, or two other innocent men be deemed to be guilty? While you ponder the wider implications of such dangerous reasoning, let’s take another look at Tarana’s reaction to the story: It is rather strange that the founder of #metoo would continue to blindly believe any and all accusations, especially since former ‘MeToo’ leader, Asia Argento, has been accused of sexually assaulting actor Jimmy Bennett in 2013 when he was 17 and she was 37. Argento had first met Bennett when he played Argento's son in the 2004 film <em>The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things</em> when Bennett was 7 years old. The alleged assault occurred in 2013 when he was only two months past his 17th birthday and she was 37 in a hotel room in California where the age of consent is 18. According to Bennett, in their encounter Argento gave him alcohol, performed oral sex on him and engaged him in sexual intercourse. The actress had quietly arranged a $380,000 nondisclosure settlement with him in the months following her accusations of sexual assault towards Harvey Weinstein. Argento denied the allegations, claiming that she never had a sexual encounter with Bennett and explained the settlement to the alleged victim by claiming that her partner Anthony Bourdain paid him to avoid negative publicity. Following Argento's denials, a photograph of her topless in bed with Bennett was published, as well as her alleged admission of sex with him in text messages to Rain Dove. In a letter published online in September 2018, Argento's attorney admits there was a sexual encounter, but claims that Bennett "sexually attacked" Argento. After increasing outrage at the blatant hypocrisy of the metoo movement, Tarana finally weighed in on the issue: Tarana finally acknowledged that men too can be victims of sexual crimes, in a series of tweets that were considered by many, too little, too late. As many people have pointed out to Tarana, the presumption of guilt despite evidence is exactly this type of thinking is extremely dangerous and has directly resulted people such as Emmett Till’s murder. Emmett Till was born on July 25<sup>th</sup> 1941. Born and raised in Chicago, during his summer vacation in 1955, at the age of 14 he was visiting relatives in the Mississippi Delta region. He spoke to 21-year-old Carolyn Bryant, the white married proprietor of a small grocery store there. Till was accused of flirting with or whistling at Bryant. In 1955, Carolyn Bryant testified that Till made physical and verbal advances. Several nights later, Bryant's husband Roy and his half-brother J.W. Milam went armed to Emmett’s great-uncle's house and abducted the boy. They took him away and beat and mutilated him before shooting him in the head and sinking his body in the Tallahatchie River. Three days later, Till's body was discovered and retrieved from the river. Till's body was returned to Chicago where his mother insisted on a public funeral service with an open casket. The open-coffin funeral that was held exposed the world to more than her son Emmett Till's bloated, mutilated body. In September 1955, Bryant and Milam were acquitted of Till's kidnapping and murder. Protected against double jeopardy, the two men publicly admitted in a 1956 interview with <em>Look</em> magazine that they had killed Till. Decades later, Mrs. Bryant disclosed that she had fabricated part of the testimony regarding her interaction with Till, specifically the portion where she accused Till of grabbing her waist and uttering obscenities; "that part's not true," Bryant stated in a 2008 interview with historian Timothy Tyson. You might be thinking – thank goodness we have moved on since those days – and I would agree that many improvements have been made in our society since the 1950’s , particularly in regards to the civil rights movement. But Tarana Burke and many others are forcing us back into an era where evidence and facts are disregarded to make way for slander, character assassination and witch hunts. Tarana has openly congratulated Dan Reed (director of Leaving Neverland) and offered her support to accusers Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who allege that Michael Jackson sexually abused them as children. Despite the many inconsistencies in Robson’s and Safecuck’s stories that we have detailed for you in our previous videos; <ul> <li>despite the fact that Michael Jackson was acquitted during a criminal trial on all 14 counts in his lifetime</li> <li>despite the fact that Michael Jackson was investigated covertly for years by the FBI, who found no incriminating evidence despite all efforts to do so</li> <li>despite the fact that Robson testified during the 2005 in defence of Jackson, who later said that he did not realise (as an adult) that the alleged rape by Jackson was ‘abuse’ at the time</li> <li>and despite suing the estate of Michael Jackson only when he was turned down for a lead role in an MJ Cirque de Soleil tribute show,</li> <li>despite Safechuck’s graphic allegations of abuse eerily echoing the fictitious book of Victor Gutierrez called ‘’Michael Jackson was my lover’’, who was successfully sued by Jackson and was ordered to pay him £2.7 million in damages,</li> <li>despite both accusers cases being thrown out of court,</li> <li>despite all of this … Tarana choses to put her faith in 2 known liars who have a huge financial motive instead of carefully examining the evidence in order to reach a reasonable conclusion.</li> </ul> Tarana is not alone in holding this troubling ideology of abandoning facts and reason to make an informed decision. Currently in most states in the US and in the UK, there is no law to protect the deceased from libel or defamation. So the media are free to run any and every story about Michael Jackson and any other deceased person, that they please, regardless of the accuracy. It is entirely forgivable that people might give abuse accusers the benefit of the doubt when telling stories of abuse. But should the same courtesy not be given to the accused? Is it not reasonable to look at both sides and to make an informed decision based on evidence? Should we not demand that journalists, politicians and leaders approach such allegations with a balanced and fair view? Or should we remove the judicial process entirely and replace it with trial by media?
Unlock with Patreon
