Because of #MeToo, it has dawned on many that their experiences of sexual abuse and harassment are neither isolated nor unique.
They have been able to report their experiences into a receptive, or at least a neutral space, rather than the previously normal negative one, where the default response was to enquire what the victim did to invite the attack.
For many, #MeToo has broken the silence. It has expanded the safe spaces.
I am writing about this following a discussion between my colleague and friend Kieran Cummins and me at a Law Society Human Rights Committee meeting, where he raised his unease about the lack of due process on social media for those accused of harassment.
I responded, highlighting the value to so many of being able to finally name the wrong done to them. Our articles continue the discussion.
Bursting the dam
I liken the #MeToo phenomenon to a dam. Before it roared into life in October 2017, many of those who suffered sexual harassment felt sealed behind the dam walls, required to stay isolated and silent.
#MeToo pressure from those who had put up with too much burst the dam. And the sheer energy of the release is somewhat terrifying for all concerned – for those who are testifying to harms long repressed and opportunities denied; for those who will be in the sights of those testaments; for a system that just doesn’t know what to do.
If our systems for checking abuse and harassment worked, #MeToo would never have happened. The dam would have had a sluice gate to allow people to report sexual transgressions.
Those accused of the harassment would have been heard. There would be a just outcome and effective remedy.
Filling the space
But that system wasn’t there. A social media campaign filled the space, with all its benefits of reaching people who had been denied their rights for too long, and brought its attendant risks of publication without proper caution.
The answer cannot be to shut down or deny the importance of #MeToo. That it is needed will be obvious to many readers of the Gazette who will know from their work and personal lives that sexual harassment continues to be a real and prevalent consequence of the abuse of power.
Rather than close down the conversation, we need to build better systems to report and investigate sexual harassment and abuse, and to provide effective hearings and remedies. That, in turn, will build a better, safer, society – which benefits us all.
Anyone affected by these issues is welcome to contact the Rape Crisis Centre’s national 24-hour helpline at: 1800 778 888.
Noeline Blackwell is chief executive of the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre and is a non-practising solicitor. She is a consultant to the Law Society’s Human Rights Committee
****************************************************************************
Kieran Cummins argues that #MeToo is not justice but retribution
There has been much coverage of the #MeToo movement in recent times. Any reasonable person would condemn the behaviour of people like Harvey Weinstein.
However, what started out as a debate about sexual violence has developed into an ugly form of McCarthyism.
Public accusations and character assassination are commonplace against named individuals who find themselves labelled as sex offenders without the well-developed legal concepts of due process, a right of reply, a formal opportunity to defend themselves, and the presumption of innocence.
Viral campaign
The #MeToo movement was originally a campaign to promote “empowerment through empathy” among women of colour who have experienced sexual abuse, particularly within underprivileged communities, and which was created by Tarana Burke in 2006.
It spread to Afghanistan, where it is estimated that 90 per cent of women suffer sexual harassment.
On 15 October 2017, actress Alyssa Milano encouraged spreading the phrase as part of an awareness campaign – it then went viral.
The related ‘Time’s Up’ movement was founded on 1 January 2018 by Hollywood celebrities in response to the ‘Weinstein effect’ and #MeToo. As of February 2018, it has raised $20 million for its legal defence fund and gathered over 200 volunteer lawyers.
Should an attempt be made by a prosecution team in a criminal trial to produce a #MeToo claim as evidence, there is a very real possibility that the judge would direct a jury that all such evidence be deemed inadmissible because of excessive, prejudicial, pre-trial publicity.
Indeed, it is likely that defence lawyers would argue that their clients would be unable to get a fair trial in circumstances where there has been such adverse publicity about their client, and that the selection of an impartial jury would be impossible. A trial would likely collapse.
Loose talk
On the civil end of the scale, social media chat is essentially loose talk, where there is little concern for accuracy, due process, or a right of reply.
Furthermore, once something is published online, it is very difficult to completely remove such content. Moreover, there is also a lack of a clear identification of a publisher, meaning that the laws of defamation are difficult to engage.
A paper published in the journal Science recently found that false news spreads 20 times faster than real news on Twitter.
The #MeToo movement has been responsible for calling out men for anything from gross predatory behaviour to infringements of a de minimis nature.
There are no legal definitions and no tests in ‘trial by social media’. The Economist recently published a survey suggesting that, in the US, 18 per cent of 18-year-old girls regard being asked out for a drink as sexual harassment.
One quarter of 18-year-old boys thought the same. Over one-third of those polled ranging in age from 18 to 30 (male and female) said a man ‘commenting on attractiveness’ would ‘always’ or ‘usually’ be a form of sexual harassment.
The #MeToo movement is not justice; it is retribution. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Kieran Cummins is director of Eco Advocacy and is a member of the Law Society’s Human Rights Committee