Category Archives: Sexual harassment/Assault

A Wrecking Ball

Right-wing Extremism, Sexual harassment/Assault, Trump

 

As Justin Ling said on his CBC podcast series about American right-wing talk radio, “And these radio hosts start to look at Trump like one of their own. When he gets attacked, they are the ones cheering him on from the side lines.”

The radio hosts rallie to Trump’s side no matter how outrageous he was. When he said he could grab women by the pussy they supported Trump. When he said John McCain was not a war hero because he was captured and he liked soldiers who were not captured, the radio hosts stood by him.

As Brian Rosenwald said,

“What happens most of the time, is these media and the left and these lords of political correctness they say this, and person tucks his tail between his legs and disappears. They go away. They abide by the judgment. [with enthusiasm] This guy is not doing that. And he very much realizes his audience is fed up. They are fed up with Republicans who don’t seem to get results. They are fed up with these Republicans they see as playing the Washington game. And they want someone who is just going to be an unvarnished champion who is going to fight for them in their battles and when he sees it makes the left angry is going to say, “Good! You deserve to be angry.”

 

The Trump supporters wanted a wrecking ball, not a ballroom dancer. And that is what they got.

It did not matter much to them what he wrecked either. The entire establishment deserved to be wrecked. His supporters loved it when he wrecked things and the left and the establishment and their media peons got mad.  The madder the left got the more the Trumpsters liked it.

 Of course, the Republican establishment was horrified by Trump’s rise. They didn’t want a wrecking ball. They had too much to lose. The Trumpsters had nothing to lose. By Trumpsters here I do not mean all of Trump’s supporters. He had plenty of support in the establishment too. They just thought they could control Trump. They thought Trump  would be their wrecking ball and he would not wreck them! By in large, of course, they were right. After he was elected, he no longer wanted to drain the swamp. He wanted to wallow in the swamp! The line about draining the swamp was all for show. That’s what Trump did best: be the showman. Not the real man.

While the Republican establishment thought Trump would fail and their supporters would desert him, the right-wing radio hosts recognized him as one of their own. They saw in Trump a fellow traveler. They wanted the rage machine. They did not want any namby-pamby lily-livered leaders. They wanted anger. And nothing less would do.

Matt Lysiak  the author of  The Drudge Revolution: The Untold Story of How Talk Radio, Fox News, and a Gift Shop Clerk with an Internet Connection Took Down the Mainstream Media Hardcover  explained that all of this was instrumental to the rise of Trump. As he said,

“Donald Trump would not have finished in the top three in the GOP primary if it weren’t for Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge. I will explain why. The populist wave in media has been growing from Rush Limbaugh and then blown up by Matt Drudge. And without that opening somebody like Donald Trump could not even run. When they said, ‘we’re supporting him, everybody under their conservative ecosystem followed suit.”

 

They all bought into a wrecking ball for president, and that is exactly what they got.

The Republican establishment was cowed.  Jeb Bush had worked for years building up support and financial help, but he was out of the running for the GOP nomination in no time during the 2016 Republican presidential primary race. So too were all the other “normal” Republican candidates.  All were traded for a wrecking ball. According to Matt Lysiak the two people who deserved most of the credit for this were both from talk radio—Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge.

American talk radio had produced a king. A King who raged.

 

The Police Investigate Kuper Island

Exploitation, Indigenous--Indian Residential Schools, Sexual harassment/Assault

 

I will give a trigger warn ing here. Some of this post is very graphic and people might find it disturbing.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission reported about a 1939 police investigation into the Kuper Island residential school that had been sparked by a series of cases involving children running away from school/home. After months of archival requests, the CBC team got a copy of the report. It was a RCMP report about 6 boys who took 2 canoes from indigenous people on the island.

The RCMP officer who was investigating though did not do what officers usually did, namely march the kids back to school. He was actually interested. This officer actually asked the children for a statement. He asked the children why they had run away. 2 students said they did not want to go back because it was “ bad.” Another said a priest, whom he named, tried to commit “unnatural acts” with him. Parents of all 6 boys did not want to send their sons sent back to the school. The fathers were very angry. One threatened to go to the school with a shotgun. The officer suggested follow up was needed. As a result the RCMP gathered more than 50 statements. The officer said, “I am convinced conditions are not as they should be re the school.”

Here is a statement by one student:

“One day just before Christmas [name redacted] took me out on his boat. He told me to take my pants down in the boat as we were going to go to bed. “If I didn’t,” he told me, “I am going to throw you off the boat into the water.” He got into bed beside me. He tried to stick his thing into me. He could not get it in. So he asked me to play with his thing. I had to do it because I could not get away from him.’

 

There were multiple reports from girls who said the church Fathers were assaulting them in the laundry room. McCue said “the volume of statements here is staggering. This isn’t just one or two kids who are saying this. This is dozens of children.”

Then the Department of Indian Affairs [‘DIA’) got involved. What did they do? They tried to have the officers labelled as insubordinate! But they changed their strategy after reading the statements of the children. The priest who took the boy out in the boat was assigned to another mission in another province, where, of course, he was free to molest again.

A school employee was dismissed.  The Department of Indian Affairs (‘DIA’) arranged for him to leave the province too. As a result, the local Catholic Bishop sent furious letters to Ottawa. Bishop J.C. Cody wrote, “Though quite cognizant of certain breaches of morality, I fail to see any advantage in ruining an institution because of some individuals supposed or even real misdeeds.” He didn’t even care if the allegations were true! Since the suspects were out of the province the case was closed. No further investigations. No charges were laid.

Duncan McCue of the CBC reached what I believe was the right conclusion: “As far as the government and church were concerned, investigating and prosecuting wrong doers took a back seat to protecting the school’s reputation.” After full investigation nothing happened!

So, for Belvie, one of the girls at the school, the abuse continued. One day a father told her that her brother was sick and asked her to follow him to the infirmary. That was unusual because girls usually did not mix with their families or others in the school. There she met another man—one of the priests. He grabbed her and covered her nose and she passed out. When she regained consciousness, she was on the floor naked. She did not know what had happened. She went to the bathroom because semen was running out of her body. She was 11 years old.

Although Belvie did not report it to the authorities it is highly unlikely that anything would ever have happened. As Duncan McCue said, “In the 85-year history of the residential school at Kuper Island, only one person was ever charged—Glen Doughty. But it was clear there were many serial abusers at the school. Not just one bad apple as you so often hear. And it wasn’t only male employees. ”

Belvie made a startling remark about the nuns: “They had no time for us, unless they were sexually abusing us.” Belvie endured 5 years of abuse at Kuper Island, until she left in 1962. But her brother Richard had to stay. More about him later

 

Tár

civilization, Movies, Music, Sexual harassment/Assault

 

Lydia Tár (played brilliantly by Cate Blanchett) is a Prussian musical conductor. And a music teacher. A Professor. It is essential to realize that in Germany music is sacred and the conductor is the high priest or, in some cases, God. Everything the conductor (or music teacher) does is by definition intra vires. Nothing is ultra vires. Everything in other words is authorized. Not in the cards. As a result there is no such thing as sexual assault or sexual harassment by the conductor or teacher.

Yet, on the other hand, this is a film about power. Specifically, about the power of the conductor, but actually the power that any powerful person wields over a young student. That makes any sexual relationship between conductor and student as unacceptable as sex between a teacher and student, or physician and patient. Ipso facto the powerful person is guilty of sexual harassment.  In such circumstances consent is impossible. There is no point in looking for it. It cannot be there. This is the more modern view

These opposing facts are the background to this film. The film bounces between these polar opposites.

A few days with a Prussian authoritarian can be a very unpleasant thing. You have to be able to shoehorn yourself into the job. Why would we do it? I submit, we would only do it if the suffering endured would present us with a spiritual or artistic epiphany.  The purpose of suffering is to burn the fire within you so that you can achieve enlightenment. Then, and only then, is the suffering worth the trip. Every religion has recognized this fact. Those without religion must learn it. I think that is what Tár is all about. The epiphany learned must be sharp to be worth the price. I think this film qualifies.

Tar is smart, and a musical genius, and a great conductor, but she is impossible to like. It is only possible to submit. But submission is dangerous as at least one young music student learns.

We meet Tár early in the film being interviewed by Adam Gopnik of The New Yorker. [Gopnik plays himself in the film] I always liked his articles for that magazine, but here he and she both seem unbearably pretentious. Either that or we are stupid. Or both.

Tar first interrogates a young female music student, Olive and points out to her, “Good music can be as ornate as a cathedral or as bare as a potting shed.” It must help you to learn powerful lessons.

Then Tár quickly turns to Max, another student, and puts him on the spot in front of all his peers.  “What do you think Max?” she asks. Clearly, she wants to humiliate him. I remember I had a grade 9 mathematics teacher like that.  He liked to call us up to the front blackboard and demonstrate how stupid we were. It wasn’t hard. Teachers like that would not be allowed today, I. hope. And then people say they would like to have the good old days of education. Not me.

Max on the stage is “as nervous as his bouncing feet” according to the screenplay. After all he is being asked by the Great Tár. Tár is conducting a master class in bullying. First the young female student, then Max. Max is properly humiliated. Tár  asks him what he thinks of Johann Sebastian Bach. Max is “not into him.” He explains, “Honestly, as a BIPOC pangender- person, I would say Bach’s misogynistic life makes it kind of impossible for me to take his music seriously.”

Then Max’s knee “goes into overdrive” according to the Screenplay and Tár cannot resist. Like a wolf cannot stop from pursuing that prey that runs away, Tár attacks. She asks the class, and Max in particular, “Can classical music written by a bunch of straight, Austro-German, church-going white guys, exalt us individually.” She says she is a “U-Haul Lesbian” and might not be “into Beethoven” but must confront the music. No one wants to confront the Maestro, who is of course, the Master.

She tells the class this about Bach’s music:

“When you get inside that you see what it really is. A question, and an answer. (plays second change) That begs another question. There’s a humility in Bach. He’s not pretending he’s certain of anything. He knows it’s the question that involves the listener. Never the answer.”

 

The she confronts Max again, what do you think?  “He sheepishly responds, “nowadays? White, male, cis composers? Just not my thing.” Tár sees his knee bouncing with nerves again and dismisses him with this remark:

“Don’t be so eager to be offended. The narcissism of small differences leads to the most boring conformity… as an ultrasonic epistemic dissident is, if Bach’s talent can be reduced to his gender, birth country, religion, sexuality, and so on — then so can yours”

The poor humiliated student has his dignity shredded by the older, wiser teacher. All he can do is blurt out, “You’re a fucking bitch!”  And she turns it all on him, the hapless student:

“And you are a robot! Unfortunately, the architect of your soul appears to be social media. If you want to dance the mask, you must service the composer. Sublimate yourself, your ego, and yes, your identity! …You must in fact stand in front of the public and God and obliterate yourself. The problem with enrolling yourself as an ultrasonic epistemic dissident is, if Bach’s talent can be reduced to his gender, birth, country, religion, sexuality, and so on–then so can yours.”

She might be right, but that is not the point. The point is the teacher should be the civilized one in the class. That is what respect is all about. Tár has a problem with that. But if the weak  must lay down before the powerful  we don’t have learning, we don’t have music, we just have pugilism. And there is no art and no honour in that. This is the lesson that Tár must confront in the film.

Tár is smart and says smart things about music. Like this from her book which she reads to a group while protesters gather outside and while she watches her latest prey flirting with a boy in the back and she receives snide text messages:

“The link between music and language is what makes music unique to human beings—Indeed, the common metaphors used to explain music are based on the idea that music is a language… albeit a secret one, and in this way, holy and unknowable. These joyful noises we make being the closest thing any of us might ever experience to the divine... yet something born by the mere act of moving air…”

 

Can someone who speaks so well be a brute? Can such a person be a bully? Can such a person approach the divine?

 

Bombshell

Human rights, Movies, Sexual harassment/Assault

 

 

This was a film released in 2019. It stars 3 outstanding female actresses in 3 outstanding roles. In this film the men are the sidebars. The women are the film. Charlize Theron plays Megyn Kelly, Nicole Kidman as Gretchen Carlson, and Margot Robbie as Kayla Pospisil. The women were all women television personalities at Fox News involved in the claims of sexual harassment against the CEO of Fox Roger Ailes. I actually don’t know the true story of the events so can’t complain about the truth or accuracy of the film’s version of events. That is good, because then I am free to say, the story is true. It is true in the same sense that Macbeth is true. That is what counts.

I was particularly engrossed by the role of Kayla Pospisil. She wanted to be a star on Fox like Megyn and Gretchen She is a true child of Fox. For her and her family is Fox is their religion.  Kayla, played by Margot Robbie,  boldly said, “I don’t want to be on TV, I want to be on Fox. My family, everyday, especially holidays is Fox News. Fox News is how we go to Church.” This nicely captured the theological devotion to Fox. That is what Fox is all about.

Trying to get a spot on Fox News, preferably a show like Kelly or Carlson you see how she would do anything to get on the show no matter how degrading and she gets the opportunity to do exactly that. She gets solid advice from her friend a secret lesbian, and horrors, someone who doesn’t automatically hate liberals. Fox is not the place for her to be. But the friend gives her this advice:

“You have to adopt the attitude of an Irish street cop. The world is a bad place. People are lazy morons. Minorities are criminals. Sex is sick, but interesting. Ask yourself what will scare my grand mother, or piss off my grand father, and that’s a Fox story. Frighten. Titillate. Frighten. Titillate. Frighten. Titillate. When you start a story you need to start with a clear villain: Liberal judge, Vermont, Hollywood. Conservatives want to conserve. You are the last defence against Jesus hating, trans loving, Clinton controlled Armageddon.”

That is Fox News! Particularly the commentators like Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity.  Again from my experience, even though I admit I have not watched Fox often, except for excerpts on Comedy News,  that must be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. This felt true. Of course, that is a poor way to judge truth.

The men on the show are largely rogues. Again this just has to be true. As is said of Bill O’Reilly: “He cannot scale his anger. He is a perpetual anger machine. That’s why the crazies love him.” When he appears on television, and I think this was a “real” clip he said,

“In this country every famous or wealthy man is a target. You’re a target. I’m a target. Any time someone could come out and sue us, attack us, or get the press, and that’s a deplorable situation.”

That’s the whimpering cry of rich and powerful men. We should feel sorry for them. They are the ones that are oppressed.

The women who want a job must pass the Roger Ailes test. They must give a spin in a circle in front of this powerful  sleazy old man to demonstrate they have the body for the job. This certainly must be true. Ailes tells Pospisil:

“This is the most competitive industry on earth. I could pluck you out of a line and move you to the front. But you have to give me one thing. Do you know what it is? (He pauses for a long time) Loyalty (like his hero Trump and with just as much grace.) You have to prove you are loyal. And you must find a way to prove it. That’s about it and we’ll talk again”.

The message is clear enough. Pospisil knows what she must do. Will she do it? If she does it or not she will pay a price either way. A big price.

The movie is about women standing up (or not) to powerful men. No let me rephrase that. This is the story about people standing up to powerful people. People who can oppress you and make you pay a big price. You are damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. It takes great courage to stand up and those who do, rarely “win”. Even when they “win” they lose. That makes it a universal story. That’s why it’s a true story. No matter what the facts.

I don’t want to give away the truth of the film, but I want to point out 2 facts with which the film closes.

Fox paid $50 million dollars to 2 women who alleged sexual harassment which its 2 male stars denied. And it also paid $65 million to the two male stars it said it had “just cause” to fire The two women who risked their careers to make the claim and were among the first to bring down 2 powerful public male television news stars, but they were not the last. And they were paid less than the male alleged harasser. What kind of “victory” is that? Reminds me of the fact that after the Civil War the United States paid reparations after the slaves were freed because of centuries of enslavement. The reparations were paid to southern plantation owners who lost their property!

At least one of the women had to sign a non-disclosure agreement. Darn I hate those and the lawyers who get away with demanding them.

This was an excellent film with a lot of truth. Ugly truth.

 

 

Priests and Nuns

2019 Trip to Southwest United States, Abuse of Power, Catholic Church, Male Dominance, religion, Sexual harassment/Assault

 

Priests have been not just been assaulting young girls and boys in their parishes. They have found other victims. They have found nuns.

I heard a former nun speaking on NPR and she demonstrated this phenomenon. She said that when she was a nun she was not allowed to think for herself. She was always taught that priests were superior to her, as was her Mother Superior. It was her duty to do as they directed without question. With hindsight, she believes this was spiritual abuse that prepared the way for later physical abuse.

One day a priest came to visit her in her room, and he started to remove her clothes. She told him, “You are not allowed to do this.”  He continued his actions. He continued to remove her clothes and then raped her. She felt compelled not to scream out. After all she was expected to do as the priest desired.

When the nun reported the incident to her Mother Superior, the superior got so upset that we was shaking violently and jumped on the table shouting wildly. And she was shouting at the nun. The Mother Superior was radically upset at the nun. She was mad at the nun for reporting the incident. Of course she did nothing to help the nun. Somehow it must have been the nun’s fault. The priests could do harm in the eyes of the Mother Superior.

Only years later did the nun realize that this was part of a pattern of abuse in the church. When she learned how some priests had abused young girls and young boys, the nun realized that she had to speak up. She had to challenge the abuse. She realized she had to speak out, even though other members of her church would not support her for that. Everyone believed the nun had done something she should not have done to lure the priest into trouble. It was the victim’s fault.

The woman who interviewed the nun could not understand how this happened. The nun explained to the interviewer that this is what happens often. When powerful men have power over powerless, defenceless, or vulnerable women (or even worse children) some men choose to use that power for their own self-satisfaction.

Such abuse reveals an ugly element of abuse. When the abuser is thought to have authority from God the abuse is even more poisonous. If God sanctions it, the victim feels, it must be all right.

Of course this is problem that is not unique to the Roman Catholic Church. It is a problem in every region where men have authority over women

This is actually what happens in many institutions. For example, this year in Phoenix it was discovered that a man who worked in an institution of seniors, had impregnated a woman who was basically in a vegetative state. When the powerful find themselves in control of the vulnerable, power often leads to sin.

The same thing happens in politics. As Martin Luther King said, the United States is the world’s greatest purveyor of violence. The United States is the most powerful country in the world, and it uses that power to get what it wants, as powerful countries have done since time began. The problem is inequality of power, not who is holding it.

Recently I suggested that maybe it is time to give women the chance to have power over men. I was not really serious about that. I don’t want anyone to have power over others because so often it leads to abuse. What I really want to see is equality, not just a changing of the guard.

Inequality of Power in the Military

Abuse of Power, Human rights, Male Dominance, Sexual harassment/Assault

https://www.dropbox.com/s/iqn5jwmvsk8cb60/Screenshot%202019-03-27%2023.13.07.png?dl=0

 

The military is peculiarly powerful. This is particularly true in the United States where I have spent the last 3 months. It is also one of the most hierarchical institutions on the planet. Wherever you have a military you have those in power and those subject to power. You have the officers and the grunts. You don’t want to be a grunt.

If you add sexual/gender power imbalances things get even worse. Arizona, where I have been living, has been exposed recently by an American Senator of all people. Recently Arizona U.S. Senator Martha McSally surprised the state and even the country by announcing during a Senate subcommittee meeting that she had been raped while she was in the Air Force. McSally spent 2 decades in the Air Force before she became a Senator. Much of that time was served here in Arizona at very bases close to where we are living. In fact she was the first female pilot to see combat. She also said she felt like she had been victimized again when she reported the incident to her superior officers. Interestingly, she said, “I thought I was strong, but I felt powerless…The perpetrators abused their position of power in a profound way…I was horrified at how my attempt to share generally my experience was handled…Like many victims, I felt like the system was raping me allover again.”

If this could happen to a woman who ultimately was promoted to Commander, we have to wonder what would happen to a less powerful female in the Air Force? The uncomfortable fact is the American military, probably like every other military in the world, Canada’s included, has for too long been a male dominated institution in which there is a strong power imbalance that is magnified when gender inequality is added creating a truly toxic brew.

As reported by the Arizona Republic, The Pentagon officially reported 6,769 sexual assaults in 2017, nearly a 10 percent increase over the prior year. But advocacy groups such as Protect Our Defenders say the true number is likely 15,000 to 26,000 annually. I don’t know about you but I found that a shocking number. According to the Pentagon’s own statistics that amounts to about 20 sexual assault per day! If you accept the number from the critics it could be as high as 722 per day! According to a Rand Corporation Report last year, in a Sierra Vista base here in Arizona, about 1 in 12 female soldiers were sexually assaulted during the year of the survey. Remember these are assaults not harassments.

The American military, like the Canadian military, has for years been trying to stamp out sexual assault and harassment under pressure for various sources. Clearly their success has been about as great as the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, the Arizona Republic reported that a recent Pentagon report showed that sexual assaults spiked nearly 50% in 2017-2018 despite years of focus on the problem. That report also showed that 60 percent of military victims who reported rapes suffered career-ending retaliation. It is hardly surprising that young women are reluctant to come forward with complaints.

The report also identified 2 particularly vulnerable groups: young, unmarried females of lower ranks and personnel aboard ships (where women are far from protection.) It is clear that the issue is power. Powerful men (and yes most of these are men) abuse vulnerable women. It really is that simple. Not all of the men, but too many. The inequality of the power is the key. Just as it is in cases of coaches abusing athletes, priest and nuns or priests and young people in the church , employers and employees, teachers and students, parents and children, and men and women. Wherever power is uneven, people must be on alert.

I don’t know if there is any evidence that women would do a better job of this than men, but it is difficult to believe that they could do worse. Maybe its time to give women a chance. We need someone like John Lennon to create a song about that. We can’t all compose songs, but at the very least it is time for men to speak up. All of us.

The Court of Public Opinion

2019 Trip to Southwest United States, Law, Sexual harassment/Assault, Truth Seeking

 

The court of public opinion does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The court of public opinion makes its own evidentiary rules. In the court of public opinion we can consider hearsay, we can hear opinion evidence given by non-experts, we can accept leading questions, and can violate all kinds of other valuable rules of evidence. But all of us sitting in judgement in the court of public opinion should learn from the courts of law. They have some good ideas.

In the court of public opinion we should remember to listen to both sides. We should exclude dubious evidence. We should reject specious arguments. We should make our decisions based on the best evidence we can muster. We should not rely on second hand stories. We should be on guard against bias. We should keep an open mind. We should not base opinions on junk science. We should cross-examine those who testify to us (if we can). We should employ reason in weighing the evidence, rather than faith, emotion, feelings, or instincts. We should not guess or leap to conclusions. We should be diligent. We should do all these things (and more) if we are actually trying to discern the truth. We should try our best to be ideal observers.

Of course if we just want to mouth off none of this is necessary.

Abuse of Power

2019 Trip to Southwest United States, Abuse of Power, Law, Sexual harassment/Assault

In my last post I talked about Michael Jackson. I suggested that we did not have enough evidence to convict him. Besides, he was charged and acquitted by a jury that heard all the evidence, all the arguments, and all the irrelevant evidence was excluded. We are not in that position and must remember that.

That does not mean we can’t have our opinions. In a court of law the prosecution has a high standard of proof that it must meet before the judge or jury as the case may be, is entitled to find Jackson guilty. Jackson is entitled to be acquitted unless the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty. That is a very high standard. That same standard is not applied in all circumstances. It is much a higher than the standard of proof in a civil case.

That is why even though O.J. Simpson was found not guilty of murder, he was nonetheless successfully sued by his widow’s family for damages for her death in a civil trial. In a civil trial the plaintiff (the one suing) only needs to prove the case against the defendant (such as O.J.) on a balance of probabilities. In other words the plaintiff only has to prove that it was probable or likely that O.J. killed his wife. If it is proved that it was likely that O.J. killed his wife he can be held liable for the damages he caused in a civil suit, even though he was found not guilty on a criminal charge.

I will give you an example. If a son acquires property from his elderly parent without paying fair market value for that property and it is established that the parent was under the influence of the son and subsequently a daughter of the parent alleges that the son used undue influence to get that property without paying for it, the son is required to prove that he did not use undue influence. The son must prove that the parent exercised his or her own free will to make the gift and unless the son can prove that, the son will be required to disgorge the gift. The daughter is not required to prove that the son (her brother) used undue influence over their parent, the son must prove that he did not use undue influence. The onus of proof is on the one who gained the advantage while he was in a position of power over the vulnerable giver. This is as it should be.

This can apply the same way to others who are in a position of power over a vulnerable person. This could include the doctor of the parent, or lawyer, or accountant, or parent, or minister, or employer, or anyone else in a position of superior power over the person who made the ‘gift.’. The law presumes that undue influence was used until the person who benefitted rebuts the presumption and proves otherwise by satisfactory evidence.

This is good law. We can all learn from it. I think it can help us to understand what we might want to think about the Jackson case. Even though we acknowledge that there was insufficient evidence to prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That high standard only applies in a criminal trial.

In a civil case sometimes the same principle is applied and might apply to someone like Michael Jackson. If he was in a position of power over a vulnerable person by reason of his wealth, fame, and power he should be forced to prove he did not misuse that power. The onus of proof should be on the powerful person not on the vulnerable person who might have been abused. Michael Jackson might be entitled to an acquittal in a criminal court, but what about the court of public opinion?