This morning I listened to Charles Adler discuss with callers to his radio show the case of the Jamaican woman in Ontario, Ms. Mowatt, who had been jailed for a few days because it looked as if she would not show up as a witness in the domestic violence trial she had launched against the man whom she had alleged abused her, a Mr. Harbin.
Charles Adler and his callers outdid each other on his show in an all-out competition as to who was able to show more sympathy for the (alleged) victim of domestic violence who had been punished twice, once (allegedly) by her abuser (as the alleged victim alleges), and once more by forcing her to appear as a witness in the trial against the man whom she alleged abused her, but whom she, prior to being jailed, refused to testify against.
Charles Adler and his callers need a dose of reality. They should, for instance, read Christie Blatchford’s April 12, 2008 article in the Globe and Mail, “A witness in need of a blankie, soother“. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Christie Blatchford’s opinions regarding the sham of the trial in which Ms. Mowatt made her public appearance is many times more valuable and realistic than the media-hype and show of phony outrage that Charles Adler and his supporters could muster during the sympathy orgy on the Charles Adler show this morning.
What’s the moral outrage really all about? As Christie Blatchford points out, the young woman most certainly lied, either as a witness or as an accuser. Which of the stories she told is the right one? Even if she – as per the feminist assertion that women never lie – told the truth, two contradicting stories can’t possibly both be true. It seems to me that she perhaps did not wish to appear as a witness to her own lies and be exposed as a perjurer and liar. She is perhaps yet too young (although her handlers aren’t) to understand that as a woman who alleges that she had been abused she is permitted to lie with impunity, even in our courts.
The “accused” Mr. Harbin pleaded “Not guilty.” As of now he is legally innocent, but even though his accuser and simultaneously lying witness against him or for him, whichever the case may be, and the court process have not yet established his guilt, Charles Adler and his callers are quite certain that Mr. Harbin is without any doubt and absolutely guilty. Moreover, Charles Adler implied that there is good reason to believe that all innocent people like Mr. Harbin are “piece[s] of human garbage” and capable and liable of killing their accusers by shooting them in the head.
That is not news reporting or even commenting with any trace of objectivity or truthfulness. It is propagandistic hype, used to paint all men with the same broad brush.
Odd, Charles Adler is a man, I suppose. His voice sounds like the voice of a man, although his words don’t. I wonder whether any woman ever accused him of abusing her. Perhaps that is still to come. It is entirely possible, for any man, even for Charles Adler. The likelihood of that happening is far greater than Charles Adler ever living up to his assuming his share of the guilt that he assigned to all men, namely that if he is ever accused by a woman of abusing her – whether the abuse took place or not – Charles Adler then becomes in his own words “a piece of human garbage” capable of killing his accuser by shooting her in the head.
Charles Adler should consider this: false accusations are as old as humanity – even the Bible tells us so. It takes collaborators like Charles Adler to make them stick, and they almost invariably cause far more serious harm than the alleged abuse did (allowing in the process for good incomes to be earned by a lot of people in the resulting theater plays (a.k.a. court hearings) and associated industry surrounding them).
False abuse allegations are serious acts of interpersonal (often domestic) violence. They often destroy the lives of the falsely accused. It takes people like Charles Adler to have them come out that way or, at the very least, to have them stick to an individual like you-know-what to a blanket.