Reply
Wed 1 Nov, 2017 12:14 pm
This thread is about Rose Mcgowan's story about a government conspiracy to silence her that apparently involves time travel. I am not questioning Rose Mcgowan's story about being assaulted by Harvey Weinstein; that is not what this thread is about. These should be separate issues; you can both be a victim of sexual assault and still break narcotics laws.
Rose has a felony arrest warrant filed against her because they found evidence that she was carrying narcotics. This event happened in February and by all indications the legal case against her has been progressing as you would expect. She, and many on the left, are claiming that this is an attempt to silence her about Harvey Weinstein for revelations published in October (8 months after her legal problems started).
Now she is claiming that her legal problems revolving around narcotics are a conspiracy to silence her. And, according to a few posts here, and more on Facebook, many people in the liberal bubble buy this.
The first issue is how inappropriate this is. If you accept that the "MeToo" movement she is associated with is important... how inappropriate is this? She is using her prominence in the fight against sexual harassment to get out of a criminal charge?
This also shows how easy it is to get people to abandon facts when there is a powerful narrative. People accept this story in spite of the fact that the timeline makes it quite ridiculous. When there is an ideological narrative, questions are shot down, stories are accepted at face value and the facts don't matter.
Facts should matter, and stories should be questioned, whether or not they fit your ideological narrative.
She may have mental health problems. A lot of drug users do. Her actions in no way tell us anything about the MeToo thing.
Sadly this is nothing new. People who make an accusation against another are often quick to claim injustice against themselves when another crime, either new or pending review, from an earlier time is presented.
I find it disgusting and disgraceful that she has opted to play this card. It diminishes her voice on the Me Too campaign. Additionally, it could backfire on her and the system might decide to give her the maximum penalty, instead of any level of leniency.
@Sturgis,
Sturgis wrote:it could backfire on her and the system might decide to give her the maximum penalty, instead of any level of leniency.
I thank God I live in a country where we have the rule of law, and an independent judiciary.
@centrox,
Quote:I thank God I live in a country where we have the rule of law, and an independent judiciary.
I do too (in the figurative sense of thanking a deity).
I am not so sure McGowan feels this way. The independent judiciary is unlikely to be swayed by facebook tags.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace