Pallett’s certainty, his resolve to believe women, shocked many people. The comments on the post are pretty divided. But is there anything that scandalous about Pallett’s decision? After all, what Pallett is doing is what a lot of people have already done — taken sides. Pallett just happens to have taken the side that says that women are not vindictive. Women are not liars. Women are not out to destroy men for sport. It seems that Pallett’s open letter about his friend Ghomeshi is putting into personal practice what New Inquiry writer Aaron Bady wrote, earlier this year, about Dylan Farrow and the selective application of the “presumption of innocence”: This is a basic principle: until it is proven otherwise, beyond a reasonable doubt, it’s important to extend the presumption of innocence to Dylan Farrow, and presume that she is not guilty of the crime of lying about what Woody Allen did to her. If you are saying things like “We can’t really know what happened” and extra-specially pleading on behalf of the extra-special Woody Allen(Hi, The Daily Beast!), then you are saying that his innocence is more presumptive than hers. You are saying that he is on trial, not her: he deserves judicial safeguards in the court of public opinion, but she does not.
Posted on: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 03:03:49 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015