Anonymong

I’m not going to link to anyone’s blog just for a change, but I’m really quite astonished by some of the things that have been said in blogs I tend to frequent. Most of the blogs I read seem to generally be in favour of justice, against mob rule and generally believe in the old fashioned idea that someone is innocent until proven guilty – or at least I thought they did. Following the recent allegations about the late James Saville even before any sort of investigation has taken place an awful lot of people seem to be of the mind that “everyone knew he was a pedophile”. Though of course much like those people in the BBC who are alleged to have known about his alleged behavior none of these people have previously spoken up or lodged complaints with the police about Mr Saville’s actions (at least not as far as I’m aware and I assume they’d have mentioned). So did they “know” or are they just assuming that he’s guilty as accused because he was a bit strange and was “obviously a wrong un”? I’ve no idea if he did the thing’s he’s alleged to have done or not which I suspect is the case for most of the people commenting on the allegations, but it is a shame to see so many people who normally write in favour of liberty so eager to condemn a dead man based on as yet unsubstantiated allegations. Such rush to judgement seems particularly distasteful given that the man is dead and can present no defense himself. This far removed from events the police and courts will have the unenviable task of comparing witness statements and trying to decide whose recall of what events to trust and with the mob already declaring the man guilty it’d be a brave person to speak in defense of Mr Saville. The removal of his (admittedly tasteless) gravestone to protect it from vandalism doesn’t speak well of us, haven’t so many blogs in the past reminded us that the measure of a society is how it treats it’s worst off? Surely how it treats it’s dead and how readily it abandons it’s principles for the rule of mob also speaks volumes. As an interesting comparison another slightly weird person who’s been accused of sexual offenses and is actively avoiding trial, as they’re still alive and could defend themselves, is Julian Assange; still beloved of numerous bloggers and the media alike.

Another round of allegations which seem to have suspended principles normally held dear are those concerning Lance Armstrong. Whilst in this case the accusations are made by a sporting body and not a court of law, the effects may well be just as severe. The accusations aren’t new and have been made before and repeatedly rebutted – reviving them yet again seems to me an awful lot like “double jeopardy” which I had thought most people held was a bad thing. I guess I must have been wrong and just imagined previous articles decrying changes to laws that allowed people to be tried twice. Maybe we do actually want one system for us and one for them, as long as it allows “celebrities” to be judged by public opinion and held guilty without the need for justice as long as it brings them down and make for more exciting news. In the case of Mr Armstrong he’s stated he’s fed up with fighting the same accusations again and again, for which who can blame him. Again I’m sure i recall many bloggers writing articles about this case or that where some official body or other kept bring accusations against an individual to grind them down by having to bear the burden of repeatedly fighting the same battles, must have imagined it or again I guess it doesn’t apply to the famous. One thing I find curious is that all the people alleging that Mr Armstrong was invovled in this horribly advanced doping scheme which fooled all the tests have all been caught doping themselves. Did MR Armstrong and his doctors/advisers not share their techniques with the rest of the team? Or did his ex-team mates only start doping once they left his team, in which case again why didn’t any of them speak out whilst on his team?

One thing I will point out about the BBC article I link to above it states:
“Usada has already banned the 41-year-old American for life and stripped him of his seven Tour de France titles.”
The USADA doesn’t have the power to strip his Tour De France titles, only the organizers of the Tour De France can do that and so far both they and the UCI (the international cycling body) have declined to do that.

Meanwhile two incidents which are also exciting many of the same lovers of liberty who I’ve alluded to above are the man jailed for wearing an offensive t-shirt and the latest person to be convicted of being offensive via twitter or facebook.

It may be that Mr Saville did do terrible things and it may be that Mr Armstrong is the worlds most successful drugs cheat, but until either are proven (in the sort of court we’d be happy being tried in) shouldn’t we grant them the presumption of innocence enshrined in our legal system? If we don’t why should we care if the courts convict people of saying things that offend the mob, after all we’ll have shown we’re happy to join the mob to discard the presumption of innocence when it suits us.

It’s often said that a populace get the government they deserve, perhaps it’s also true that a populace get the legal systems and justice they deserve? If we’re happy to apply the principles of justice unevenly when it suits us, we can’t complain when they’re applied unevenly when it’s not to our liking.

+4

-1