Responding to the piece on the effects of the character assassination of democratic leaders on the popularity of a democratic movement, Contrary reflects below on witch hunts of different kinds, missing out the case of the former depute provost of Aberdeen.
Contrary
I’m not sure of any literature on the results of character assassination, or real assassination, but it is always a risk that those that are picked on will reach martyrdom – Julian Assange has certainly suffered at the hands of character assassination, treated like a dangerous criminal – with no charges against him – how could you get away with such a thing? The court of public opinion allows it? Will he reach martyrdom? I suspect the results are not always what might be desired anyway.
Here is an interesting campaign – to pardon and apologise to all the Scottish witches condemned in centuries past. A good demonstration of how laws are not always in the citizens’ best interests:
The first few paragraphs:
“A campaign seeking justice for thousands of people in Scotland who were convicted of witchcraft in past centuries and executed, has been launched by a senior advocate to mark International Women’s Day.
Claire Mitchell QC wants a legal pardon to be given to those, predominantly women, who were condemned under the Witchcraft Act 1563, and a national monument in their memory. She is appealing to the public to support her “Witches of Scotland” campaign, and to help bring about an apology like that given to the victims of the trials in the 1690s in Salem, Massachusetts.
The Witchcraft Act remained in force until 1736, and an estimated 3,837 people – about 84% of them women – were accused of witchcraft, a capital crime. Around 2,600 people are thought to have been executed, by being strangled and then burned at the stake, so as to leave no body for burial. People were locked up awaiting trial and tortured, often in public, to confess.
Public feeling was heightened by King James VI of Scotland, who was obsessed with witchcraft and attended witch trials. ”
On a completely separate note, having been keeping an eye on live Twitter reporting on the Salmond trial, it appears the defence is coming at it from the stance of there may be ulterior motives to bringing forward the allegations – establishing ambition and possible political motivation from the first witness. I’m not judging anyone or anything on this, and these sort of trials are fairly awful (not that any criminal trial is pleasant!), but I was fairly surprised, after a hint and an accident, by realising who one witness might be.
Ed: Oh Come on! Tell us!
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
Tsk John, your editorial nose should have known to miss out that last paragraph,,, but I guess your sense of humour didn’t allow it! Good pic by the way.
I added another comment below that original one, and I’ll repeat here in case anyone thought I’d be gossip-mongering:
Please note that I fully support all witnesses and alleged victims remaining anonymous in trials of a sensitive nature: they are not truly anonymous within the court, and there is no reason we need to know identities when they could be at risk from various kinds of abuse. Even if it can appear on the surface that there might be alternative motivations for making allegations, we can’t know that or presume the effect isn’t real.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Email? I promise not to publish.
LikeLike
You are SUCH a gossip John, honestly. It’s just a rough guess anyway! Those live court tweeters have a really tough time of it, have to say that Phillip Sim has done very well keeping up today. Noticed a couple of his tweets going missing as I try and remind myself of the storyline by going back over them, but wouldn’t know the relevance of anything wrong with them. Could have been a spelling mistake for all I’d notice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If the accused is not found guilty do you think the accusers should still remain anonymous , Contrary ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Terence
Yes.
If there was malicious intent, and accusations proved false then that person will be tried for that (either directly by the courts – perjury etc, or for damages by the formerly accused). In that case they’d be the defendant and not be anonymous anymore. You don’t go to criminal court lightly!
There can be a myriad of non-malicious reasons for making accusations that may, to us, not quite ring true, and I don’t think we should change a law that’s there to protect the vulnerable just because of possible pre-judging in one case.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ahh so your first word is yes then you try to qualify that with befuddled nonsense .
Th fact is that justice means the accusers should be known as well as the accused to all.
This idea that we should allow people to remain anonymous just in case some event that has not happened but might happen can be avoided is ridiculous .
All involved in a case should be protected by the police before during and after a trial .
There could be people who know the accusers and know they have lied about similar accusations in the past should we protect the accusers from others coming forward to say they have wrongly and maliciously accused other people of the same thing ?
Law should be transparent, for all.
Children should not have to be present in a crowded court room but many children have not had anonymity when in court
Adults should not get to accuse people of serious offences anonymously for sure
LikeLike
‘Befuddled nonsense’
The ‘accusers’ are only anonymous to us, the public, a whole host of people know who they are. You are right that then you have to rely on the likes of the police to investigate properly, and the procurator fiscal to determine if the case is to be answered, and legal teams to investigate. I really don’t see any reason for you to know who they are though – the ‘accuser’ is not on trial. I think the history of sexual abuse cases shows that aggressive mysogeny is the most likely reaction when identities are known. It’s up to the courts, and the legal teams, to determine if there is any lying. We’ll end up going back to the days of ‘she was wearing a short skirt so was asking for it’ type of defence if you go down that route – and children do get anonymity in court as far as I’m aware. There is a good argument for keeping the defendant anonymous too, until proven guilty, though.
No, ‘just in case an event might happen’ isn’t the argument – it’s an event very likely to happen, which is why the rules exist.
You are assuming the trial won’t be fair when it’s only just begun. You just don’t know that, and you don’t know what evidence will be given. I’d prefer not to have trial by public opinion. The procurator fiscal is prosecuting, and the witnesses are giving evidence – they are NOT on trial for you to give your learned opinion of their past history. Witnesses – not ‘accusers’.
LikeLike
Grousebeater is putting together the reports from the Salmond case in case you are interested:
https://grousebeater.wordpress.com
LikeLiked by 1 person
Right you two! Stop it! I do the befuddled nonsense round here.
John, the Class Monitor
LikeLike
Hmph. You are obviously too good a teacher if we are all doing befuddled nonsense now.
I am getting fed up with people commenting (elsewhere mostly) that suddenly all laws need to change because it suits what they’ve already decided – baying mobs on all sides! Once it’s in the criminal case domain, we just have to let things run their course – we have courts to decide criminal matters for a reason, even if it’s not perfect. Even if, say, the initial case is a fit up, those doing so are at risk of being prosecuted when it goes to criminal court, and I have seen nothing to suggest that this is a show trial. The time for protest, if needed, is afterwards.
Anyway, it’s budget day! The economy is about to tank, and Richard Murphy will be having opinions on uk government responses to pandemics, it’ll all be economical chat today I should imagine.
LikeLike