3 ms·

Hooray for people having their entire lives destroyed because someone decided they 'know' something which might not even be true. There are plenty of cases of

Hooray for people having their entire lives destroyed because someone decided they 'know' something which might not even be true. There are plenty of cases of trials over rape or assault allegations which were entirely fictitious. This isn't even really the point being discussed. It's more that someone could be fired for an arrest over a an offence which has absolutely nothing to do with their job.

smt88 4y ago
> Hooray for people having their entire lives destroyed because someone decided they 'know' something which might not even be true. People are not entitled to due process to keep their jobs. Where do you draw the line? Should it be illegal to fire someone for failing a drug test (which are not 100% reliable) until a jury finds them guilty? > There are plenty of cases of trials over rape or assault allegations which were entirely fictitious. There are very, very few[1]. You're just more likely to hear about the false ones. This makes logical sense. It is personally costly to the accuser to accuse someone of rape, even when the accusation is completely true. The accuser is subject to people calling them a slut, liar, etc. > In my country, even schoolteachers being investigated for sexual abuse aren't fired. > It's more that someone could be fired for an arrest over a an offence which has absolutely nothing to do with their job. So you're moving the goalposts. First, you said that even a teacher accused of sexual abuse (which is very much related to their job) shouldn't be fired. Now you're saying that should only be true if the crime is related to the job. Does that mean I shouldn't be allowed to fire someone for being filmed murdering someone on camera? That person hasn't been convicted yet. The legal system considers them innocent. You say you want a blanket ban on firing people for accusations of crimes, but then you don't address what we should do for the edge cases. Nothing you're asking for makes any legal sense. I should be able to fire someone for any reason that isn't my own prejudice. Freedom of association is important. 1. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45565684 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45565684
- sacrosancty 4y ago
  "only 2-10% of rape accusations (Prof Ford's lawyer says she believes this was attempted rape) are proven to be fake" Not "very very few" in this context at all. It's extremely high! Due process doesn't have to be 100% infallible but it should certainly be resistant to hostile corruption like those 2-10% of rape accusations.

smt88 4y ago

> Hooray for people having their entire lives destroyed because someone decided they 'know' something which might not even be true. People are not entitled to due process to keep their jobs. Where do you draw the line? Should it be illegal to fire someone for failing a drug test (which are not 100% reliable) until a jury finds them guilty? > There are plenty of cases of trials over rape or assault allegations which were entirely fictitious. There are very, very few[1]. You're just more likely to hear about the false ones. This makes logical sense. It is personally costly to the accuser to accuse someone of rape, even when the accusation is completely true. The accuser is subject to people calling them a slut, liar, etc. > In my country, even schoolteachers being investigated for sexual abuse aren't fired. > It's more that someone could be fired for an arrest over a an offence which has absolutely nothing to do with their job. So you're moving the goalposts. First, you said that even a teacher accused of sexual abuse (which is very much related to their job) shouldn't be fired. Now you're saying that should only be true if the crime is related to the job. Does that mean I shouldn't be allowed to fire someone for being filmed murdering someone on camera? That person hasn't been convicted yet. The legal system considers them innocent. You say you want a blanket ban on firing people for accusations of crimes, but then you don't address what we should do for the edge cases. Nothing you're asking for makes any legal sense. I should be able to fire someone for any reason that isn't my own prejudice. Freedom of association is important. 1. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45565684 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45565684

sacrosancty 4y ago
"only 2-10% of rape accusations (Prof Ford's lawyer says she believes this was attempted rape) are proven to be fake" Not "very very few" in this context at all. It's extremely high! Due process doesn't have to be 100% infallible but it should certainly be resistant to hostile corruption like those 2-10% of rape accusations.