Harm By Accusation

I see many examples of demands that someone should make amends for “harm done” in the past. Allegations are treated as if they are irrefutable fact. The accused is publicly punished. No trial by peers, no detailed examination of actual evidence. No examination of context or of the social normality prevalent at the time of the alleged “offence.”

So many of these allegations do not even define which legal or moral code has been broken; it seems taking offence is all the accuser needs.

I say taking offence because that is very different from giving offence and this again is different from deliberately being offensive. Even deliberately being offensive has to be viewed in context since, rightly or wrongly, it is part of western male culture to use offensive words in their humour. The banter between military comrades is often offensive if taken out of context, but is regarded by all those comrades as humourous banter. This includes the person being “offended.”

It is my experience that much “hurt,” especially emotional hurt, is either accidental or simply unthinking. Even between relatives or those in relationships, emotional hurt can be caused without any intent or even awareness. Misunderstandings or even inaccurate hearing of a word or phrase, can lead to emotional and mental pain.

There are international differences between what an offence is; even the spelling changes from America to Britain, yet both speak the same language. It also seems there are gender, religious, and cultural differences all within the same nation.

The dictionary definition of offensive is: unpleasant or disgusting, as to the senses, causing anger or annoyance, insulting, for the purpose of attack rather than defence.

This sounds clear enough but the present confusion and the use of a claim of offence taken, as a demand for retribution, is based on the idea that only the interpretation placed on the words or event, by the claimant, is relevant.

How can it be the only thing that is relevant? What sort of justice is based on a one sided interpretation and record of a past event?

Just about every human being over the age of 3 years old could claim they were hurt by the words or actions of another. A child scolded for putting dirty finger prints on a clean table cloth could claim they were offended by being called a “messy” child. Are the media to take up every case of a 40 year old claiming they were offended by the inappropriate language of their mother 37 years ago?

If we are going to have trial by media without genuine evidence, how about an accuser having to show intent by the accused? In the serpentine convolutions of human relationships, how soon before a man is allowed to claim that his rejection by a girl, that occurred 30 years ago, has damaged him emotionally and he wants compensation?

This whole idea of inappropriate behaviour and language, coupled with claims that punishment should be served because many years ago some celebrity was drunk and behaved badly is getting way out of reasonableness. It is obviously fuelled by the media being too lazy, or lacking the skills needed, to report on serious events and so they are resorting to unjustified sensationalism. Add in the legal profession, who can make ridiculous amounts of money accusing or defending an alleged action that there is no evidential record of and took place many years ago.

The arrogant group of unelected and unaccountable people who claim to be the guardians of political correctness do not live the lives of the people they denigrate, they do not have the stresses and pains of the majority. Yet they claim to say what is right and wrong on behalf of others. This is a third party claiming offensive action perpetrated by one and felt by another. Neither of these parties being known to the PC claimants. I am sure the majority of Muslims, living on America and Britain, are not offended by Christians celebrating Christmas, just as they would not expect those Christians to be offended by the respect for Ramadan. Yet the “Guardianista” in Britain, who are, based on observational evidence, atheists; claim Muslims are offended and the public must not celebrate these religious festivals.

How do we get some sanity to all this? The professional media can stop publishing unproven claims. Social media users can start having a “truth only” ethic, but I am not holding my breath for that one. Governments all round the world can impose statutes of limitations on claims of impropriety, as different from criminal, activity. The law and the courts should always judge events based on the mores and social attitudes of the time and in the society in which the alleged events took place.