Billionaires, bishops, and progressives may seem worlds apart. But when confronted with evidence of sexual abuse, they have often made the same choice: protect the institution rather than the victims.
Institutional self-protection is such a scourge of the world. It's also really hard to prevent, almost like the ultimate maturity test of a society, which we're mostly failing. Thank for pointing out once again that it's the same thing, whether it's immigrants, bishops or the mega-rich doing it.
The US politics example seems a bit under analyzed. Note that there was little rallying around the Clinton's when they were called to testify. Larry Summers is out. My main leftist International Relations writer quickly critized Chomsky.
This doesn't just apply to those out of power, Senator Franken was forced out by accusations of inappropriate behavior.
Of course the desire to protect one's own is universal, but Me Too happened long enough that it's worth looking at the what has and has not worked in Democratic Party efforts to apply a higher standard.
The symmetry with which you describe US poltics in this piece is odd at a time when the Secretary of Defense is openly rolling back measures instituted to protect against sexual harassment while arguing that such measures undermine unity. That seems rather relevant to the point you are making.
Watching the clip linked with the Sadiq Khan quote about "playing party politics” it looked to me like he had a point. Starmer himself has history as the chief prosecutor in the 2000s of doing the opposite of covering up the grooming scandal. You can make a good argument that the current government has screwed up their approach to this scandal but it is quite a stretch to call it a cover up.
Is there much research about the number of immigrant children traffickers have taken as part of the US policy of an "open border?" They would be easy to traffic with no IDs and the media not wanting any attention to crime related to undocumented immigrants. You're a racist if you question an open border. Illegally trafficking immigrants is big business.
Yeah I am a little skeptical of this claim as well. The UK press has catered to the Right on this issue and my understanding is that it isn't exclusive to the Pakistani community in the UK.
"As Epstein’s emails hit global headlines, many were bewildered by his plethora of allies. So many powerful men - titans of finance, tech, politics, and academia - cultivated his friendship and sought invitations to “wildest nights”. Email chatter is, of course, perfectly legal. The deeper problem was that powerful men escaped prosecution."
Michael Tracey keeps challenging people to provide names and evidence but nobody can.
Institutional self-protection is such a scourge of the world. It's also really hard to prevent, almost like the ultimate maturity test of a society, which we're mostly failing. Thank for pointing out once again that it's the same thing, whether it's immigrants, bishops or the mega-rich doing it.
Perfectly put!!
I can’t believe you actually covered grooming gangs. Hope you don’t get canceled
Thank you Alice. Excellent article.
thanks Alice, worth every cent of a -paid- subscription and unfortunately very true. At least some men face some consequences.
The US politics example seems a bit under analyzed. Note that there was little rallying around the Clinton's when they were called to testify. Larry Summers is out. My main leftist International Relations writer quickly critized Chomsky.
This doesn't just apply to those out of power, Senator Franken was forced out by accusations of inappropriate behavior.
Of course the desire to protect one's own is universal, but Me Too happened long enough that it's worth looking at the what has and has not worked in Democratic Party efforts to apply a higher standard.
The symmetry with which you describe US poltics in this piece is odd at a time when the Secretary of Defense is openly rolling back measures instituted to protect against sexual harassment while arguing that such measures undermine unity. That seems rather relevant to the point you are making.
Watching the clip linked with the Sadiq Khan quote about "playing party politics” it looked to me like he had a point. Starmer himself has history as the chief prosecutor in the 2000s of doing the opposite of covering up the grooming scandal. You can make a good argument that the current government has screwed up their approach to this scandal but it is quite a stretch to call it a cover up.
Is there much research about the number of immigrant children traffickers have taken as part of the US policy of an "open border?" They would be easy to traffic with no IDs and the media not wanting any attention to crime related to undocumented immigrants. You're a racist if you question an open border. Illegally trafficking immigrants is big business.
Thanks for another great article Alice. Do you have any examples of western progressives being reluctant to investigate minority abuse scandals?
Yeah I am a little skeptical of this claim as well. The UK press has catered to the Right on this issue and my understanding is that it isn't exclusive to the Pakistani community in the UK.
"As Epstein’s emails hit global headlines, many were bewildered by his plethora of allies. So many powerful men - titans of finance, tech, politics, and academia - cultivated his friendship and sought invitations to “wildest nights”. Email chatter is, of course, perfectly legal. The deeper problem was that powerful men escaped prosecution."
Michael Tracey keeps challenging people to provide names and evidence but nobody can.