Tag: brett kavanaugh

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo Resigns Amid Sexual Harassment Allegations

The investigators found that Cuomo’s Executive Chamber was rife with fear that not only enabled instances of harassment, but created a hostile work environment overall.

New York: New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced his resignation on Tuesday, a week after independent investigators said he had sexually harassed multiple women, including former and current state employees.

In a televised message, the 63-year-old Democrat said his resignation will be effective in 14 days.

“When I took my oath as Governor I became a fighter, but I became a fighter for you. And it is your best interest that I must serve. This situation by its current trajectory will generate months of political and legal controversy. That is what is going to happen.

“That is how the political wind is blowing. It will consume government. It will cost taxpayers millions of dollars, it will brutalize people,” he said referring to the sexual harassment allegations and case against him.

Cuomo said the State Assembly on Monday outlined the weeks of process that will then lead to months of litigation and time and money that government should spend managing COVID, guarding against the Delta variant, reopening-up state, fighting gun violence, and saving New York City, all that time would be wasted.”

Cuomo said this is one of the most challenging times for government in a generation.

“Government really needs to function today. Government needs to perform. It is a matter of life and death .and wasting energy on distractions is the last thing that State Government should be doing.

“And I cannot be the cause of that. New York tough means New York loving. And I love New York. And I love you. Everything I have ever done has been motivated by that love. And I would never want to be unhelpful in any way. I think that given the circumstances, the best way I can help now is if I step aside and let government get back to governing,” Cuomo said

“Therefore that’s what I’ll do because I work for you and doing the right thing is doing the right thing for you,” he added.

He said the transition must be seamless and his lieutenant governor Kathy Hochul can come up to speed quickly.

Also read: Sexual Harassment Allegations: NY Governor Andrew Cuomo Apologises But Refuses to Resign

He said the situation against him was politically motivated. “I’m a New New Yorker, born and bred. I am a fighter and my instinct is to fight through this controversy because I truly believe it is politically motivated. I believe it is unfair and it is untruthful. And I believe it demonizes behavior that is unsustainable for society.”

He said rashness has replaced reasonableness, loudness has replaced soundness and “Twitter has become the public square for policy debate.”

Cuomo said there is an intelligent discussion to be had on gender-based actions, on generational and cultural behavioral differences, on setting higher standards and finding reasonable resolution. But the political environment is too hot, and it is too reactionary for that now. And it is unfortunate.

Last week, independent investigators appointed by New York Attorney General Letitia James released their report into the multiple allegations of sexual harassment against Cuomo.

After nearly five months, the investigators concluded that Cuomo did sexually harass multiple women including former and current state employees by engaging in unwanted groping, kissing, and hugging, and making inappropriate comments, James said in a statement.

The governor and his senior staff took actions to retaliate against at least one former employee for coming forward with her story. Cuomo’s Executive Chamber fostered a toxic workplace that enabled harassment to occur and created a hostile work environment.

The investigators found that Cuomo’s actions and those of the Executive Chamber violated multiple state and federal laws, as well as the Executive Chamber’s own written policies.

“This is a sad day for New York because independent investigators have concluded that Governor Cuomo sexually harassed multiple women and, in doing so, broke the law, James said. I am grateful to all the women who came forward to tell their stories in painstaking detail, enabling investigators to get to the truth. No man no matter how powerful can be allowed to harass women or violate our human rights laws, period.

The investigators found that Cuomo’s Executive Chamber was rife with fear and intimidation that not only enabled the above-described instances of harassment to occur, but also created a hostile work environment overall.

The investigation was conducted after, on March 1, 2021, the Executive Chamber made a referral for James to select independent lawyers to investigate allegations of and circumstances surrounding sexual harassment claims made against the governor.

Starting in December 2020, multiple women came forward with allegations that Cuomo sexually harassed them. Over the course of the investigation, the investigators interviewed 179 individuals, including complainants, current and former members of the Executive Chamber, State Troopers, additional state employees, and others who interacted regularly with the governor.

The Attorney General’s office said more than 74,000 documents, emails, texts, and pictures were also reviewed as evidence during the investigation.

“Backed up by corroborating evidence and credible witnesses, the investigators detail multiple current or former New York state employees or women outside state service who were the targets of harassing conduct on the part of the governor, it said.

As part of the investigation, Cuomo also sat with the interviewers and answered questions under oath.

While the governor denied the most serious allegations, the investigators found that he did so by offering blanket denials or that he had a lack of recollection as to specific incidents.

The investigators also found that the governor’s recollection stood in stark contrast to the strength, specificity, and corroboration of the complainants’ recollections, as well as the reports of many other individuals who offered observations and experiences of the governor’s conduct.”

(Yoshita Singh)

Meghan and Harry’s Interview Raises Many Questions About Gender, Race, Empire and the Media

As accusations and counter-accusations fly back and forth, what has become clear once more is that misogyny and racism are inextricably linked to Empire, and that the media is complicit.

As the furore over the “bombshell interview” swirls around us, and accusations and counter-accusations fly back and forth across the pond, what has become clear once more, is that misogyny and racism are inextricably linked to Empire, and that the media is complicit. When Oprah Winfrey sat down with Harry Windsor and Megan Markle to have a candid conversation, the resultant revelations seem to have rocked the British media and – dare we say it? – the hallowed British monarchy.

The duo was careful to leave the Queen out of the controversy, laying the blame at the feet of her advisors and “The Firm” instead. If the usage of the term brings to mind Tom Cruise single-handedly battling a corrupt and dangerous cabal of old fogies, then perhaps the implication is partly justified. Because we all know that underlying the cutesy and curated pictures of the little princes and princesses and the breathless public frenzy over designer dresses, diamond tiaras, and fairytale weddings fueled by the paparazzi, is an institution and a family that has presided over a vast and ruthless enterprise of self-aggrandisement at the cost of nations, natural resources, and “natives” around the world. Where the modern monarchy is now little-more than a figurehead for that lost and nostalgically-remembered empire, its long-lasting position is as much due to the wiliness of its current head as to the British public’s enduring need to remind themselves of their once-greatness.

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, gives an interview to Oprah Winfrey in this undated handout photo. Photo: Harpo Productions/Joe Pugliese/Handout via Reuters

In 1979, British-Jamaican cultural theorist Stuart Hall called out British television for racist bias, ironically on a show that aired on the BBC. Using clips from news programs, documentaries, and television shows, he exposed how supposedly innocuous comments and harmless jokes were deployed by television personalities and content creators to reinforce and normalise racist attitudes towards Black and Asian communities in Britain.

Writer-researcher Rianna Jade Parker explains how humour was used to disseminate racist attitudes in a country with a growing multi-racial population, and how when Hall later wrote about his attempt to examine the implications of a biased media discourse, it was taken as a personal attack rather than as a systemic problem. This is a classic deflection tactic by those who refuse to accept the existence of structural racism and misogyny, because acknowledging it shifts the onus of responsibility to those who benefit from a discriminatory status quo.

And we saw that happen in the British (tabloid) press and social media newsfeeds as mixed-race Meghan Markle had her fairytale wedding and joined the British royal family, and both, the British tabloids and white media pundits on UK television went about methodically eviscerating her. “Meghan makes Kate cry! Meghan bullies staff! Bridezilla Meghan ….”

In the interview with Winfrey – American television’s reigning queen – both Harry and Meghan claim that not only did the British media take unfair aim at the actor, the House of Windsor did nothing to help her, and even occasionally participated implicitly in the harassment. This is indeed a “bombshell” accusation and if the parallels with the Diana story were not obvious to those watching, Harry went right ahead and called it out. “History repeating itself,” he said, explaining how thankful he was that he and his wife weathered it together, whereas his mother was forced to go through it alone. If Diana, the People’s Princess was demonised, harassed, and isolated – yet adored and idolised at the same time, Meghan has had to deal with similar challenges, but with the additional burdens of racist and classist rhetoric aimed at her.

Also Read: The Royal Family Can’t Keep Ignoring its Colonialist Past and Racist Present

Intersectionality theory, developed by scholar and law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw, explains how aspects such as the race, class, gender, sexual identity or religion of a person may contribute to intersecting and multi-layered modes of discrimination and oppression. For women of colour, this often translates into racist, misogynistic and classist discrimination. Meghan Markle, who had grown up middle class, but had become a successful actor, social media star and celebrity in her own right, experienced all of these when she naively followed her prince into his lily-white family. Again, Harry tells it like it is: “The added issue of race” he explains as he compares the situation with the harassment his mother faced.

The US and UK media took predictable positions, with the US rooting largely for the self-exiled couple, while the UK press – with some exceptions – expressed outrage over the volley of accusations at their beloved and “hardworking” royal family. Piers Morgan, host of Good Morning Britain on the ITV network who has in the past called the Duchess of Sussex a “social climber”, and angrily refuted claims of media racism towards her, declared the day after the Winfrey interview aired that he “was sickened by the trash-a-thon” of everything “the Queen has worked so hard for” and accused Markle of lying about her mental health.

Piers Morgan. Photo: Pete Riches/Flickr CC BY 2.0

Interestingly though, conservative commentators in the US have aligned themselves with royal sympathisers such as Morgan, arguing that Markle knew exactly what she was getting into, and that the privilege of entry she was allowed negated any reason for complaint. In general, conservatives both in the US and UK reject the idea of a need for structural change that liberals call for in dealing with issues such as racism, sexism, or ethnocentrism and conservatives on both sides of the pond have reacted stereotypically to Meghan and Harry’s complaint of harassment.

From Brett Kavanaugh to Piers Morgan and a host of others in between, we watch as entitled white men behave and speak with an impunity not often afforded to others. And we have also watched them respond with shock, anger, and even tears when called to account. Where Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh cried in fury over the allegations made against him, Morgan stomped off the set of Good Morning Britain when his co-host called him out on his racist and misogynist comments about Meghan Markle. (The UK media oversight body Ofcom received over 40,000 complaints and Morgan is leaving the show.)

As erstwhile citizens of the great British Empire, we Indians have a love-hate relationship with the British monarchy. On the one hand, we demand the return of symbols of the Empire’s loot – like the Kohinoor; yet, on the other, we throng the streets in adoration when a member of the “Firm” visits our shores. We watch Downtown Abbey, Bridgerton, and The Crown in avid fascination, bordering on voyeurism. After all, stories like Harry and Meghan only prove that the grandeur on display on our TV screens is a superficial veneer, hiding the dark underbelly of the kind of hypocrisy and discrimination this royal couple has faced.

But the lessons of racism and misogyny, and the obsession with class and skin colour hit close to home too, and we would be fooling ourselves if we did not recognise those same habits in ourselves. As a meme on the popular Facebook group ‘Subtle Curry Traits’ pithily pointed out: “Between the Royals being overly concerned with how dark the baby was going to be, and cutting off an inheritance because of a love marriage I’m convinced they’re brown.”

We would all do well to notice the glasshouse we’re sitting in.

Sumana Kasturi has a PhD in communication, and studies media, gender, and migration. She is the author of the 2019 book Gender, Citizenship, and Identity in the Indian Blogosphere: Writing the Everyday.

Sexual Harassment Allegations: NY Governor Andrew Cuomo Apologises But Refuses to Resign

Cuomo’s office recently granted the referral required by state law for the New York attorney general to investigate the complaints.

New York: New York governor Andrew Cuomo on Wednesday said he would not resign in the wake of a series of sexual misconduct accusations levelled against him by young women but offered a fresh apology and vowed to “fully cooperate” with a review by the state’s attorney general.

“I am not going to resign,” Cuomo told a news conference after he offered an emotional apology for what he said was behaviour that made “people feel uncomfortable”. “I feel awful about it, and frankly I am embarrassed by it,” said the Democratic governor, who has also contended with allegations in recent weeks that his administration sought to downplay the number of elderly nursing home residents killed by COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic.

Cuomo said his behaviour toward the women who have accused him of misconduct was unintentional and maintained that he never touched anyone inappropriately. Even so, he acknowledged that it is “custom” for him to kiss and hug people when greeting them. “I understand that sensitivities have changed and behaviour has changed and I get it, and I’m going to learn from it,” he said.

Three women, including two former aides, have come forward recently to say that Cuomo had sexually harassed them or made inappropriate remarks. Lindsey Boylan, who first came forward in December, said the unwanted advances included an unsolicited kiss on the lips in Cuomo’s New York City office, which Cuomo denied. Boylan, a candidate for Manhattan borough president, dismissed the governor’s apology in a Twitter message on Wednesday. “How can New Yorkers trust you @NYGovCuomo to lead our state if you “don’t know” when you’ve been inappropriate with your own staff?” she wrote.

Also read: Andrew Cuomo’s Office Greenlights Independent Probe Into NY Governor’s ‘Sexual Misconduct’

Investigation to begin

The second woman to detail her experience is Charlotte Bennett, a former executive assistant and health policy adviser who told the New York Times in February that Cuomo peppered her with questions about her romantic life last year in what she viewed as an effort to have sex with her.

A third woman has also come forward, telling the New York Times the governor made unwanted advances and physical contact after meeting her at a wedding in 2019.

In response to Bennett, Cuomo released a statement on Sunday saying he sometimes playfully teased colleagues and was sorry if he made anyone uncomfortable, and his office granted the referral required by state law for New York attorney general Letitia James to investigate the complaints.

Debra Katz, the attorney who represented Christine Blasey Ford when she alleged that Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her, is now representing Bennett. In a statement on Wednesday, Katz said Cuomo’s apology was “full of falsehoods”.

Reuters could not immediately reach representatives for the other two women.

Also read: No Longer President, Trump May Soon Have to Face Pending Rape and Sexual Misconduct Lawsuits

“I apologised several days ago. I apologise today, I will apologise tomorrow, I will apologise the day after,” Cuomo said on Wednesday as he pleaded with the public to “get the facts” before forming an opinion.

The complaints about sexual misconduct emerged after questions mounted over Cuomo’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic last year as it tore through nursing homes. New York state politicians, many of them fellow Democrats, have said that Cuomo tried to silence his critics and routinely governed through intimidation. In January, James’s office issued a report that said the state health department significantly undercounted the death toll in nursing homes and implemented policies that may have contributed to the death toll.

(Reuters)

Attorney General Venugopal Would Be Shocked at US Comedians Making Fun of Judges

Allowing contempt proceedings against Kunal Kamra shows a certain intolerance.

It is just as well that attorney general K.K. Venugopal does not live and practice in the US. Or Britain. He is getting angry over what he sees as brazen attacks on the Supreme Court.

He has given his approval for a comedian to be tried for contempt of court over a few tweets. What would he make of the situation in the US, where comedians routinely make fun of everyone, including judges? He would spend all his time saving the honour of Their Honours.

US President Donald Trump has been the butt of non-stop humour and satire for the past four years and more; but here are examples of comedians making fun of Brett Kavanaugh, who was a circuit judge in the District of Columbia before being appointed to the Supreme Court by Trump.

In Britain, the magazine Private Eye, which is an equal opportunity offender, lampooning the high and mighty, has frequently been sued for libel and once, when the courts gave an award of nearly a million pounds to the wife of a serial murderer who had sued the Eye, the editor responded, “If that’s justice, I am a banana.” Its columns frequently make fun of court proceedings

Venugopal would probably have been apoplectic, but since we are not in the West, he can easily say that the people of India have to behave differently. He has given his go ahead for initiating contempt proceedings against comedian Kunal Kamra. He – and, presumably the judges too – will not stand for any such levity. Kamra thought he was being funny – well, let’s show him the error of his ways, so that other comedians don’t follow his example.

Also Read: Contempt of Court Is Not the Weapon the SC Should Wield To Preserve Its Honour

But Venugopal has not been consistent in dealing with contempt of their lordships.

On August 20 this year, Venugopal, himself a distinguished lawyer, in connection with the contempt case against Prashant Bhushan, told the Supreme Court: “If there is an expression of regret, and if the affidavit is withdrawn, perhaps the case can be dropped. It will be better to resolve the issue. The court could warn him and drop the issue.” He urged the apex court to take a “compassionate” view on the case.

In the same hearing, Venugopal also told the judges that he himself had the names of nine former judges who had, after their retirement, said that there was corruption at the higher levels of the judiciary. The bench, consisting of three judges, did not allow Venugopal to proceed further.

Barely two and a half months after the Bhushan case – in which the latter was fined a token sum of one rupee, Venugopal has now given his consent to prosecute Kamra who had tweeted about the Supreme Court after it granted bail to Arnab Goswami. Goswami’s petitions had gone from a small sessions court to the Supreme Court in a week, which was breakneck speed in a judicial system that moves much more slowly.

Kamra’s tweets got Skand Bajpai, a law student, so riled up that he approached the AG with a request to file a contempt case—the AG’s consent, which is mandatory, came swiftly. In his letter, Venugopal wrote: “I believe it is time people understand that attacking the Supreme Court of India unjustifiedly and brazenly will attract punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.”

Judges don’t often get criticised in India, mostly because of fear of being slapped with a contempt of court case (a concept often misunderstood) and general respect for the judiciary, which, for all its sluggishness, is seen as independent, the Supreme Court most of all. Those with long memories will know that in the 1980s, after its capitulation during the Emergency, the Supreme Court, and judges like Krishna Iyer, did not just take suo moto notice of newspaper reports, but also leaned on the side of freedom, liberty and liberalism.

Why the court has come in for criticism recently

But in recent years, many court judgements have left people aghast which has drawn a lot of criticism, much of it on social media. The wild west of social media is the site of unfiltered comments, though since professional trolls are not particularly attacking the court, the language of the criticism against the judges has been generally parliamentary—none of that familiar abuse and invective, in shoddy grammar – that one normally sees when ‘liberals and sickulars’ are the target.

Also read: The Prashant Bhushan Contempt Case is About Power and Politics, Not Law

The old conventions and rules don’t apply on social media – people feel uninhibited about expressing themselves; moreover, they have a platform that allows them to say whatever they want, something that did not exist a few years ago. A letter to a newspaper against judges and courts would have found its way into the waste-paper basket in an earlier era; now it becomes a trending tweet.

Kunal Kamra has built a career on direct, broad humour of public figures rather than using subtle, rapier-like thrusts. He is the quintessential cheeky college boy, provocative and full of practical jokes, such as a video filming himself asking questions of Arnab Goswami on a flight. I am not a big fan of his obscenities-laced act, but in a world where other comedians have gone silent on politics and certainly hesitate to mention BJP leaders by name, his candour is much-needed. Court-jesters – so to speak – are a safety valve that allows society to release some of its anger and frustration – they say the unsayable especially at a time when frankly expressed opinions can land you in jail.

But political leaders and even Goswami are low hanging fruits – even a casual ‘The Nation Wants to Know’ will get a laugh. Taking on the judges, that too on Twitter, is chutzpah, since it is a territory no one wants to venture into. His tweets by themselves are not really offensive; they just try and expose what he sees is the special treatment the Supreme Court gave to Goswami, which is not available to ordinary citizens and to the number of rights activists who are languishing in jail for years.

Comedian Kunal Kamra. Photo: Facebook

This point has been made repeatedly in the last few months – the cases of Sudha Bharadwaj, Anand Teltumbde and two 80-year-olds, Varavara Rao and Stan Swamy, both ailing in prison, have been compared in contrast to the quick bail to Goswami. The observations by Supreme Court judge D.Y. Chandrachud on personal liberty, while welcome, sound like pieties when, just four days later, the Supreme Court adjourned a habeas corpus hearing on a jailed Kerala journalist whose crime was going to Hathras, in UP, to cover the rape and killing case of a young girl. “We are trying to discourage Article 32 petitions,” Chief Justice S.A. Bobde told the journalist’s lawyer Kapil Sibal, without perhaps noting the irony of his observation.

A case of double standards?

What is the message one is to draw from all this? Only that the courts apply double standards when it comes to issues of personal liberty and freedom. Goswami’s alignment with the ruling party in Delhi is no secret—is that a necessary condition to get the courts to expedite your case? Also, no one will argue against him getting bail, which should be more the rule than the exception.

Also read: Contempt, the Press and the Judiciary: A Tale from Another Time

But when one person gets such preferential treatment while the others languish in jail, with courts not showing any urgency in their cases, asking questions of the judiciary becomes a duty. Kamra asked questions the only way he could – by using humour to make a point. Singling him out shows over-touchiness and intolerance of other points of view.

Venugopal’s swiftness –reminiscent of the speed with which the aviation ministry got Kamra banned from several airlines, without a proper enquiry against him – only suggests that not only courts, but the entire system can support you when it wants to and go after you when it doesn’t.

Kamra’s tweets were retweeted thousands of times—will the attorney general now allow all of them to be prosecuted? One can only hope that the courts show more tolerance and broad-mindedness and simply throw out the case.

Trump’s Supreme Court Pick Barrett Likely to Push the Top Judicial Body Rightward

If confirmed by the Senate to replace liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Barrett would become the fifth woman ever to serve on the court and would push its conservative majority to a commanding 6-3.

Washington: President Donald Trump on Saturday nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, and she pledged to become a justice in the mold of the late staunch conservative Antonin Scalia, setting another milestone in Trump’s rightward shift of the top US judicial body.

Trump’s announcement during a flag-festooned White House Rose Garden ceremony – with Barrett, 48, by his side and her seven children on hand – sets off a scramble by Senate Republicans to confirm her as the president has requested before Election Day in 5-1/2 weeks, when he will be seeking a second term in office.

If confirmed by the Senate to replace liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died at age 87 on Sept. 18, Barrett would become the fifth woman ever to serve on the court and would push its conservative majority to a commanding 6-3.

Like Trump’s two other appointees, Neil Gorsuch in 2017 and Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, Barrett is young enough that she could serve for decades in the lifetime job, leaving a lasting conservative imprint. Barrett is the youngest Supreme Court nominee since conservative Clarence Thomas was 43 in 1991.

Scalia, who died in 2016, was one of the most influential conservative justices in recent history. Barrett previously served as a clerk for Scalia on the high court and described him as her mentor, citing his “incalculable influence” on her life.

“His judicial philosophy is mine too: a judge must apply the law as written. Judges are not policymakers,” Barrett said.

On the court, Scalia voted to curb abortion rights, dissented when the court legalized gay marriage – he called it a “judicial putsch” – and backed broad gun rights, among other positions.

Also read: Notable Legal Opinions of Trump’s Planned US Supreme Court Pick Amy Coney Barrett

With Trump’s fellow Republicans holding a 53-47 Senate majority, confirmation appears certain, although Democrats may try to make it as difficult as possible.

An emboldened Supreme Court conservative majority could shift the United States to the right on hot-button issues by, among other things, curbing abortion rights, expanding religious rights, striking down gun control laws, halting the expansion of LGBT rights, and endorsing new restrictions on voting rights.

Barrett, a devout Roman Catholic who earned her law degree and taught at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, was appointed by Trump to the Chicago-based 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017 and is a favourite of religious conservatives, a key Trump voter bloc.

“Today it is my honour to nominate one of our nation’s most brilliant and gifted legal minds to the Supreme Court,” Trump said.

Trump said Barrett would be the first mother of school-age children ever on the court. Along with her lawyer husband, her children, two of whom were adopted from Haiti, were in the audience.

US President Donald Trump holds an event to announce his nominee of US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died on September 18, at the White House in Washington, US, September 26, 2020. Photo: Reuters/Carlos Barria

Later on Saturday evening, the president drew loud cheers from thousands of supporters at a campaign rally in Middletown, Pennsylvania, when he called Barrett “an extraordinary scholar” who would defend their “God-given rights and freedoms.”

“She should be running for president,” he said, comparing her academic record to that of his Democratic rival Joe Biden.

Barrett also praised Ginsburg, saying the late justice was “a woman of enormous talent and consequence” and mentioned Ginsburg’s long friendship with Scalia.

Moving ahead

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell issued a statement praising Barrett and pledging to move forward quickly with the confirmation process. But Biden repeated his call for the appointment to be made by the winner of the Nov. 3 election.

“The Senate should not act on this vacancy until after the American people select their next president and the next Congress,” Biden said.

Democrats are still furious over McConnell’s 2016 refusal to consider President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland because it came during an election year. This marks the first time since 1956 that a US president has moved to fill a Supreme Court vacancy so close to an election.

Also read: Why the Battle Over Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Successor Is So Crucial

Former presidential candidate and senator Bernie Sanders called Republican efforts to push through the nomination “an absolute outrage” and said Americans should fight “as hard as we can to ensure that this nominee is not confirmed.”

Barrett is expected to begin traditional courtesy calls on individual senators on Tuesday. Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings will begin Oct. 12, Trump said.

Democrats are set to make the fate of the Obamacare healthcare law a key part of the confirmation fight.

Barrett could be on the bench for the court’s Nov. 10 oral arguments in a case in which Trump and fellow Republicans are seeking to invalidate the 2010 law, formally called the Affordable Care Act.

“Justice Ginsburg must be turning over in her grave up in heaven,” top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer said, “to see that the person they chose seems to be intent on undoing all the things that Ginsburg did.”

(Reuters)

Why the Battle Over Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Successor Is So Crucial

Ginsburg’s potential replacement by a conservative in the vein of either Neil Gorsuch or Brett Kavanaugh – Trump’s two previous Supreme Court justice picks – would tip the balance of the court towards the conservatives more decisively than at any time since the early 1930s.

After the death of the Supreme Court justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, President Donald Trump finds himself with an opportunity to tip the US Supreme Court into a 6-3 conservative majority. Appointing a third justice to the court could cement Trump’s political legacy, and that of his conservative supporters, for generations.

Less than 48 hours after the announcement of Ginsburg’s death, the battle over her successor began. The biggest question so far is whether or not a replacement should be appointed so close to the November election. Both parties are, once again, playing political football with the court, and that only damages its long-term institutional legitimacy.

The current moment is absolutely critical. American politics is deeply and bitterly divided and that has been reflected in the sharper divisions over court appointments in the past two decades. This fight will be no different. In fact, it’s likely to be even more bitter.

The loss of Ginsburg, the most consistent and vocal of the court’s liberals, and her potential replacement by a conservative in the vein of either Neil Gorsuch or Brett Kavanaugh – Trump’s two previous Supreme Court justice picks – would tip the balance of the court towards the conservatives more decisively than at any time since the early 1930s.

The legacy of the rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s now hangs in the balance. That possibility represents the culmination of a decades-long plan of action by conservatives who specifically and deliberately targeted the nation’s courts. A strategy more than four decades in the making now stands on the verge of complete success.

A word of warning about terminology here. For years, politicians, the media, and commentators have been using the terms “liberal” and “conservative” to describe the balance on the court. Too often that is interpreted as synonymous with Democrat and Republican.

But this is far too simplistic and overlooks consistent denials from the justices that they make decisions based on party politics. Liberal and conservative should more precisely be regarded as justices’ approaches to reading, understanding and applying the law. Although, of course, this may overlap with their personal politics, it is not quite the same as making political decisions.

Donald Trump and Brett Kavanaugh. Photo: Leah Millis/Reuters

Appointments and their consequences

Appointing three or more justices is not historically unusual for a president. Of the 20 presidents elected since the turn of the 20th century, ten before Trump had the opportunity to appoint more than two justices, including Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) who appointed nine, Dwight Eisenhower five and Richard Nixon four. It’s only in recent years that the average number of Supreme Court appointments made by presidents has dropped to closer to two.

But the more justices a president can appoint, the greater the opportunity to shape the future direction of the nation’s highest court. FDR’s nine appointments saw the court shift from the late 1930s onwards from opposing most government regulation of the economy, to supporting it, to finally largely retreating from economic issues entirely. This represented the end of the court’s most conservative period of the 20th century and laid the foundation for its shift in the second half of the century towards an increasing focus on issues of civil rights and civil liberties.

Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren to the court, who served as Chief Justice while the court drove the massive expansion of individual civil liberties in the 1960s known as the rights revolution. But his successor as chief justice, Warren Burger, aided by four Nixon appointees, slowly chipped away at the legal underpinnings of key Warren court precedents, weakening their scope and protections.

The Warren Court in 1953. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Reagan’s nominations cemented a more conservative majority on the court in the 1980s. A conservative-leaning court with at least one centrist justice who might be persuaded to join the liberals is where the situation stood until Ginsburg’s death.

Abortion, guns and affirmative action

If Trump is successful in appointing Ginsburg’s successor, it’s unlikely the court will lurch suddenly and dramatically to the right. More likely is a situation akin to that of the Burger Court: slow, incremental change that will eat away at the edges or underpinnings of key liberal rulings. The changes are no less fundamental but might be less easy to see, at least at first.

People gather in front of the US Supreme Court to mourn the death of justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg in Washington, US. Photo: Reuters

Although Roe v Wade, which protected, within limits, a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy, is the case most often considered as under threat from a court with a legal conservative majority, the threat is actually broader. Roe rested on a 1965 ruling, Griswold v Connecticut, which established a “right to privacy” in the constitution, an area of personal decision-making into which the state could not intrude except without very good reason.

Abortion rights are not the only issue built on the foundation of privacy: reproductive choice, sexual privacy and some legal rights for the LGBTQ+ community rest on the same foundation. They too may be at risk from a more conservative court.

Affirmative action programmes, especially those which use race as part of university admissions, and which have been hanging by a thread in the past few years, are also likely to be targets for a new court majority.

Expect, too, new rulings on gun rights. Despite the 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v Heller which established a right to bear arms for self-defence, conservatives have become increasingly incensed at state and local laws governing gun ownership. These have been upheld by lower courts while the supreme court has remained largely silent. A more conservative court is likely to rejoin the debate.

And religious conservatives might well hope that a third Trump appointee will continue the recent trend of holding religious liberty as a crucial right, even if it conflicts with the rights of others. Those who continue to believe in the importance of the separation of church and state may find that the wall between them will crumble further and faster than it has to this point.

In 2016, Democrats fought against hard against Trump’s choice of Gorsuch less because of Gorsuch himself and more in anticipation of the fight they are now facing. Ginsburg is gone and in the White House is a Republican dedicated to appointing deeply legally conservative justices. The battle will be bitter and bruising. And the result will have long lasting consequences for the nation and its citizens, whatever the outcome.

Emma Long is senior lecturer in American Studies, University of East Anglia.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Biden Picks Kamala Harris, First Black Woman & Indian-American With Serious Shot at Vice-Presidency

If Biden defeats Trump in November, Senator Harris will make history as the first woman to be vice president of the United States.

Boston: On August 12, Democratic nominee for president of the United States, Joe Biden, announced he had chosen Kamala Harris, US senator from California, as his running mate for the November 2020 presidential election.

Biden’s announcement came a year and a half after Harris, now 55,  entered what was then a wide open race for the Democratic party’s nomination for president.

She ended her campaign in December, and later endorsed Biden’s candidature despite having fiercely opposed him in the primaries.

Soon after Biden made his announcement, Harris tweeted, “Joe Biden can unify the American people because he’s spent his life fighting for us. And as president, he’ll build an America that lives up to our ideals. I’m honoured to join him as our party’s nominee for Vice President, and do what it takes to make him our Commander-in-Chief.”

Last year, Kamala Harris spoke out against Indian external affairs minister S. Jaishankar’s decision to cancel a planned meeting with US legislators when members of Congress refused to accede to his demand that Pramila Jayapal – an Indian-origin Congresswoman from Washington state and a critic of the Modi government’s handling of Kashmir – be excluded from the interaction.

Senator Harris – whose parents were immigrants from Jamaica and India – is a woman of many firsts. She is the first Indian-American woman in the US Senate. Not only is she the sole black woman in the Senate, but she is also the only South Asian. Harris was the first California attorney general with African American or South Asian ancestry.

While the Democrats and Republicans have nominated women before for the vice-presidency – Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 (with Walter Mondale as the presidential hopeful) and Sarah Palin in 2008 (as John McCain’s running mate) – Harris is the first Black woman and Indian-American to be on the White House ticket of one of the two major parties. (Smaller parties like the Communist Party of the USA ran a Black woman, Charlene Mitchel, for president back in 1968).

But Harris doesn’t believe in being just the first.

“You may be the first to do many things, but make sure you are not the last,” Harris writes in her memoir The Truths We Hold: An American Journey, which she said was a crucial lesson she learnt from her Tamil mother Shyamala Gopalan Harris. It was to her mother that Harris credited her desire to run for president last January.

Shyamala Gopalan, the daughter of Indian freedom fighter P.V. Gopalan, left Tamil Nadu at the age of 19 to pursue endocrinology at Berkeley. This is where she met the Donald Harris, an economist from Jamaica,  and joined the civil rights movement. Kamala’s parents got a divorce when she was seven and she and her sister were raised by their mother.

In her memoir, Harris writes, “there is no title or honour on earth I’ll treasure more than to say I am Shyamala Gopalan Harris’s daughter. That is the truth I hold dearest of all.” Harris adds that her mother instilled in her that she should fight “systems in a way that causes them to be fairer, and don’t be limited by what has always been.”

Harris’s book details how her own experiences, particularly her upbringing by her single mother, have influenced her policymaking and political career. For instance, it was her mother’s struggle with cancer that pushed Harris to shine a light on the greater healthcare crisis in the US.

“As I continue the battle for a better healthcare system, I do so in her name,” Harris wrote in a New York Times op-ed in 2018.

Also read: Tulsi Gabbard, the First Hindu in a US Presidential Race, Unlikely to Succeed

As a senator, she has advocated for and signed on numerous progressive policies, like Medicare-for-all, reforming the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency and legalising marijuana. She rose to prominence among liberal activists and netizens with her sharp questioning during Senate hearings of Trump appointees like the Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, US secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen and former Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Senator Harris has also been an early and outspoken critic of President Trump, most recently calling his wall on the Mexican border his “vanity project.”

U.S. President Donald Trump attends a meeting with and German Chancellor Angela Merkel during the G20 leaders summit in Buenos Aires, Argentina December 1, 2018. Credit: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Senator Harris has been an early and outspoken critic of President Trump. Credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque

In her own campaign, Harris refused to focus on just one particular issue, just like the voters who do not live their lives “through the lens of one issue.”

“On the issue of climate change: Every parent wants to know that their child can drink clean water and breathe clean air. And that same parent wants to know that they’re able to bring home enough money with one job to pay their bills and pay their rent and put food on the table, instead of having to work two or three jobs,” said Harris at a press conference she held at her alma mater Howard University after her announcement.

Despite emerging as an early favourite for the Democratic nomination, Harris soon faced an uphill battle as the number of contenders grew.

The question of identity

As a biracial candidate, there have been several questions surrounding whether the senator identifies as an African-American or an Indian-American. At Howard University, a reporter asked, “You’re an African-American woman, but you are also Indian American. How do you describe yourself?”

Harris pithily responded that she describes herself “as a proud American.”

It came as little surprise that Harris announced her candidacy on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, given the historic nature of her campaign. Harris was the third black woman in American history to make a bid for the presidency.

She told ‘Good Morning America’ that she was inspired by Dr King and his aspirations for America and “honoured” to make an announcement on MLK Day. Harris has been outspoken about her parent’s activism in the civil rights movement and her black roots.

Senator Harris also paid tribute to the first black woman to run for president, Shirley Chisholm, by using a similar red-and-yellow colour scheme and typography in her campaign video, just like her predecessor. Chisholm, who ran for president in 1972, eventually lost the Democratic nomination to Senator George McGovern.

Nevertheless, Chisholm, also a woman of many firsts, was the first black woman elected to the US Congress and went on to inspire numerous women of colour like Barbara Jean Lee and Harris through her seven terms in Congress.

Harris writes in her memoir that she and her sister were raised as black girls.

“My mother understood very well that she was raising two black daughters,” she writes. “She knew that her adopted homeland would see Maya and me as black girls, and she was determined to make sure we would grow into confident, proud black women.”

Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. Credit: Reuters

There is no denying that Harris is politically much better recognised as the second African-American woman elected to the US Senate than the first Indian-American woman. While she has repeatedly acknowledged the influence of her Tamil mother on her political career and life, there remains wariness among American Indians over Harris’s acceptance of her Indian-American identity.

A 2018 survey by the Asian American Voter Survey polling around 1,300 registered Asian American voters found that only 52% of Indian-Americans had a favourable opinion of Senator Harris. Furthermore, 20% had never heard of her and 16% held an unfavourable view of the California junior senator.

In contrast, other Democratic candidates and potential candidates like Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, performed better with 56%, 80% and 68% favourability respectively.

Another major contender for the Indian-American vote was the Hindu Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard who also declared her own presidential ambitions last year. While not of Indian origin, Gabbard, who became the first Hindu member of the US Congress, remains close to the Indian diaspora, a majority of whom are Hindu and maintains warm relations with the Narendra Modi government.

Bansari Kamdar is a freelance journalist from India. She specialises in South Asian political economy, gender and security issues. 

An earlier version of this profile was first published on January 27, 2019 with the headline, ‘Next Stop in Indian-Origin Kamala Harris’ ‘American Journey’ May Be the White House’, on the eve of Harris’s bid for Democratic nomination for US president. 

As Protests in Odisha Mark SC’s Ban on Rath Yatra, Stand Taken by Centre and Odisha Under Scrutiny

Through a textual reliance on Article 25 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has defended India’s secularism, as envisaged by its founders.

The Supreme Court, in ​Odisha Vikash Parishad v Union of India,​ on Thursday ​directed​ that there shall no Rath Yatra anywhere in the temple town of Odisha or in any other part of the state this year. “We further direct that there shall be no activities secular or religious associated with the Rath Yatra during this period,” the bench comprising the Chief Justice of India S.A. Bobde and Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and A.S. Bopanna held.

The direction has expectedly met with sporadic ​protests across the state, with many questioning the merits of the decision to stay the centuries-old annual festival.

The Supreme Court bench took note of the undisputed fact that the number of people likely to gather for the annual Rath Yatra, scheduled to be held from June 23, is about 10 to 12 lakhs, and that the festivities would normally continue for about 10-12 days. “Having regard to the danger presented by such a large gathering of people for the Rath Yatra, we consider it appropriate in the interests of public health and safety of citizens who are devotees to restrain the respondents from holding the Rath Yatra this year”, the bench added.

Earlier, the bench orally observed that a procession of this magnitude cannot be permitted at the time of a pandemic. The bench quipped: “Lord Jagannath will not forgive us if we allow it.” The petitioner in this case sought a stay on the festivities at Puri’s Jagannath temple, as holding it would be catastrophic keeping in view the alarming rise in the number of COVID-19 cases in the state.

The petitioner brought to the bench’s notice that the state government had allowed performance of rituals leading up to the Rath Yatra such as ‘Akshay Trutiya’ and ‘Snana Purnima’. This gave rise to the apprehension that the state government would eventually permit the holding of the festival.

Interestingly, ​according​ to ​Bar and Bench​, while the Centre, through solicitor general Tushar Mehta, urged the court that some other ritual instead of the Rath Yatra could be permitted without a gathering, senior counsel, Harish Salve, representing the Odisha government, supported the petitioner’s plea. “The moment there is a festivity, people will gather,” Salve told the bench, which agreed with him.

The Centre’s stand was curious because it was only recently that its official spokespersons fuelled the campaign against the Tablighi Jamaat, whose congregation in New Delhi before the announcement of nation-wide lockdown by the Prime Minister, had allegedly led to a spurt in COVID-19 cases across the country.

Inside the Supreme Court of India. Photo: Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Before the Odisha high court, the state’s advocate general had admitted on June 9 that there had been a steep increase in the number of COVID-19 cases on account of the recent influx of migrants and people coming from outside the state. The number of positive cases in Odisha reportedly stood at 2,856 and in Puri, the number reached 108 on June 7. Puri was classified as a high-risk zone and was included in the 11 districts earmarked for weekend shutdown on June 1.

The Odisha high court bench, comprising Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Biswajit Mohanty, in its June 9 order on the PIL (​Surendra Panigrahi v State of Odisha and others​) declined to interfere in the matter by holding that the state government, in having extended the restrictions up to June 30 with regard to the entry into the religious places/places of worship, appears to have taken into consideration the larger public interest.

The decision of the state government, the high court held, was in consonance with the guideline issued by the Centre, aimed to curb the spread of the coronavirus. The high court also noted that the Centre left the decision about holding of the Rath Yatra entirely to the discretion of the state government. Some devotees had approached the high court for permission to have darshan of Lord Jagannath on Shnana Purnima on June 5. The high court, however, was unwilling to interfere with the decision of the state government, “which appears to be based on objective evaluation of situation, as in the opinion of this court, such matters are best left to the discretion of the executive.”

The high court expressed its optimism that the state government would take a decision with regard to the holding or otherwise of the Rath Yatra, on the basis of objective evaluation of the ground situation at an appropriate time, prior to the scheduled date, that is, few days before June 23, keeping in view safety, security and welfare of the state.

The high court, in its order, also expressed its view that deploying heavy duty machines or any other means like elephants than the manpower that is generally used to pull the chariot would obviate the necessity of involving a large number of persons, which could be in many hundreds. The high court, therefore, asked the state government to consider this aspect while taking a decision on the yatra, consistent with the guidelines issued by the Centre and the state. The Supreme Court’s hearing on Thursday, however, did not deal with this issue.

Article 25

In its order, the Supreme Court bench reproduced Article 25 of the Constitution in full, and emphasised that the provision confers the right to freely profess and propagate religion ​subject to health​ (emphasis added). Article 25(1) starts with “subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part” and then guarantees that all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.

When a provision of the constitution qualifies itself as ‘subject to’, it clearly means that it will yield to that larger facet, in case of a conflict. Although the bench didn’t have to explain it so many words, its implications are clear to any student of the constitution. 

Recent verdict by the US Supreme Court

The unanimous order from the Indian Supreme Court stands in contrast to the recent split ​verdict​ from the US Supreme Court in ​South Bay United Pentecostal Church v Gavin Newsom, Governor of California.

In this case, the governor of California had placed temporary numerical restrictions on public gatherings to address the COVID-19 health emergency. State guidelines limited attendance at places of worship to 25% of building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees, whichever is lower. 

The US Supreme Court, in a split decision of 5:4, found California’s restrictions consistent with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Similar or more severe restrictions apply to comparable secular gatherings, including lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances, where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time. The majority Judges reasoned that the governor’s order exempts or treats more leniently only dissimilar activities such as operating grocery stores, banks, and laundromats, in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods.

United States Supreme Court. Credit: NCinDC, Flickr

The four dissenting judges, namely, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, granted a stay on the restrictions. The judges – with the exception of Alito, who did not give his reasons for dissenting – believed that the restrictions “discriminated” against places of worship and in favour of comparable secular businesses. Such discrimination, they argued, violates the First Amendment because comparable secular businesses, such as factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies and malls are not subject to a 25% occupancy cap.

The razor-thin majority was possible because of the swing vote cast by Chief Justice John G.Roberts, a known conservative who sided with the court’s four liberal Judges, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The dissent by four judges has made a well-known observer of the US Supreme Court extremely ​concerned​ about its future thus:

“The polarization roiling the country has the Supreme Court in its grip. The court can’t save us; that much is clear. It can’t even save itself.”

Abortion in the US: Supreme Court Hears Case Key to Future

A law in the state of Louisiana seeks to make abortion less accessible. A US Supreme Court ruling could have consquences for the future of Roe v Wade.


The US Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments in an abortion case which is likely to have ramifications for the future of the procedure in the country. This is the first time since President Donald Trump appointed two new conservative justices that the court has heard a major case on women’s reproductive rights.

The case centres on a law in the state of Louisiana which, if enforced, could make it harder for women to get an abortion in the state. The law, temporarily blocked by the court in a 5-4 vote last year when it agreed to hear the case, requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 48 km of the clinic. Admitting privileges refers to the right of doctors to admit patients to a certain hospital. These privileges can be difficult to obtain and hospitals have the right to refuse applications.

Roe vs. Wade 

The case brings to the fore the debate on abortion rights, which is one of the most divisive issues in American society. The US Supreme Court legalised abortion in 1973 in the landmark Roe vs. Wade ruling. Reaffirming its decision in 1992, the court prohibited laws that seek to place an “undue burden” on abortion access.

Donald Trump, in his 2016 election campaign promised to appoint justices who would overturn the Roe vs, Wade ruling. As Trump seeks reelection in November, he is looking to galvanise support among anti-abortion activists, particularly Christian conservatives who remain his core constituency.

His administration, along with more than 200 Republican lawmakers, has come out in support of Louisiana. The case shows the “unworkability of the ‘right to abortion’ found in Roe,” the lawmakers said in a supporting brief. They also question whether the ruling should be revisited by the court, “and, if appropriate, overruled.”

Supreme Court precedent

A similar legislation imposing admitting privileges restrictions in Texas was struck down by the court in 2016, as it placed “undue burden” on a woman’s ability to get an abortion. Abortion rights activists argue that the Louisiana law is doomed by the Supreme Court precedent.

“Nothing has changed that would justify such a legal about-face,” said Julie Rikelman, the lawyer appearing on behalf of the Louisiana abortion clinic seeking to invalidate the law.

Hearing amid protest

As the arguments in the case were being heard, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer held a rally outside the Supreme Court, hitting out at the Trump’s appointees; Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

“I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh — you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,” Schumer said.

Read more: Colombia high court upholds abortion restrictions

The Chief Justice reacted sharply to what he called “threatening statements.”

“Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous,” Chief Justice John Roberts said.

Roberts is expected to be the deciding vote in the case, the ruling for which is due by the end of June.

‘She Said’: #MeToo and the Makings of a Movement

The book details the steps two New York Times reporters took to unearth decades-old assault allegations.

When Jodi Kantor, a reporter on the investigations team at The New York Times, first reached out to actress Rose McGowan in early 2017, she had little idea what to expect. McGowan had publicly spoken out about being sexually assaulted by a Hollywood producer and it was believed that she was working on a memoir.

Meanwhile, rumours had been long circulating about producer Harvey Weinstein and his treatment of actresses. Comedians made jokes about it onstage at awards ceremonies. In a red carpet interview, Courtney Love warned aspiring actresses not to accept invitations from Weinstein to meet him in a hotel room. And in 2015, an Italian model had filed sexual abuse charges against the producer with the New York Police Department.

Reporters had tried unsuccessfully for years to follow the trail of assaults and get survivor accounts on record. Kantor, who had previously covered the Obamas, had begun investigating women’s experiences in the workplace in 2013 – “documenting what they experienced meant seeing how power functioned,” as she put it. She used that background to reach out to women who might have had experiences with Weinstein.

What Kantor and colleague Megan Twohey uncovered was jaw-dropping: Not only the broad scope of the assaults Weinstein was accused of, but also the breadth of the enabling and whitewashing what went into covering up for his crimes.

Their reporting on those accusations – including statements by actresses such as Gwyneth Paltrow and Ashley Judd, alongside former Weinstein employees – quickly turned into a Pulitzer Prize-winning series. As the reporters later wrote: “Weinstein’s legacy: his exploitation of the workplace to manipulate, pressure, and terrorize women.”

‘She Said’: A case study

Investigating those stories and getting them published was no easy task, as Kantor and Twohey recount in their just-published book, She Said: Breaking the Sexual Harassment Story That Helped Ignite A Movement. A case study on the work that goes into groundbreaking investigations, the book details the steps the reporters took to unearth decades-old assault allegations.

“The impact of the Weinstein revelations was so great in part because we and other journalists were able to establish a clear and overwhelming body of evidence of wrongdoing,” the authors write in their prologue. That evidence is clearly laid out and supported in the book, which also serves as a textbook on how best to work with assault survivors to ensure they are not re-traumatised – and to ensure that voyeuristic details of their experiences aren’t published.

#MeToo’s global resonance  

The authors also grapple with the role their work had played in a monumental cultural moment whereby women, recognising their experiences with assault are no longer isolated accounts, continue to demand a sea change.

While laws against sexual harassment and sexual assault have been on the books in the US for years, justice has been rare. “The legal system and corporate culture has served to silence victims and still inhibits change,” the authors write. “Businesses are co-opted into protecting predators. Some advocates for women profit from a settlement system that covers up misdeeds.”

Shortly after their first article on Weinstein was published, tips on both sexual assault and workplace harassment came flooding in. Women took to social media to share their own experiences of assault – some in great detail. Others simply wrote #MeToo on social media.

The hashtag, which drew from a movement spearheaded by activist Tarana Burke in 2006 to promote “empowerment through empathy” for survivors of sexual and gender-based violence, was inspiring – and sometimes infuriating.

With one in six women in the US becoming victims of rape or attempted sexual assault in their lifetime, according to NGO Rainn, the hashtag has helped to personalise those statistics and put faces to the numbers  in a way that laid bare the reality of the prevalence of sexual abuse.

Yet as Kantor and Twohey write, their investigation confirmed that “Women can have far more impact together than separately.” The power in numbers encouraged some women to take charge of the narratives surrounding their abuse and take action against the perpetrator.

A political reckoning

One of the women encouraged by the movement to publicly reveal sexual abuse was Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, a professor and research psychologist at Stanford University School of Medicine. Blasey Ford alleged that as a teenager she had been held down and assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh, who had gone on to a successful career as a federal judge.

After Kavanaugh’s nomination to the US Supreme Court, Blasey Ford recounted the experience in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee as the whole world watched.

This testimony, and insights into what drove her to deliver it, makes up the last third of Kantor and Twohey’s book. The authors also detail how Blasey Ford’s experience – including her reluctance to speak to media, and the death threats she received – was a damning indictment of the ways that sensationalist media contributes to an atmosphere in which women remain silent about the abuses they endure.

While She Said centers on the women whose stories are being told, giving voice to their experiences that are only minimally balanced out with statements of denial from Weinstein, in reality women are often spoken over and shouted down when trying to speak to these experiences elsewhere.

Politicians, including the President of the US, who has himself been credibly accused of sexually assaulting women, including in stories broken by Megan Twohey, used both social media and cable news to discredit not only Blasey Ford, but also other women’s stories.

Widespread harassment

And in Germany, where a survey conducted by YouGov in 2017 revealed that 43% of women had been on the receiving end of sexual harassment or assault, the hashtag was not only used by survivors of sexual assault, but also co-opted to address a litany of complaints against a sexist society.

Male newspaper columnists used their column inches to reflect on whether paying a female coworker a compliment might be considered harassment. Meanwhile, B-list actress Ingrid Steeger revealed in an interview that she had been raped multiple times while on the job and said it was part and parcel of the job, that women need to just suck it up. The backlash in German media had buried the campaign before any thorough investigations had brought credible accusations to light.

Ongoing battle

Yet in the US, where She Said has come out just as Harvey Weinstein goes to trial, a new memoir by Chanel Miller testifies to her experience with the pursuit of justice after a high-profile rape near Stanford University, and new revelations about Kavanaugh’s behaviour appear to support Blasey Ford’s testimony, the battle over how to respond to (and to prevent) sexual assault continues unabated.

It’s a battle that, if we acknowledge the cultural hegemony of the US and the influence Hollywood has on the presentation of values and norms, will impact the whole world.

Featured image credit: Reuters