HARVEY WEINSTEIN : A CASE FOR JUSTICE.

Harvey Weinstein

Don't you just hate it when the things you most value and love go unattended? I certainly do. From meeting times, to childrens birthdays and even vital governing principles, it impossible to overstate the impact of such neglect either on purpose or not and no more relevant an example of such a situation could be given than the Harvey Weinstein scandal and it's legal and cultural implications.

Let's have a look this mess and how to prevent it in the future.

  Harvey Weinstein was a former movie producer who established the Miramax Films Corporation with his brother, Bob, in 1979. Born on March 19, 1952, in Queens, New York to Max and Miriam Weinstein. Harvey and his brother, Bob, developed their business sense from Max, a diamond cutter, along with a love of the movies shaped through Saturday afternoons together at the theater. As the years went by, his influence and station grew substantially in the movie industry. From the creation of miramax films corporation in 1979 to The overseeing of a string of widely acclaimed film releases such as Pulp fiction in 1994, Good will hunting in 1997, The English patient in 1996, Shakespeare in love in 1998 and Chicago in 2002. All of which took home top Oscar prize of Best Picture. 

Politically speaking, Weinstein styled himself as a champion of progressive causes. He has been a top supporter of Democratic presidential candidates in recent election cycles, hosting fundraisers for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton Additionally, he was among the backers of a Rutgers University faculty chair named for feminist icon Gloria Stienem. Mr weinstein, a man of immense fame, talent fortune and influence was not without his love for debauchary and vices. A love for which he would pay a heavy proffessional and personnal price.

 It can be said that hubris is the midwife of catastrophy. For harvey weinstein, this was an exact understatement. Rumors of harvey weinstein's "Casting Couch" had already begun to circulate hollywood for years like an ill wind. In 1988, Gwyneth Paltrow, speaking on the David Letterman show said that Weinstein "will coerce you to do a thing or two." In 2005 yet another actress, Courtney Love  hinted at the illicit impassioned guilty pleasures of Mr Weinstein in her advice to young actresses in an interview saying; "If Harvey Weinstein invites you to a private party in the four seasons,don't go." Quite notably in 2013, while announcing the best supporting actress academy award, Seth Macfarlane joked: "Congratulations, you five ladies no longer have to pretend to be attracted to Harvey Weinstein." 

Despite earlier attempts by journalists such as David Carr, Ken auletta of the New Yorker, john Sargent of Gawker in his article in 2015 titled: "Tell Us What You Know About Harvey Weinstein's 'Open Secret." to break this compelling yet sinister story,  coverage and analysis of these scandalous rumors remained unaired, confined to the chattering classes of hollywood lavish parties and social life, hushed interpersonnal conversations and unsavory gosip-blog comment threads. 

It seemed odd that both the reporters and the story had entered into a period of prolonged suspense. A phoney war. alas all that waiting ,longing and suspense would come to end and so word after word, revelation after revelation and accusation followed by dramatic renunciation, The glamorous career of one the most notable film producers in hollywood history seemed to be reaching an abrupt end. On October 5th 2017 Substantial allegations of sexual misconduct by Weinstein were first reported by the New York Times journalists Jodi Kantor and Meghan Twohey. These allegations against weinstein were that of three decades worth of sexual harassment of and paying settlements to actresses and female production assistants, temps, and other employees who worked at Miramax and TWC.

The revelations continued unimpeded when Five days later, on October 10, longtime NBCnews correspondent Ronan Farrow reported in The New Yorker further allegations that Weinstein had sexually assaulted or harassed thirteen women, and raped three.Farrow said he wanted to break the story earlier with NBC but implied the network was under pressure not break the story which the network ofcourse denied. 

According to Farrow, sixteen former or current executives and assistants connected with Weinstein said they had witnessed or had been told of the illicit non-consensual sexual activities of Mr weinstein. but were stiffled along with other witnesses such as actresses by whast they suspect to be passive corecion, misinformation and pressure of business activities and opportunities by weinstein and his proxies. 

A number of Farrow's sources said Weinstein had referred to his success in planting stories in the media about individuals who had crossed him. The New Yorker also published the 2015 audio recording in which Weinstein admits to groping Gutierrez. In November 2017, Farrow reported that Weinstein had, through his lawyer David Boies, employed private intelligence agencies kroll and black cube as well as private iunvestigator Jack palladino to investigate and influence weinstein's victims  and the reporters incvluding farrow and towhery who were investigating weinstein in order to prevent the sexual accusations from becoming public. 

Since the reporting of November 2017, 95 assault victims have come forward accusing Mr weinstein of sexual harrassment ,assault or rape. Former colleagues and collaborators of Weinstein told reporters that these activities were enabled by employees, associates and agents who set up these meetings as well as lawyers and publicists who suppressed complaints with payments and threats.

Weinstein in his defense said “I came of age in the ’60s and ’70s, when all the rules about behavior and workplaces were different. That was the culture then. I have since learned it is not an excuse."He later opted for a leave of absence and a from work and Although for a public seething with unfettered rage and growing anger about a moral injustice, such an apology would prove insufficient.

   The entire affair came to a punishing head when on May 25, 2018, Weinstein turned himself into the NYPD and was arrested and charged with rape, committing a criminal sex act, sexual abuse and sexual misconduct. Still under investigation in L.A. and London for alleged sex crimes, he paid $1 million in cash to post bail, surrendered his passport and was issued an ankle monitor. The news filled the public with awe and in some quarters joy and and contentment for justice having been served to someone who deeds they found morally revolting. However This would be the beginning of the long march towards imprisonment, disrepute, reputational and proffessional damage and a desolate life. 

After the dismissal of one sexual assault charge on October 11 2018,m Weinstein initially represented at trial by Benjamin Brafman parted ways with Mr Brafman and hired Donna Rotunno as defense counsel. Weinstein was tried on February 2020 in Manhattan supreme court. At the trial six women testified that weinstein had sexually assaulted them. The charges themselves res0ted mostly on the complaints of two women, a production assistant and a former actress, who gave the jury accounts from 2016 and 2013 respectively. 

On February 24 The jury  found weinstein guilty of rape in the third degree and criminal sexual act in the first degree and not guilty on three counts including two more serious charges of predatory sexual assault. A mild gasp of joy in what was now for hasrvey, a bitter end. After the verdict, weinstein was remanded to jail where he was housed in Rikers island''s infirmary unit. Justice James .A. Burke sentenced weinstein to 23 years in prison on March 11 2020. Weinstein was 67 years of age and in poor health at the time of sentencing, meaning that he might spend the rest of his life in prison. 

On March 18 He was transferred to Wende Correctional Facility. On January 6, 2020, the Los Angeles County District Attorney announced separate criminal charges against Weinstein, allegedly raping one woman and sexually assaulting another in separate incidents over a two-day period in 2013. Weinstein is charged with one felony count each of forcible rape,  forcible oral copulation, sexual penetration by use of force and sexual battery by restraint. 

The legal implication of the belligerent manner in which the jury was coerced by public pressure may perhaps remain unclear for sometime but the social consequences have been widely destructive.Weinsteins lawyer stated that they would be planning an appeal sometime soon.

  To my earler point, the purpose of this lengthy analysis is inquire if in light of the ensuing consequences and the cultural and legal precedent it has set in the west and in the civilized world as well, if there is are any remendies to terrible actions and what ways such outcomes can be mitigated. In an effort to do just that, I will be exploring an age old western societal principle and how it's proper application could have prevented such a breakdown of trust and morals. The Rule of Law.

Photo of Lady Justice in Frankfurt Germany.

 

 The rule of law as define refers to a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. 

Though this precept is of popular acclaim and has proven massively beneficial and very effective in granting stability and security to any nation in it has been put in practice, The very foundation and practice of this principle seems to be increasingly placed under harsh scrutiny.  

During the legal proceedings within the weinstein scandal, there seemed to be an increasing demand for the disposal of the duty of fidelity to the laws and precepts of the nation state in favour of tribal loyalty. 

 

This can be best seen in the popular mantra of social left wing pressure groups: " Listen and believe."As well as the largely female centric metoo movement which bills itself as a movement against the sexual exploitation of women in wider society. Public figures such as Asia agento, Rose Mcgowan, Tarana Burke, American Senator Kirsten Gilibrand, Claire Mccaskill and Alyssa Milano were among the loud and angry voices demanding, without pause ,the prosecution of accused persons strictly on the accusations of women, with the claim that women especially abused women have not been believed and overtly questioned uncharitably and in some cases blamed. 

In rebuting said claims and pushes for group prefrences under law, I will make the following arguments.

1.  The Law is univesal: After close observance and understanding of the concept of the rule of law as  a set of practically applicable principles and procedures that help a country achieve stability with its sovereign territory, I have come to a conclusion in line with John Locke's statement that the Supream Power cannot take from any Man any part of his Property without his own consent and any law that purports to do so is of no validity and my conclusion is as follows;

  " For the Law to be Lawful, Justifiable

and or legitimate, it must be universal. As such the introduction of

laws favourable to persons or groups of persons of evident or procclaimed 

special interest can be adequately viewed as proof of unjust actions and the invalidity of such laws

which in good conscience and the national interest ought to be subject to review if not 

repeal."

"

As the claim there women need to be believed at all times as starting point of law enforcement procedure and legal proceedings in any applicable situation, is uncharitably and strongly in violation of the principles of equality before the law and due process. The vital components of legal egalitarianism.

2. The law is not totaly subjective: Although the law applies subjectively various legal proceedings, The law is not wholely subject to the changing whims and actions of human beings and as such the claim that the law as a principle has within it inherent subjective prejucial stance on speeific sections on society is unproveable, flaw and harmful to social cohesion. It is an act of scio-political vanldalism. The purpose of the Law as a principle is inherent in its apolitical and a theoretical approach to human affairs, which is harmony in societal living and. governance. It does not its pragmatic applications.

3. The Law does not promote rape culture and sexism: There have been serveral claims to the effect of suggesting that the law enforcement and legal procedures employed in sexual assault cases promote a culture of rape and female subservience by an unamed unproven patriarchy.The evidence for the existence of a self centered, oppressive patriarchy has no bearing in fact as the west is a by design a meritocacy and as such prioritizes spontaneous action and evidence based  assessments. This extends to legal proceedings as well with  innocence being assumed so as to assign convictions and acquitals based on evidence beyond reasonable doubt. 

In a culture where the legal validity of rape and sexual violence were assured by the law and the society as a whole, legal proceedings would be unnecessary and non existent. As for the claim that western legal systems are inherently sexsit, I would say that woman are full and privileged citizens of society. Therefore,  the law wholely applies in every way to them without preference or favoritism towards them as a faction and the government in line with its legal obligations to them and the process of elections within which women are the largest and most influencial voting block tend carry out their wishes accordingly.  

Therefore the claim the law is sexist and in its implications thereof are wholistically untrue and honestly quite farcical.

In conclusion, the purpose of the law is stabilty and harmony within the society in which is ti is being applied. As such I believe it is important that all parties and political factions  involved  in legal proceedings in society at large must reframe from politicizing the legal institutions of the nation and introducing factional and alien standards of law. 

Such restraint would protect the neutrality of the judiciary thus promoting the rule of law throughout the nation as a valid and legitimate standard. In the venerable words of the late Benjamin Franklin; " A republic, if you can keep it."