"One day Pharaoh was eating grapes, holding a bunch; Satan came to him and said: could you ever think some be able to make that bunch of grapes to pearls? Pharaoh said decisively: NO. Then Satan made grapes into pearls. Pharaoh shouted: Such a master who you are! Satan slapped his neck, and said: in the kingdom of God did not accept my slavery; how you claim yourself as god with such foolishness!" (Jwamee al-Hikayat by Oofi)
This anecdote is of very telling about the behavior of #metoo cyberwarrior (using deliberately as we see). Mostly I mean after centuries of men's neglecting, ignoring, rejecting, underestimating, and any kind of measures to deprive women of fairness and justice, they have come to realize that was in vain. Those kinds of behaviors are abandoned by now, while MeToo cyberwarriors are going to revive the same on their side. Surprisingly, a great portion of literature against it is provided by feminists. So to speak, if such deeds had had benefits, men would not have left them behind.
Those days were tremendous due to the scale of information brought to the court, and accordingly to the media. On 18&19th may, Heard team bring witnesses to the stand: a friend, her sister, and Adam Waldman, Depp's attorney back then. These two days were outstanding: the first day was just spending time on nothing; but the second was strange, funny, and noticeable. #AdamWaldman was Depp's attorney before, also one who titled by #Heard as "short" appropriately, on March 2021. Waldman's testimony was damaging for Heard case; because as she bring him, Waldman favored Depp, undermined Heard, and accuse her claims as false. Such testimony was more about fun. Heard and her team's calculations were very wrong. As my aim is not about the trial, I'd better conclude by saying: that the first two witnesses to Heard weren't even close to helping judgment, more than that Waldman's testimony was ruining Heard. Frankly, at this point, Heard seemed to be done.
I had brought on the attacks on the importance of pieces of evidence mostly advanced by Dr. #CharlotteProudman who unexpectedly is a barrister; although this insight that we better not rely on pieces of evidence had said before implicitly, pronouncing it loudly and explicitly took place after passing a few days of the trial when Depp team provided enough amount of pieces of evidence on his side to, at least, convince public opinion; it has something to tell about the MeToo cyberwarriors: when a situation is not in favor of you just deny the situation, simply. A related question would be: but what about justice? They might respond: it is a male-made thing that we do not affirm; the logic overwhelmingly insane. Proudman's denying pieces of evidence, was one instance, thus relying on it did not seem to justify it. However, after Waldman testify they revealed their basic morals.
The first step to warm up the MeToo campaign after the chaos created by Waldman came from the Observer, owned by The Guardian, both could be placed on the center-left in the political spectrum. A newspaper, as well as the owner The Guardian, which is famous for publishing biased articles in favor of activists, employs many media tricks to convince the readers. The article by Martha Gill titled "#MeToo is over if we don’t listen to ‘imperfect victims’ like Amber Heard", is very telling.
In the headline, it is revealed that the case is about holding #MeToo, not Amber Heard. The subtitle statement is even more interesting one part "when even young women join the actor's MALE TORMENTORs" means although the trial wasn't closed, Observer and Guardian came out with a verdict. The logic supposedly is to condemn "male tormentors", I could not guess the plurality of "tormentors" referring to whom exactly, perhaps whoever takes the "male" side, as it is indicated: "Heard’s tormentors, many of them young women, do not seem to see themselves as anti-feminist". The writer would not lose this good opportunity to scorn women, as well: "They [young women] believe women, of course – just not this one". It has two-fold scorn: one fold young women who are tormentors, and, the second fold is implicitly conveyed when she named just "young women", how about "not young women", then? Possibly calling them is in vain, no hope.
Apparently, on the writer's beliefs, all should avoid "male", taking back the "woman" side without any other concern about truth, reality, facts, pieces of evidence, and "justice". I said justice, it will get perplexing when one looks at the second part of the subtitle: "ideas of justice soon begin to unravel". To be frank, I can't interpret the phrase, since even understand this; just I can say: that regarding this I realized that I have been wrong in my life because there are not men and women, but there are males and women. I wish Schleiermacher was alive, perhaps he could have told us something. When one continues reading the paper, finds out it is an announcement which wrongly published as "opinion". Reference to unraveling justice in the subtitle makes me very happy to see how people love justice, including the writer.
An interesting point of the article is how the writer justified her position and justice. In two or three lines she said a few words on facts, naming all they have on Depp with details, but when it comes to Amber heard she tells us:
"On his side are two facts that seem clear. Heard promised to donate her entire divorce settlement to charity, and didn’t. There is a recording in which she admits to hitting Depp."
Other pieces of evidence provided to the court and public opinion are not clear in her eyes. To use the writer's words, the #MeToo judiciary "begins to unravel" by this, especially when it is noted that she says only two facts are clear, one is Heard pledge and has not donated; no big deal! No big deal.
when I read that for the first time I got furious at such an unjust, reckless saying. Well, I have some other clear facts for the writer here. The fact is not just she pledged and has not donated, which is by itself a bad point, but rather she lied under oath about it in the UK; could it be informative that she not only did not donate but lied about it? Lying under oath will deny a person's honesty and truthfulness. If she is so cold-blooded in lying even under oath, how could one trust her? A question to #MeToo judges. Furthermore, in the court Heard tried to cover her lie, even by telling that she doesn't know the meaning of "pledge" and "donate" to the amount that Depp's attorney had to add "paid" to donate.
The other "clear" fact is that Heard on a recording admitted once she "hitted" her ex-husband. In the recording, an argument took place in which the male part says he got punched, and the young woman says she just hit him. Male says if so, then why does the young woman do it with closed fingers? While un the recording we hear two speakers, just one is clear and it is a young woman's.
I'm not sure why lying about Australian laws, many recordings in which the young woman appeared harsh and aggressive, and a few testimonies who accused her to be the abuser are not clear.
This article was published on 22 May, two days after the mess of 18&19 May. It was a counteract to reduce consequences, undermining the weight of what happened. It was followed by a campaign on the social media battlefield by many other cyber warriors who tweets about it; the reason was that they all bet on Heard for #MeToo, thus she should be backed anyway, otherwise they lose.
I do not know how to put it; because some of the contents are childish. But let's give it a try. It may be better to start with Dr. Charlotte Proudman, apparently the most powerful speaker of the group with many contradictions with herself and huge reliance on being an "actual doctor". After numerous tweets to denounce supporters of Depp on social media, she suddenly tweets this:
Surprisingly, when the number of favorite hashtags surpasses the rival, it tells something, while no number could speak for Depp. If there any logical reasoning had been used, it would have been new nonstandard logic She, now and then, finds it helpful to hit out at tweeters, depicting them as violent, aggressive, or misogynists:
That is strange that she referred to being an "actual doctor"; first, although it is not clear what was an incident (s) referred to, whenever people do not comment they usually make fun of doctors by mockeries or putting "dr" in quotations to imply it is just a title, etc. Why should one find it harassing? Second, if she is trying to remind people that she is a "doctor", it is nonsense. For it does not guarantee correctness. However, as she even uses "dr." in her username, it might imply that she finds it very important. It is for sure not. Furthermore, a barrister who denied evidence importance must be expected a few mockeries on her contradictory position on being a barrister and throw away pieces of evidence. Therefore, this is not the case:
Dr. Proudman's response is confusing, at best, contradictory to common sense. She always talks, writes, denies, and calls for reform in UK courts; while here she asserted that the UK court verdict is for sure. Question: if UK courts are not very good at justice, especially in domestic violence, thus how the UK court judgment could be decisive in this case?
The fastest to tweet and furious in insult whoever is doubtful about the truthfulness of Amber Heard, is her friend, #EveBarlow, who introduces herself as a journalist, while no one knows about her possible education and degree, nor about journalistic experience and expertise. Anyway, her tweeting activity is interesting. On 18&19 May, when her friend was not in a good position, she deny the weight of proof Let us see a few:
These are after Waldman's testimony, in which they are trying to bold that if Heard loose, #MeToo would be dead. They are wrong about it because it is dead already after their fairness and justice are revealed. While in the third tweet she emphasized that the "burden of proof" is not important, but what the female part says should be, as they articulate; we might think this an honest opinion, although not a good one, but be their logic of justice, but it is not an honest, truthful saying. Since after Heard's team bring two experts who denied Depp's account, one argued implicitly, that his drug and alcohol abuse make him an abuser. Following that Barlow's tweeter blew up with the importance of the burden of proof. suddenly she found out that proof and evidence are important:
As it is obvious, the importance of evidence and heaviness of proof of burden relies on which one could benefit the female part. I am not going to bring on how strong Barlow strived to show that what convinced public opinion is Depp's fans' efforts, just as Proudman when the number is bigger than rivals', it did not torture, or bots, or blind support, but it is seeing the right side:
Thus, after retweeting above mentioned Proudman's tweet, she just like her, could enjoy the hashtag number.
Here I just wanted to show that a lot of literature created by MeToo cyberwarriors are not their real beliefs, rather they are more creative and flexible about things; whenever pieces of evidence, proof, or anything else do not serve female part, should be denied, simply and decisively. If new important proofs and pieces of evidence find then things should be reversed. That is the justice procedure of the MeToo court, which explains the "believe women" motto very well.
This kind of jurisprudence makes easy for MeToo warrior to denounce all opposing, what's needed is accusing to: "they are #misogynist". But is not the very way that feminists used to accuse men of it in such a situations? It is. End of story.
Sources: Fist publication on My linkedIn Newsletter page
Note: feminism in our time is not all about women's rights, what you read is not supposed to undermine, underestimate, underrate women's rights, security, wellbeing, equality, but it aims to promote it along with the same for male victims without destroying justice.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License