Joanne Hack Again, ALLEGED abuser … are we not supposed to be the voice of reason and say that he’s not convicted of anything so, since this is America, he shouldn’t have to resign. I don’t know the guy and I don’t have any opinion of him, but still he hasn’t been convicted of anything.
– one I decided to answer (emphasis here):
There is a BIG difference between a Court of Justice and the Court of Public Opinion. The former is the arbiter of the use of the Force of Government in deciding whether or not someone’s Liberties and Freedoms will be curtailed either by jail time or the taking of their wealth by fees and fines. This is where the Innocent before Guilty is and should be premier.
The Court of Public Opinion is held to no such standard as it cannot withdraw Liberty or Freedom. It can, and should, act to enforce social mores. For centuries, Civil Society was the court of first approach as it was immediate and swift – do not violate long standing traditions and taboos against bad behavior or people will talk and probably talk negatively about you in seeking redress against that bad behavior. It can withdraw its collective Respect from someone for such bad behavior (for good or better for known or false reports). I agree that it often it acts without full knowledge and in today’s environment, can be an act of “retribution” instead of “healing a civil infection“. In today’s society where Political Correctness / Cultural Marxism is working hard to overthrow those traditional standards of behavior itself
SideNote: I consider PC/CM to be a full blown cancer in and of itself as opposed to just an “infection”), things go awry, sideways, and topsey-turvy in the performance of a political ideology to root to replace those traditions with itself. As it were, using faux outrage on steroid in mimicing that old Societal “healing of the body” to replace the latter for its own purposes.
But to get back on point, while he is an ALLEGED abuser, Joanne Hack, it is only in the eyes of the Court of Justice where the standards are much, MUCH higher. Civil Society doesn’t have such strictures. He doesn’t have to resign – Civil Society doesn’t have that power (although the criminal Court of Justice can strip that from him) but the power of Society can bend his will to do so voluntarily. It can also ask (bordering on demanding) but he doesn’t have to. BUT, Civil Society can make that decision for him on Nov. 4th at the ballot box – certainly an avenue that can effect that which a lot of NH Civil Society is demanding.
Which, I feel, is appropriate if Woodburn doesn’t have the sense to do on his own ESPECIALLY if actually convicted of felony charges.