fom this morning's Economist briefing.
"Ian Buruma stepped down as editor of the New York Review of Books. He had published an essay by Jian Ghomeishi, a Canadian broadcaster accused by 20 women of punching, biting, harassment and other aggressions. Mr Ghomeishi complained of 'mass shaming' and was acquitted of sexual assault. Mr Buruma had unwisely declared that the accusations’ veracity was 'not my concern'."
In NYC, part of the US, a criminal trial would not have proceeded that way.
20 accusations against Mr Ghomeishi are serious, but not proof of guilt. They can and should lead to a trial, and they did: "Acquitted of sexual assault". No word from The Economist or the Review on the quality of the trial.
A newspaper editor is not judge, jury nor executioner, so Mr Buruma was correct in his statement. It's worth noting that the alleged assaults did not happen on his watch or even in his country.
He could have had a greater or lesser level of concern for the women as a private citizen. No word from The Economist or the Review on that. IMO #MenArePigsYesTheyAreDon'tTryToDenyIt, so I'm inclined to accept the "veracity".
My point? It's easy for #metoo et al. to get out of hand; rule of men rather than rule of law.
That can lead to more serious miscarriages in other areas. Stay tuned.
BTW the Bible says it does not belong to man to direct his own step.