Index
ADELE SMITH
I: THE ADELE SMITH NARRATIVE
CASC grew out of a piece written by blogger Simcha Fisher, which focused on the story of Adele Smith’s alleged rape. Adele is now the President of Dinah’s Voice. The piece was widely criticised by members of the Christendom community as a hit piece, riddled with factual inaccuracies. Here we look at the story arguing that “her story, as portrayed in public forums, used lies and half-truths to manufacture outrage at the college.” It argues that there are nine key claims in the article that are inaccurate.
II: A REPLY TO ADELE
Wherein we (among other occasional tasks) ask Adele why she blames alumni for calling Fisher’s article a smear piece given that Adele herself admitted (in private) that she disagreed with Fisher’s main thesis, ie., that the college’s policies contribute to rape.
III: A SECOND REPLY TO ADELE
Wherein we defend ourselves from various charges, and reiterate our plea and promise, “if you believe what we have said is untrue please--we ask this sincerely--let us know. We will be the first to retract an error.”
DONNA'S DEFAMATION CASE
Immediately after Simcha Fisher’s story about Adele Smith was published (see above), a lively discussion arose in the Christendom College Alumni Facebook group. Donna Provencher (the Vice President of Communications for Dinah’s Voice) “named some rapists” (as she later described the post), and refused to remove the post when it was pointed out to her that it is defamatory to publish unsubstantiated rumors.
One of the individuals she named subsequently sued her for defamation and she began a PR campaign to raise money and spin the suit as frivolous litigation meant only to silence her advocacy and protect the school. Many high profile CASC supporters, people who should have known better, have aided her in this campaign, blindly taking her side and further slandering the already defamed plaintiff, describing the lawsuit as frivolous and designed simply to silence her.
In these articles we correct the record.
PART I: I THAT'S ALL SHE WROTE
Wherein we produce screenshots of what Donna actually wrote, showing that she labeled men as rapists even though she admitted the allegations were no more than hearsay and rumor, putting paid to the talking points that she was merely advocating for victims, that the suit has no merits, and that she said nothing defamatory.
PART II: NCR CARRIES DONNA'S WATER
Wherein we show, with screenshots, that the source Donna cites for one of the aforementioned allegations was actually not making an accusation at all. We show also, with screenshots, that Donna intended to damage the reputations of the men she named, by publicly branding them as rapists. This was written in direct response to a shamefully irresponsible piece published by the National Catholic Reporter, which unquestioningly repeated Donna’s story, including demonstrably false statements that they evidently didn’t bother to fact-check.
GENERALLY COMMENTARY ON CASC
CASC: ADVOCATES OF MOB JUSTICE
Wherein we argue five points:
1) CASC rejects due process and the presumption of innocence. Rather they believe that the accused is guilty until he proves his innocence. They disguise this platform in the apparently innocuous shibboleth, “Believe Women.”
2) CASC misrepresents the statistics that they use to justify this presumption of guilt.
3) CASC doesn’t actually know what ‘rape’ or ‘consent’ mean.
4) CASC believes in a mob justice meted out based on nothing more than rumor.
5) CASC is not a credible advocate for rape victims.
DONNA ON RAPE APOLOGISM AND THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
A follow-up to the prior piece, wherein we show Donna publicly arguing for the first point above (that is, that CASC rejects due process and the presumption of innocence. Rather they believe that the accused is guilty until he proves his innocence. They disguise this platform in the apparently innocuous shibboleth, “Believe Women.”)
CASC's INCOHERENCE
Wherein we show that some of CASC's leadership privately disagrees with many of the most divisive points that CASC (and Simcha Fisher) have made.
A TENUOUS RELATIONSHIP WITH TRUTH
Wherein we show that Simcha Fisher spread demonstrable falsehood about the plaintiff in Donna's defamation case in order to discredit him and help to raise thousands of dollars for Donna. We ask, when will CASC realize that if you are advocating that people should "believe women" you can't tolerate women advancing your cause by smearing innocent men with demonstrable falsehood.
OTHER OUTLETS THAT HAVE COMMENTED ON CASC
We are not the only ones who have detected dishonesty or inconsistency in the actions of CASC and its key players. Here are a few links to blogs which have treated CASC and their attacks on Christendom:
Nixon at Antelope Games has been covering CASC from its rise in a series of often insightful, if frequently crude, posts.
Zippy Catholic covered Simcha Fisher’s article on Adele's case in Dog Bites Man, Women and Children Hardest Hit.
I: THE ADELE SMITH NARRATIVE
CASC grew out of a piece written by blogger Simcha Fisher, which focused on the story of Adele Smith’s alleged rape. Adele is now the President of Dinah’s Voice. The piece was widely criticised by members of the Christendom community as a hit piece, riddled with factual inaccuracies. Here we look at the story arguing that “her story, as portrayed in public forums, used lies and half-truths to manufacture outrage at the college.” It argues that there are nine key claims in the article that are inaccurate.
II: A REPLY TO ADELE
Wherein we (among other occasional tasks) ask Adele why she blames alumni for calling Fisher’s article a smear piece given that Adele herself admitted (in private) that she disagreed with Fisher’s main thesis, ie., that the college’s policies contribute to rape.
III: A SECOND REPLY TO ADELE
Wherein we defend ourselves from various charges, and reiterate our plea and promise, “if you believe what we have said is untrue please--we ask this sincerely--let us know. We will be the first to retract an error.”
DONNA'S DEFAMATION CASE
Immediately after Simcha Fisher’s story about Adele Smith was published (see above), a lively discussion arose in the Christendom College Alumni Facebook group. Donna Provencher (the Vice President of Communications for Dinah’s Voice) “named some rapists” (as she later described the post), and refused to remove the post when it was pointed out to her that it is defamatory to publish unsubstantiated rumors.
One of the individuals she named subsequently sued her for defamation and she began a PR campaign to raise money and spin the suit as frivolous litigation meant only to silence her advocacy and protect the school. Many high profile CASC supporters, people who should have known better, have aided her in this campaign, blindly taking her side and further slandering the already defamed plaintiff, describing the lawsuit as frivolous and designed simply to silence her.
In these articles we correct the record.
PART I: I THAT'S ALL SHE WROTE
Wherein we produce screenshots of what Donna actually wrote, showing that she labeled men as rapists even though she admitted the allegations were no more than hearsay and rumor, putting paid to the talking points that she was merely advocating for victims, that the suit has no merits, and that she said nothing defamatory.
PART II: NCR CARRIES DONNA'S WATER
Wherein we show, with screenshots, that the source Donna cites for one of the aforementioned allegations was actually not making an accusation at all. We show also, with screenshots, that Donna intended to damage the reputations of the men she named, by publicly branding them as rapists. This was written in direct response to a shamefully irresponsible piece published by the National Catholic Reporter, which unquestioningly repeated Donna’s story, including demonstrably false statements that they evidently didn’t bother to fact-check.
GENERALLY COMMENTARY ON CASC
CASC: ADVOCATES OF MOB JUSTICE
Wherein we argue five points:
1) CASC rejects due process and the presumption of innocence. Rather they believe that the accused is guilty until he proves his innocence. They disguise this platform in the apparently innocuous shibboleth, “Believe Women.”
2) CASC misrepresents the statistics that they use to justify this presumption of guilt.
3) CASC doesn’t actually know what ‘rape’ or ‘consent’ mean.
4) CASC believes in a mob justice meted out based on nothing more than rumor.
5) CASC is not a credible advocate for rape victims.
DONNA ON RAPE APOLOGISM AND THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
A follow-up to the prior piece, wherein we show Donna publicly arguing for the first point above (that is, that CASC rejects due process and the presumption of innocence. Rather they believe that the accused is guilty until he proves his innocence. They disguise this platform in the apparently innocuous shibboleth, “Believe Women.”)
CASC's INCOHERENCE
Wherein we show that some of CASC's leadership privately disagrees with many of the most divisive points that CASC (and Simcha Fisher) have made.
A TENUOUS RELATIONSHIP WITH TRUTH
Wherein we show that Simcha Fisher spread demonstrable falsehood about the plaintiff in Donna's defamation case in order to discredit him and help to raise thousands of dollars for Donna. We ask, when will CASC realize that if you are advocating that people should "believe women" you can't tolerate women advancing your cause by smearing innocent men with demonstrable falsehood.
OTHER OUTLETS THAT HAVE COMMENTED ON CASC
We are not the only ones who have detected dishonesty or inconsistency in the actions of CASC and its key players. Here are a few links to blogs which have treated CASC and their attacks on Christendom:
Nixon at Antelope Games has been covering CASC from its rise in a series of often insightful, if frequently crude, posts.
Zippy Catholic covered Simcha Fisher’s article on Adele's case in Dog Bites Man, Women and Children Hardest Hit.
Comments
Post a Comment