Giuseppe Sandro Mela.
«Jennifer Lawrence: “Sono rimasta profondamente turbata nel sentire le notizie sul comportamento di Harvey Weinstein” ha affermato l’attrice a Variety “Ho lavorato con Harvey cinque anni fa e non ho subito alcuna forma di molestia né sono stata a conoscenza di questi atteggiamenti. Tutto ciò è semplicemente sconvolgente. Il mio cuore è per tutte le donne colpite da queste terribili azioni. E voglio ringraziarle per il loro coraggio nell’uscire allo scoperto”
Cnn. 2017-10-06. Harvey Weinstein is now a big problem for Democrats
Mrs Rose McGowan, attricetta di basso calibro, classe 1973, ha accusato Mr Harvey Weinstein di un sexual harassment che sarebbe avvenuto venticinque anni or sono. Alle sue accuse si sono subito associate numerose sue colleghe.
* * * * * * *
«Harvey Weinstein, CBE (honorary) (born March 19, 1952) is an American film producer and former film studio executive. He co-founded Miramax, which produced several popular independent films including Pulp Fiction, Clerks, The Crying Game, and Sex, Lies, and Videotape. He and his brother Bob were co-chairmen of The Weinstein Company, from 2005 to 2017 when he was fired by the board. He won an Academy Award for producing Shakespeare in Love, and garnered seven Tony Awards for producing a variety of winning plays and musicals, including The Producers, Billy Elliot the Musical, and August: Osage County. …
In the early 1980s, Miramax acquired the rights to two British films of benefit shows filmed for the human rights organization Amnesty International. Working closely with Martin Lewis, the producer of the original films, the Weinstein brothers edited the two films into one movie tailored for the American market. ….
On March 29, 2005, it was announced that the Weinstein brothers would leave Miramax on September 30 to form their own production company, named The Weinstein Company, with several other media executives, directors Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez, and Colin Vaines, who had successfully run the production department at Miramax for ten years and moved with the brothers to head development in The Weinstein Company. The board of The Weinstein Company fired him on October 8, 2017 following allegations of Weinstein’s sexual misconduct.» [Fonte]
Ma cosa mai è il “sexual harassment”?
«Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that tends to create a hostile or offensive work environment. ….
A key part of the definition is the use of the word unwelcome. Unwelcome or uninvited conduct or communication of a sexual nature is prohibited; welcome or invited actions or words are not unlawful. Sexual or romantic interaction between consenting people at work may be offensive to observers or may violate company policy, but it is not sexual harassment. ….
Instead, a court will review all of the circumstances to determine whether it was reasonably clear to the harasser that the conduct was unwelcome. The courts have recognized that victims may be afraid to express their discomfort if the harasser is their boss or is physically intimidating. Victims may be coerced into going along with sexual talk or activities because they believe they will be punished or fired if they protest. Consent can be given to a relationship and then withdrawn when the relationship ends. Once it is withdrawn, continued romantic or sexual words or actions are not protected by the past relationship and may be sexual harassment.»
* * * * * * *
La prima e fondamentale considerazione che sorge spontanea è l’ambigua definizione di carattere soggettivo.
Il termine “unwelcome” è fortemente soggettivo: la stessa identica azione può essere per una persona e può non esserlo per un’altra.
Esattamente come è soggettivo il fatto che “they believe they will be punished or fired if they protest“. Una cosa è ricevere minacce esplicite, documentabili, ed una totalmente differente essersele immaginate.
La seconda considerazione, altrettanto fondamentale, è la documentabilità dei fatti. Un codice penale, e quindi una corte penale che lo applica, deve, dovrebbe, giudicare su fatti, non su intenzioni vere o presunte. Non solo, ma dovrebbe essere onere dell’accusa il produrre prove probanti: la sola denuncia si presta troppo ad essere più o meno artatamente manipolata, oppure anche inventata di sana pianta.
La terza considerazione consiste nel fatto che nell’ultimo decennio le corti penali americane hanno accettato come prova probante la sola denuncia della femmina, senza sentire l’esigenza che tale denuncia fosse sostenuta da prove o testimonianze, anche quando. Era sufficiente che giudice e corte fossero liberal democratici.
* * *
Di fronte ad un così duttile strumento per l’eliminazione degli avversari politici, i liberal democratici hanno fatto del sexual harassment la punta di lancia della loro ideologia. È diventato per loro una dei peggiori reati con i quali incapsulare i propri avversari politici non si dice fino alla condanna, ma almeno ad una lunga trafila giudiziaria, esaltata e sbandierata dai media.
Adesso si ritrovano nelle canne più nere. Una delle loro punte di diamante, il loro massimo finanziatore, è accusato proprio di quello per cui loro hanno eliminato i loro passati nemici politici, creando pericolosissimi precedenti.
«For years, Harvey Weinstein, a film and television producer at the apex of the American entertainment industry, has lavished money and attention on the Democratic Party’s biggest names and causes»
«Mr. Weinstein has given more than $1.4 million to candidates, parties and political action committees since 1990, Variety reported, citing figures from the Center for Responsive Politics»
«Among his biggest beneficiaries are President Barack Obama, whose daughter was an intern with Mr. Weinstein’s company this year. At a career workshop for high schoolers at the White House, where Mr. Weinstein was a guest several times, Michelle Obama called him “a wonderful human being, a good friend and just a powerhouse.”»
«Mr. Weinstein is also a yearslong friend of both Bill and Hillary Clinton, for whose 2016 presidential campaign he was a major contributor and driving force, holding a fund-raiser in his home at one point. He’s raised money for Planned Parenthood, helped endow a faculty chair at Rutgers University in Gloria Steinem’s name and distributed a film, “The Hunting Ground,” about campus sexual assault.»
«Harvey Weinstein’s alleged pattern of sexual harassment was apparently an open secret in Hollywood for decades»
«The RNC was quick to call on Democrats to return Harvey Weinstein’s donations after the sex scandal broke. And you know what? The Republicans are right on this one»
«the Republican National Committee was capitalizing on the scandal, demanding Democrats return hundreds of thousands of dollars Weinstein donated over the years»
«In fact, Harvey Weinstein serves as the perfect symbol of why Hillary Clinton failed to defeat a candidate many of us had presumed was laughably beatable»
Poniamoci adesso la domanda che sgorgherebbe lecita:
“Chi e come ha convinto Mrs Rose McGowan a denunciare un fatto che sarebbe accaduto venticinque anni or sono?”
Deve essere stato uno che se la lega al dito.
Uno che abbia la volontà di distruggere Hollywood, tempio dei liberal democratici, con tutte le star che avevano fatto campagna elettorale per Mrs Hillary Clinton.
Uno che abbia la volontà di distruggere la macchina di reperimento fondi del partito democratico: tutti i suoi donatori sono adesso vulnerabili.
Uno che abbia voglia di aizzare, e possa farlo, il Republican National Committee ad obbligare i democratici a rendere ogni quattrino ricevuto. Il Presidente Mrs Ronna Romney McDaniel non a caso è nipote di Mitt Romney.
Che Mrs Rose McGowan sia una timida educanda non venitelo a raccontarlo.
Questa è solo una delle foto più decenti. Sarebbe costei quella che si lamenterebbe, frignando, di aver subito un sexual harassment?
→ The New York Times. 2017-10-06. Harvey Weinstein’s Money Shouldn’t Buy Democrats’ Silence
«For years, Harvey Weinstein, a film and television producer at the apex of the American entertainment industry, has lavished money and attention on the Democratic Party’s biggest names and causes.
Mr. Weinstein has given more than $1.4 million to candidates, parties and political action committees since 1990, Variety reported, citing figures from the Center for Responsive Politics. Among his biggest beneficiaries are President Barack Obama, whose daughter was an intern with Mr. Weinstein’s company this year. At a career workshop for high schoolers at the White House, where Mr. Weinstein was a guest several times, Michelle Obama called him “a wonderful human being, a good friend and just a powerhouse.”
Mr. Weinstein is also a yearslong friend of both Bill and Hillary Clinton, for whose 2016 presidential campaign he was a major contributor and driving force, holding a fund-raiser in his home at one point. He’s raised money for Planned Parenthood, helped endow a faculty chair at Rutgers University in Gloria Steinem’s name and distributed a film, “The Hunting Ground,” about campus sexual assault. ….»
→ The Washington Post. 2017-10-06. A liberal double standard on Harvey Weinstein? It’s not that simple.
«Harvey Weinstein’s alleged pattern of sexual harassment was apparently an open secret in Hollywood for decades. But the rest of us know about it because the New York Times’s Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey exposed it last week. ….
Weinstein, a longtime Democratic donor who presents himself as a champion of progressive causes ….
This reporting reality complicates the double-standard narrative advanced by some conservatives, who point to the absence of critical commentary by late-night comedians, many actors and “Saturday Night Live” as evidence that the media is insufficiently outraged by Weinstein’s alleged behavior ….»
→ Daily Best. 2017-10-06. Yes, Hillary—and the Democrats—Do Have a Harvey Weinstein Problem
«The RNC was quick to call on Democrats to return Harvey Weinstein’s donations after the sex scandal broke. And you know what? The Republicans are right on this one.
Hours after The New York Times released a report alleging numerous instances of sexual harassment by movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, the Republican National Committee was capitalizing on the scandal, demanding Democrats return hundreds of thousands of dollars Weinstein donated over the years. The move smacked of opportunism—but it was savvy, because what the RNC clearly knows that some Democrats don’t is that Harvey Weinstein and men like him have already helped the GOP. In fact, Harvey Weinstein serves as the perfect symbol of why Hillary Clinton failed to defeat a candidate many of us had presumed was laughably beatable. ….»
→ Cnn. 2017-10-06. Harvey Weinstein is now a big problem for Democrats
«Thursday’s New York Times report detailing decades of inappropriate sexual conduct toward women by Miramax co-founder Harvey Weinstein puts Democrats in a very uncomfortable position.
Weinstein has, for years and years, been a major — and high profile — Democratic donor and fundraiser. He has doled out hundreds of thousands — and helped raise millions — for Democratic candidates up and down the ballot. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Weinstein had made 185 individual donations to a variety of Democratic candidate and liberal-aligned organizations dating back to the early 1990s.
He’s also hosted a series of fundraisers at his various homes around the country over the years. In 2013, he hosted then-President Barack Obama for a fundraiser at his New York City apartment. In 2012, Obama did a fundraiser for his re-election bid at Weinstein’s home in Connecticut. During the 2016 campaign, Weinstein held a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign at his New York City apartment and another with fashion mogul Anna Wintour.
Those ties are very problematic now given the seriousness of the allegations and Weinstein’s statement in which he announces he is stepping away from the movie studio to “conquer my demons.”
The initial response from Democratic politicians is to distance themselves from Weinstein by returning donations from him. In the wake of Thursday’s story, Sens. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico an Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts all signaled they will be sending back Weinstein’s money or directing it to a charitable cause.
You can expect lots and lots more Democratic politicians and organizations — Weinstein gave heavily to the Democratic National Committee, among others — to follow the lead of that quartet of senators.
And it’s hard to see how Obama and the Clintons — Weinstein is a long time pal of Bill and Hillary — can avoid putting out statements condemning him for his behavior. That’s especially true since Weinstein isn’t really denying the Times story; he’s threatening a lawsuit simply saying the news organization didn’t give him enough time to respond.
But there’s more to this story than simply issuing statements condemning Weinstein or returning his now-tainted money. These paragraphs from the Times story gets to that broader point:
“In interviews, some of the former employees who said they had troubling experiences with Mr. Weinstein asked a common question: How could allegations repeating the same pattern — young women, a powerful male producer, even some of the same hotels — have accumulated for almost three decades? ….»
[Questo testo è stato preso proprio dalla Cnn].
→ The Wall Street Journal. 2017-10-10. As Its Namesake Founder Becomes a Liability, Weinstein Co. Weighs Name Change.
Harvey Weinstein’s name is being scrapped from future movie and TV projects
LOS ANGELES—Weinstein Co. is considering changing its name as it moves to distance itself from former co-chairman Harvey Weinstein, the larger-than-life Hollywood mogul who was once the studio’s biggest asset, but who has become its biggest liability.
A Weinstein-free name is in the works as the studio has enlisted two ad agencies to develop a new brand identity, a person close to the company said. In addition, Harvey Weinstein’s name is being scrubbed from the credits of coming film and television projects, people familiar.