Homosexuality

[fpb]

When I heard of the well-named Mrs.Robinson's lust-crazed behaviour and attempted suicide, I was disposed to sympathy. After all, I know better than most the situation of someone who warns against sins he knows - all too well. But when I heard one remark made by her husband - to which, one assumes, she fully submitted - then all sympathy flew

Comments

[rfachir]

I'm so out of the loop - I thought you were talking about Anne Bancroft.

[fpb]

It's in Northern Ireland, so the scandal probably never made it to the USA. Besides, over there it would be fairly unremarkable - self-righteous female politician is found to have had lust-driven affair with boy young enough to be her grandson and to have used her position to finance his business plans. The most interesting thing is that this happens only days after the leader of Sinn Fein - Mr. Robinson's allies and rivals in a very uncomfortable joint ministry - has been struck by a far worse scandal (covering up for the incestuous child abuse performed both by his father and by his brother). It sounds almost as though one party did not want to let the other get away with an advantage.

[hejjhog]

I also thought of Anne Bancroft =)
And, I'd think a scandal like that would make quite a splash in the US media, too. Remember all the hype about the Monica Lewinski mess...

[fpb]

Ah, but she was American. If Americans cared about the sexual adventures of politicians from other countries, Paris and Rome would be thick with American journalists.

[hejjhog]

Well, America is an America-centered place. It's ususally made a joke of, but in many respects, it is sad.
What I meant was that Americans have as much taste for scandal as pretty much any other nation (or, well, in Russia, everyone knows everyone in politics commits amoral stuff, but we (as in, most people) just don't care). No one could understand the Lewinski hype over here, and many people said: "So, the guy cheated on his wife. Who cares? How the heck does that influence his ability to be a good president?")

[fpb]

The issue was not to have cheated on his wife, but to have lied on oath to Congress. In Britain and America, false statements in Parliament/Congress are among the most serious crimes in the calendar. Clinton, in fact, got off easy, just because it was widely felt that his was mostly a private misdemeanour, but - for instance - it was a false statement to Parliament - not, as it is generally said, that he had an affair with the Soviet attache's girlfriend - that doomed John Profumo.

[hejjhog]

Well, you made me look it up, and from what I gather the issue was that he lied under oath in regards to having sexual relations with Lewinsky, which he defined as penetrative sex, while the court included oral sex in this

[fpb]

That is beside the point. If I'd been him, I'd have refused to answer. He chose to lie; and - I cannot underline this enough - you do not lie on oath to Congress, period. Not for ten thousand wives and fifty thousand children. It is a criminal offence, and Clinton was very lucky indeed not to be impeached.

[affablestranger]

I tried making this point over and over to friends and others during the whole Clinton fiasco over here, but everyone kept trying to tell me I was being prudish since it was "just about sex". That drove me up the wall. I kept saying "It was a lie under oath to Congress!", but just about practically everyone kept saying it was about the sex. They completely failed to grasp the magnitude of the actual offense.

[fpb]

Would it have been possible for him to refuse to answer?

[affablestranger]

Yes, but it wouldn't have looked good for him. It would've been a tacit admission of guilt on his part, and (to my mind about the man) that was unacceptable to him. As most politicians are masters of rationalization, he figured better to bullshit the way out of it than to refuse to answer. Again, that's my take on it.

Also, it could've led to a Contempt of Congress charge being leveled at him on top of everything else being thrown at him by the opposition. And the Contempt charge would've had real legs, quite unlike much of the innuendo and suspicion that was the rest of his opponents' arsenal.

[fpb]

Still better than lying on oath and being found out. For a smart man, Clinton behaved like a complete fool in this instance.

[affablestranger]

Yep.

[fpb]

Let me see if I can make it clearer. IN England, sovereignty belongs to what is called "The King/Queen in Parliament", and all the laws are built on that assumption. It follows that to lie on oath before Parliament is nothing short of blowing a rapsberry to your own sovereign body; and the results of that are all too imaginable. Even individual members of Parliament are not protected from the results of "misleading the House". It is just about the worst thing that a politician can do. Now, in spite of the Revolution, American law has retained a great many features of English principles, including sovereign immunity, and the special rank of Congress. Indeed, Congress have more power than the British Parliament, since the latter no longer uses the power of impeachment. To lie to Congress upon oath is a jailing matter. No matter what the cause; because if people were allowed to get away with perjury to Congress on small matters, soon they would be getting away with it on big matters. As indeed, alas, is increasingly happening.

[elegant_bonfire]

It's there(here?), in the world news sections. It was on the front page of AOLnews when I logged on today.