The moral standards of the left

As everyone understands, there are no actual moral standards on the left. There are moral standards observed by the conservative side of politics that can be used to discredit politicians on the right among voters on the right. On the left, however, power is all and what you do personally makes no difference at all. Watching the rise and rise of Hillary Clinton, along with Bill, would be beyond any measure difficult to understand if you thought honest and ethical behaviour actually mattered. Such behaviour simply could not happen on the conservative side of politics, not least because the left media would never let up on any of it.

So here is an interesting test case brought to us by Donna Laframboise: Will Rajendra Pachauri Be Held Accountable by Green Activists?, which comes with the subheading, “The environmental movement routinely demands accountability from third parties. When will it acknowledge the creepy sexual misconduct of one of its leaders?” The answer is obvious and the answer is never. Being on the left means you never have to say you’re sorry.

When a 74-year-old global thinker, leader, and statesman whose very name is synonymous with climate change and the environment is declared guilty of flagrant sexual harassment of a 29-year-old female subordinate, you’d think calls for him to be held accountable would be deafening. Particularly from folks in the ‘I demand accountability’ business.

But perhaps the green movement has missed the latest developments. Here, therefore, are some current headlines to bring it up to date:

India Today: TERI panel finds RK Pachauri guilty of sexually harassing colleague
Hans India: RK Pachauri guilty of sexual harassment, finds TERI panel
New Indian Express: TERI Declares Pachauri Guilty of Harassment
One India: TERI report finds RK Pachauri guilty of sexual harassment
Deccan Chronicle: TERI’s internal panel finds RK Pachauri guilty in sexual harassment case

There are no moral standards on the left. We on the right think sexual harassment is wrong so they use even fake examples against our representatives – Clarence Thomas for example. But when the real thing is proved beyond all possible measure of doubt – Bill Clinton and the Gap dress – they stand by their man. The kinds of none issues that were used against Mitt Romney – who drove from Boston to the Canadian border with his dog in a cage on the roof of a car – would be insane except for the fact that this is exactly what was used to alienate some votes from Republicans. When Obama admitted to actually eating dog, somehow this never seemed to matter.

I actually thought that Pachauri had been taken down by this scandal. That he is still there and continues to lead the IPCC with no demands that he step down truly is astounding. He had resigned as I had thought, so I will go back to Donna’s original point which is where is all the criticism from the green side of politics for such behaviour.

FURTHER COMMENT: When I look at the ethics of the left, I am of course looking at political morality and not personal, which can be quite different. The great moral monsters of the last hundred years or so have had socialism as the basis for their power. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, and etc. Personal morality is something different but is a dangerous mix with the politics of the left. Gerard Henderson’s article today on Persecutors of Pell raises many an interesting point about how this issue is being used as a political weapon. I found this particularly interesting, mostly because I did not know any of it.

The ABC, under the direction of managing director and editor-in-chief Mark Scott, has been pursuing Pell for years. In 2013 Four Corners edited its Unholy Silence program to Pell’s disadvantage by cutting out a crucial comment where he explained his role in the Catholic Church in Australia. Scott, in private correspondence, subsequently supported this act of censorship. . . .

Meanwhile Scott, who joined the board of Knox Grammar School Council in late 2007 and became deputy chairman in mid-2013, has declined to answer several questions as to what he did, or did not do, with respect to auditing child sexual abuse at the school.

As evidence to the royal commission demonstrates, there was a nest of pederast teachers at Knox Grammar and offending continued up until at least 2003 and the issue did not become public until 2009, some time after Scott joined the board. As far as I am aware, Scott’s association with Knox Grammar has not been reported on the ABC. Of course, I’m not suggesting Spigelman or Scott are responsible for biased reporting, or that they in any way condone pederasts, just that they should have stepped in or made a public statement demanding balance and admonishing rogue clergy.

Who is really surprised that this has not happened? But more to the point, who is surprised that this is such a quiet issue, left unreported at the ABC? The left weaponises morality but is far from even-handed in how these moral judgements are applied.

[My thanks to TM for passing the story along]