Andrew Tate case could be about intenational politics and local resentment as much as alleged "crimes"

 

You know, the last thing (or maybe one of the last things) I want to do is to get into the Andrew Tate case, but just because someone is a narcissistic jerk and is an Internet “influencer” who has riled-up a lot of feathers for being the male alternative to radical misandrist feminist doesn't mean we should ignore his rights.  He and his brother are currently under arrest in Romania for “human trafficking,” “rape” and “organized crime” without what we would call due process rights, with their possessions of considerable value being confiscated by authorities in a country rife with corruption. My feeling at the moment is that just because many people don’t like Tate doesn’t mean we should try to use that to go down that slippery slope that will hurt more people than just Tate.

Further, I suspect that Tate’s arrest has more to do with international “politics” in the same way the Russian arrest and conviction of Brittney Griner was, although I seriously doubt that anyone here is interested in the likelihood that Tate is innocent of the charges against him to make a “trade” for him.  (OK, Viktor Orban is the dictator-president of Hungary, not Romania). 

But back to the Tate case. The BBC reported today about a new accuser (“Sophie”), who's claims are almost entirely BS, and shows us how expanding the definition of "victim" negates such things as "consent" and "personal responsibility." While the story reports that 2 of the 6 women Romanian authorities have named as "victims" have denied that they claimed to be so, there was a response to a comment I made about this on YouTube that claims that now four of the women denied being “victims,” and the other two are “missing.”  

“Sophie” herself makes some rather remarkable claims. She admits that she doesn’t necessarily see herself as a “victim,” since everything she did, including working in Tate's adult chat room (she admits to having previous experience in "adult entertainment"), and having sexual relations with him, she consented to. However, she claims that she did not "consent" to "rough sex" even though she knew that was what he was into, so in “retrospect” what was entered into as a consensual act must have been "sexual assault."  See where we are going here? She also asserted that Tate could be "violent," although she based this claim on one incident she could recall.

Romanian authorities also claim that Tate was involved in "human trafficking." How so? This woman admitted that Tate didn't “pack her up in a bag” and force her to come to Romania; she did it on her own volition, with the promise of making money, which she in fact did, but apparently she also believed that Tate was interested in a "romantic" relationship with her (or her with his money), allegedly part of his "sales pitch." 

The BBC also admitted that women who were working in the chat rooms (talk about "easy money") at the time of the arrests denied that they were coerced into doing so, or felt like "victims." So do we want to expand what the definition of "human trafficking" is? What about anyone working for a "legitimate" business who moved to a different country who thinks they were promised something they didn't get?

Unless Romanian authorities actually come up with something in which a “criminal act” isn’t just a matter of “definition,” then we are forced to defend Tate’s legal rights because not doing so is dangerous to the rule of law. After all, there is the revelation that anti-trafficking advocate Eliza Bleu completely fabricated her own past trafficking victimization; her claim that she didn't "hurt" anyone is of course a self-serving lie, as she used her connections to censure or wreck those people who questioned her stories, and how her lies harm real victims by putting the question mark in people's heads.

In a final obsevation, Romania was (and is) a notoriously anti-Semitic society, and there was great antipathy toward Jews who seemed to be economically more successful than non-Jewish Romanians. Here we see a non-white "alien" resident who apparently flaunted his wealth too much for the citizenry, and we may suspect that along with international political reasons, there was also local resentment at play as well as the greed of corrupt officials. These factors have to be taken into consideration as motivations for the charges against Tate and his brother.