 |
| Nick Cooney |
Bluestockings announced the cancellation with this cryptic statement:
Tonight’s event with Nick Cooney has been cancelled by Bluestockings. This is unusual. We’ve taken this action because we’ve become aware of plans to disrupt his talk by folks who strongly object to his presence at Bluestockings.
Bluestockings is service to truth, and our mission aims us toward participatory movement building for a more just world. However, Bluestockings has neither the mission nor the ability to mediate specific interpersonal conflicts within the greater activist community. Bluestockings is not a party to this dispute and cannot referee it. As such, we have canceled this reading because we are unwilling to knowingly put visitors and attendees in the middle of this conflict.
Reading Bluestockings statement many were left scratching their heads -- until the activists who called for the cancellation circulated the following text on email and as a flyer:
"Nick Cooney has an ugly history of violence against women, including instances of physical, sexual and emotional violence against partners in relationships and other activists. These assaults have come in the form of sexual coercion and bullying, emotional manipulation and intimidation. At least four women have reported experiencing abuse by Cooney. Furthermore, Cooney has also threatened to harm women's companion animals in an attempt to intimidate and control both partners and other women in the activist community. When these issues first came to light, a formal attempt to start an accountability process to get him to confront his actions, take responsibility for the damage he's done, and change his behavior was undertaken. Nick refused to cooperate with this process. Since that time, Cooney has used slander, denial, misrepresentation, and flat out lies in an attempt to escape responsibility for his actions.
Bluestockings canceled today's event upon learning of these past abuses from allies of an abuse survivor who provided a detailed account of abuse by Nick, as well as multiple statement[s] corroborating her claims by individuals involved in the failed attempt to organize an accountability process.
Until Nick Cooney has a change of heart and agrees to take the steps outlined by the accountability process he failed to complete in Boston, people who care about stopping abuse should:
- Not buy or endorse his book.
- Not organize or promote speaking events for him.
- Either refuse to attend his speaking events or challenge him at these events to be accountable for his actions.
For more information or to report abuse by Nick Cooney email stopabuse at mail dot com."
 | |
| Fran Luck |
"Dear Community members,
Those who earlier today received the message from Bluestockings about the cancellation of last night's program have not been given all or even any of the facts that are most relevant to what was behind the cancellation. I have been involved with this issue through Adam Weissman of Wetlands-preserve over the last few days and it seems to me that Bluestockings' statement is seriously misleading and consciously disingenuous. I will attempt here to fill in what has been going on--the insinuation of "anti-free speech monsters in our midst who are suppressing debate" hides the culpability of this most important bookstore/activist space--one that we all care about--in a very unethical set of decisions.
Nick Cooney, last night's scheduled speaker, has been accused of sexual assault and other serious forms of abuse by a woman in our alternative community. The victim has written and signed a statement detailing a long history of abuse that she experienced from Cooney, including sexual assault.
The Collective at Bluestockings was apprised of the existence of this signed statement weeks ago and asked to cancel the speech by her abuser. Why such a request was made to Bluestockings (which came from a number of activists) should be obvious.
However, as a result of a conversation I had last night in front of Bluestockings, with one "Jeffrey" (in the collective), I have become aware of how NOT obvious this is to some people. So I will I will re-summarize here why this most serious request was made to Bluestockings. Sorry for the "basic 101" "lecture", but apparently all of this must be said yet again.
1) Physical abuse of women by men is common in alternative scenes.
2) Because anarchists, animal rights people, feminists and others similarly inclined, do not look kindly on going to the police with these issues (and police can add to oppression of the victim and attack the whole community), alternative folks have been experimenting with various ways to deal with perpetrators within their midst for decades--with an emphasis on victims being spared feeling they have to "leave the scene" (as women victims so often do) in order to not come into contact with guys who have raped them or been violent toward them.
Countercultural community approaches have emphasized that for the perpetrator to retrieve his standing within the community there has to be some form of admission on his part, and a sincere desire to make restitution to the victim/community in a form acceptable to her. Community responses have included some form of banning within a scene until these conditions are met to the victim's satisfaction.
3) Why is this important? Because women are leaving alternative scenes all the time because of brutal experiences, about which nothing is done (often the violence is even rationalized). How can this ongoing and intolerable situation be put to an end? There must be CONSEQUENCES for this kind of behavior within our communities--if there is to be any claim of operating ethically. If there are no consequences to these actions, they will continue. If perpetrators continue to recieve an honored place in our communities, this oppression will continue. From what I've observed over many years of political activism, as well as through interviewing those who work on these issues, this happens all too frequently, and women leave our alternative scenes in droves because of it.
4) Who is responsible for making sure that rapists and other perpetrators of violence against women do not walk among us, treated with respect? Answer: WE ALL ARE. Does this include Bluestockings (through the choices it makes as to who will appear on its podiums as community spokespeople)? Answer: YES!
Yet when Bluestockings was apprised of the situation, more than a few weeks before the scheduled talk, they let loose a string of weak excuses for not cancelling the talk, including using the language of the anti-violence movement in a jargonny and disingenous way--in order to avoid taking any kind of stand.
Many of us following these events felt disgusted by these copouts, and by their continuing insistence on allowing an abuser to speak at their bookstore. At the last minute, having gotten word that there might be a public outcry of some sort (heavens! a disruption! can you imagine? among anarhists? Oh NO!)--although no specific threat was ever made to my knowledge, they finally and reluctantly cancelled the talk. In the statement they put out they tried to paint themselves as the victims of irrational disruptors hell bent on stopping debate in our community, when in fact, it is THEY who they have been totally unresponsive to community concerns by allowing this talk to proceed.
Bluestockings' entire set of actions is out of character with the history of counterculture attempts to deal with violence against women in our communities. Bluestockings, an institution about which we all care and from which we expect a high level of ethics, should be called on their actions in this succession of events. Many have already done so.
As far as the suggestion that these issues should have been debated publicly last night--well, since that was not on the program, it would have been considered "a disruption"--and at any rate, it is NOT appropriate for a woman who has been sexually assaulted to have to explain/relive the experience to a crowd of strangers. I trust that does not need explaining.
Thanks for taking the time to read and think further about this critically serious issue. I expect there will be more statements about what happened. (Last night a flier was distributed, which will be sent around). This is an important community issue that merits the serious concern of all activists.
I end with one of my favorite quotes about responsibility: "To not choose is also to choose."--Jean-Paul Sartre
In solidarity for a rape and violence-free world,
Fran Luck
Activist and writer Pete Dolack also responded to Bluestockings statement with a statement of his own:
There has been a great deal of misinformation surrounding the cancellation of the talk by Nick Cooney at Bluestockings. For the record, animal rights issues had nothing whatsoever to do with this. The reason for the controversy is that Nick Cooney is accused by four separate women of violence against them, of sexual assault, bullying and threats against animals. I have read a statement issued by one of the women, and it is horrifying: this woman reported she had been sexually assaulted, had been stalked, have been emotionally abused and had threats made against her cats by him.
Other activists had brought these serious matters to the attention of Bluestockings staff, who, regretfully, decided to do nothing. Bluestockings is a valued member of our alternative communities and we all wish for Bluestockings to continue to provide a space for us. But it is disappointing that Bluestockings had chosen to issue, to be frank, extremely inadequate and misleading statements that the cancellation was due to "plans to disrupt his talk" with no context whatsoever. It is true that several activists did object to his being given a platform by Bluestockings, but solely on the basis that a man who is accused of grave crimes against women should not be honored.
Bluestockings' earlier statement that is not a "mediator" is disingenuous at best. Nobody asked the staff of Bluestockings to "mediate" anything; they were being asked to not allow such a person a platform. Either we believe in equality for all human beings — women included — or we do not. If do believe in equality, then all us activists, including Bluestockings volunteers, have a duty to take multiple reports of abuse against women very seriously. If someone does not take these allegations seriously, then that person does not consider abuse and sexual assault to be serious matters.
I hope this clears up the serious misunderstanding of this issue.
Pete Dolack
Here is the other side of the story, if the owner of this blog will allow it:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.vegstarterpack.com/falseaccusations/index.htm
These allegations are ridiculous lies. Nick is my partner of 2 years and he is the sweetest, most gentle person I have ever known.
ReplyDeleteTargeting someone who spends his entire life trying to help others is despicable.
Please feel free to message me with any questions regarding this matter at www.facebook.com/lindseyinstereo.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere are so many articles about deep undercover government agents in the AR movement. This is the 3rd time I have read about accusations about sexual assaults. Would there really be that many rapists and animal abusers among a group of men dedicating their lives to helping animals?
ReplyDeleteThank you Meghan for posting the link. I do agree that in any profession or lifestyle there are abusive individuals.
ReplyDeleteHowever, pointing the finger at someone that shares your values in saving the lives of animals without all of the facts or from second hand information is detrimental to the cause and the relationships of the people within it.
The AR movement suffers most from dissent within. If we could all realize that we are on the same team, imagine what we would accomplish.
Again, here is Nick's statement: http://www.vegstarterpack.com/falseaccusations/index.htm
"There are so many articles about deep undercover government agents in the AR movement." While it would be a terrible and devastating thing for someone to be accused of rape and other abuses if that person did not do it, it is also troubling that I keep seeing mentions in posts (here and other places) of "undercover agents" possibly being at work here. This is also a very serious accusation, especially in a social justice movement that is already in deep fear of snitches in our midst. What this type of accusation could potentially do is give abusers a great way to take the attention off of the accusations against them, and put the fear in victims of being "snitch jacketed" if they dare to come forward against their abuser. It is hard enough for victims to get the courage to speak up (the fear of being called a liar, being ostracized from their community, etc). The possibility of also being called a snitch if you come forward is a terrible message to send. I don't know Nick, and I don't know the woman (ex girlfriend) who he refers to in his statement as one of the persons accusing him. Nick has every right to fight back if he is being falsely accused. But I don't think these comments from other people with the insinuation of the accuser/s possibly being undercover agents is fair, either.
ReplyDeleteMeghan:
ReplyDeleteNo messages have been censored, nor is there any filtering on messages via the editors of this blog at this point. I just checked -- Blogger caught your first post and stuck it in a spam folder. While I personally find your posts objectionable, irresponsible, and naive, neither I nor any of the other people with editorial access to this blog have made any attempt to censor comments on this or any other thread.
Meghan:
ReplyDeleteI realize my last comment was somewhat harsh, and I'm sorry if that was hurtful. I want to really stress, though, the danger of implying that abuse and sexual assault survivors are snitches.
Please read the article at this page by Lisa Fithian:
http://kasamaproject.org/2010/03/23/portrait-of-a-police-agent-sexism-ego-and-lies/
and please also read this article:
http://www.truth-out.org/why-misogynists-make-great-informants59966
It is a sad thing to have to acknowledge that violence and oppression take place even within movements working to end these things. But really, it shouldn't surprise us. We know that there are many self-identified feminists who eat animals. Why should it surprise us that there are self-identified animal rights activists who abuse women?
By the way -- I'm not trying to imply that Cooney is an informant -- just trying to suggest that abusers themselves often snitch-jacket their accusers, and when others do this for them it enables their abusive behavior. This does no one a favor -- neither the abusers or the survivors. Instead of going into denial when abusers are called out, the best thing we can do for them if we are truly their friends is to help them to really see how their behavior is causing suffering to others, help them to understand the consequences they face for their abusive conduct, and help them to see how their behavior hurts the movement and their own activist goals.
ReplyDeleteveganlove wrote:
ReplyDeleteWhat this type of accusation could potentially do is give abusers a great way to take the attention off of the accusations against them,
One of the two other possibilities, that of ex-GFs seeking revenge for being dumped would have the same effect also.
After a while fewer people would believe such accusations.
and put the fear in victims of being "snitch jacketed" if they dare to come forward
Isn't coming forward the point?
Rape is a serious crime. The accuser, Stephanie Wilson, hasn't gone to the police. She is coming forward, now, almost 5 years since Cooney dumped her. At a time when he is enjoying some success.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAdam Weissman said...
ReplyDeleteBy the way -- I'm not trying to imply that Cooney is an informant
Coony's side of the story on his web site claims that you and Stephanie Wilson are the defendants in several other defamation case.
I never met you or Coony.
I honestly don't know who is telling the truth, but the way you are handling this situation, no offense, is not making you look credible.
Rape is a serious crime. If Stephanie Wilson has evidence that she was raped she should take her story to the police and the courts.
ReplyDeleteUntil she does it is just hearsay and this blog is doing to the AR community what the government is doing to it. Going around the law to unfairly and undemocratically punish people.
"After a while fewer people would believe such accusations." That is terrible, to suggest that by using an insinuation that this person, Stephanie, and/or the other possible accusers are government snitches, is a way to keep possible false rape accusations from happening. If Nick is being falsely accused, it is a travesty. But isn't calling the accusers liars and proving the allegations lies enough? Why also hint that they might be government agents? If these accusations are lies, then they are lies, and I think the evidence people are given from both sides is enough or will be enough for people to make their own decisions. To possibly stifle rape victims from coming forward in the future for fear that they will be labeled "snitches" (in addition to being labeled liars, of having a personal vendetta, etc) is just wrong. Rape is indeed a serious crime, and it's just as serious to falsely accuse someone of rape if they didn't do it. But I don't see the need to pad the story with assumptions. Nick in no way said anything about Stephanie (or anyone else) being a suspected "snitch" in his statement. He is saying that she is lying, but not that he also suspects her of being a government agent or snitch. Why are you spreading rumors that weren't even suggested in the first place?
ReplyDelete"Rape is a serious crime. The accuser, Stephanie Wilson, hasn't gone to the police. She is coming forward, now, almost 5 years since Cooney dumped her. At a time when he is enjoying some success. "
ReplyDeleteMeghan:
This is NOT accurate. Please be careful about making comments like this when you aren't aware of the facts. Nick was asked participate in an accountability process half a decade ago in response to his abuse of Stephanie. After initially participating, he refused to continue cooperation. There are corroborating statements to this effect from people involved in organizing the accountability process.
"Rape is a serious crime. If Stephanie Wilson has evidence that she was raped she should take her story to the police and the courts."
You know, it's funny. When women in the ar movement charge men with sexual assault and don't go to the cops, people say "how can we believe you if you don't go to the cops?" When they do go to the cops, people say "you are a police collaborator and a snitch -- you went to the cops against another activist!" No matter what survivors do, they face attack in a movement that likes creating heroes and leadership cults of personality and then treating our heroes and leaders as flawless and untouchable.
The majority of rapes are not reported because rape is utterly humiliating, and many victims don't want to face even more humiliation of having to tell their stories to strangers, be called a liar, go to court, etc. On top of that, in the animal rights and other social justice communities, most people do not trust "law enforcement" so wouldn't go to the police for any reason. People outside the community might not understand this, but if you're an activist, I'd be surprised if you haven't faced even a little of the repression and blaming the victim that is common towards animal rights activists by police. And like Adam said, if an activist does report something to the police against another activist, they are then called police collaborators and traitors. And it appears that Stephanie and the others did make these accusations many years ago, not just recently, they just chose to not go to the police.
ReplyDeleteAdam, could you post links to the statements from Stephanie, the other 3 accusers, and the corroborators who took part in the accountability process? I'd really like to read all information possible in order to make a more informed decision.
Adam: you would refuse to participate in an attack of false allegations too, wouldn't you?
ReplyDeleteNick Cooney is completely innocent and a wonderful person whom I love dearly and would trust with my life, my cat's life and anything else that was of utmost importance to me.
It's a shame that you have chosen to believe a lie about someone that is doing his best to make the world a better place.
Again, my statement, Nick's and others can be found here. JUDGE FOR YOURSELF.
http://www.vegstarterpack.com/falseaccusations/index.htm
Our justice system, for many good reasons is based on the idea of being innocent until proven guilty
ReplyDeleteThe only people who have a problem with that are people without evidence who want to see the accused hurt in some way.
I don't know any of the people involved. As far as I am concerned until it is settled by a trial nobody knows what the truth is besides Coony or Stephanie Wilson.
Does anyone else find it odd that a man who has devoted himself to helping animals would threaten to hurt someone else's cats?
ReplyDeleteWouldn't that be something made up by a person who wanted to see Cooney hated by the AR community?
Meghan, you are right that no one can "know" the truth beside the people involved, but there are those of us out there that can make very educated guesses based on what we witnessed.
ReplyDeleteI know Stephanie and was there to listen to her deal with the trauma she suffered through that relationship. So while I cannot prove what Nick did, I feel confident in my position and feel it is based much more on an understanding of the situation than yours given your statement that you don't know any of the people involved. What I witnessed causes me to believe these allegations made not just by Stephanie, but by the other individuals as well.
Statements have already been made about how the vast majority of sexual assaults are not reported and I would add two things:
First, people talk about false rape allegations constantly, but statistically, the rate appears to be between 2% on the low end and 8% on the high end. So if you know nothing about the situation, statistically speaking, you would be right to side with the accuser 92% to 98% of the time. So why is it that people are so quick to believe Stephanie (and the others whose names haven't been dragged into this) is crazy, lying, or a police informant? It is equally possible (and statistically speaking far more possible) that Nick is either lying, or has somehow convinced himself that he has done nothing wrong even though he did? The fact that he initially began an accountability process says to me he must have at least felt it possible he had crossed a line at one point, even if he wants to hide it or no longer believes it now.
Secondly, not all cases of sexual assault are instantly processed or dealt with by survivors. To the best of my knowledge, no one is claiming that Nick held someone down and forced himself upon them as the begged him to stop. What has been alleged (to my knowledge) is that Nick used bullying and coercion to get someone to engage in acts that they were not comfortable with, didn't want to do and then came to view as assault as they began to process that trauma.
Sexual assault takes many forms and to say that the only way it can be talked about, confronted or dealt with is if a survivor puts themselves through the traumatic process of reliving their experience in the courts is ridiculous. Especially when, as Adam pointed out, we are talking about radical communities that are often mistrusting of the police (with good reason) and vilified for going to them against other activists.
Whether we want to believe it or not, being an animal rights activist doesn't mean you can't do things that are oppressive and abusive to your fellow activists. As evidenced by the fact that cases of assault in activist communities (not just the animal rights community) are not uncommon. Just because we have joined a radical movement doesn't mean we aren't effected by the culture of patriarchy we are all a part of.
Lastly, to respond to the ridiculous, unfounded and frankly offensive argument that Stephanie has come forward with these allegations because she wants to hurt the movement or is a fed, I would like to point out that Stephanie continues to be active in the animal rights movement and animal rescue. She is still vegan and has been active for longer than Nick Cooney has in this movement as a matter of fact. She also works as a rape crisis counselor and perhaps witnessing first hand the way the legal system deals with issues such as these could have a lot to do with her lack of desire to go through the legal system.
ReplyDeleteThe attempt by this man to silence a women by threatening legal action is absolutely disgusting.
ReplyDeleteThe utter disregard of a woman's own experience from a traumatic event are disgusting. I find it reprehensible that people are even considering the tried and boring responses to sexual assault as "she is crazy". Do you know how often that is thrown out at women, almost as a rule for anyone accused of anything?
As been mentioned countless times over there are tons of reasons why this would never go into the court from a survivor's side - many of which have been proven in these comments. A lot of these claims aren't taken seriously in the courts. a lot of these claims are very difficult to prove in the courts, nonetheless they are very real claims.
Nick was given the opportunity to deal with any issues in a responsible manner. Now, as he's trying to cut and run from his abusive past he's giving out serious threats to someone that has gone through enough.
Of course, denial is fairly strong and if you'd like to believe someone that is in your life is incapable of doing something this monstrous well, i sure hope people are more supportive of you when people turn out to be monsters than what's happening now.
Let's start off with a little fact, shall we? It is estimated that 1 in 4 womyn will be sexually assaulted in their life time. Before you believe Nick Cooney and his lawyered up B.S., consider the womyn closest to you in your life. And how you would feel if one of them were sexually assaulted and a bunch of scumbags got on the internet and said "Nope, she wasn't."
ReplyDeleteThe simple fact is that by beginning an accountability process years ago, Nick obviously knew that he had been abusive. It is not uncommon for survivors to keep their names private in regards to accountability processes. So for Nick to suggest that that somehow makes Stephanie less trustworthy is quite ridiculous. Stephanie is the only person who is having the unfortunate experience of having her name dragged through the fucking mud here. Let's not forget that there are 3 other people who have made similar accusations against Nick.
The idea that she or any other survivor should go to the cops in order for their story to be believable is fucking preposterous. If any of them did, surely Nick and his naive defenders would call snitch in a heartbeat.
As for Nick's current partner, I can only hope, for her sake, that he has been nothing but peaches & creme to her. Truly, I do. I can only assume that over time, Nick has convinced himself that he did nothing wrong. I don't know where this whole polygraph thing came from, but I think it's fairly clear that these are not flawless tests. If Nick believes he is innocent, like many abusers do, he could easily have "passed" such a test.
Bluestockings disappointed me in their dealing with this situation. Supposedly they are not designated as a "safer space" and therefore couldn't ban him from speaking? I would like to see a response out of Bluestockings. They have a responsibility to this community.
Most importantly, we, as a community, need to stand by survivors of sexual assault and demand changes of behavior from their perpetrators. When they do not cooperate, they should be rejected from the radical community. Period.
Is there any way that people who are reading this can see the statements from accusers? I understand that it might be sensitive info and that the names and other private info would need to be redacted, but just hearing about statements from victims and corroborators from multiple people on here is not enough information to base a truly informed decision on unless I can see these claims for myself.
ReplyDeleteI believe Nick is threatening an expensive defamation suit if the statement continues to be released.
ReplyDeleteBelieveSurvivors wrote
ReplyDeleteStatements have already been made about how the vast majority of sexual assaults are not reported and I would add two things:
First, people talk about false rape allegations constantly, but statistically, the rate appears to be between 2% on the low end and 8% on the high end. So if you know nothing about the situation, statistically speaking, you would be right to side with the accuser 92% to 98% of the time.
Our legal system does not convict people based on statistics. If judges thought like you do, that statistics matter in the case of an individual ( to their shame, some do ) they would just forgo the formality of a trial and sentence people based on demographics.
Sort of like what happens with African Americans in places like Texas.
c wrote:
ReplyDeleteThe utter disregard of a woman's own experience from a traumatic event are disgusting.
There isn't any disregard. Stephanie Wilson could have gone to the police. Rape is a crime.
a lot of these claims are very difficult to prove in the courts, nonetheless they are very real claims.
I know rape survivors. This is a horrible reality, but you can't run a legal system without evidence.
That doesn't make internet mob justice right.
Nick was given the opportunity to deal with any issues in a responsible manner. Now, as he's trying to cut and run from his abusive past
On his site he has about a number of statements from people he dated after Wilson until now. About 4. All of them had the polar opposite view of him that people here do. It is fairly difficult to get that many people to lie.
he's giving out serious threats to someone that has gone through enough.
The public accusation of rape levels real damage to someone's life, whether or not a person is guilty. That is why defamation of character is a crime. Only the legal system is allowed to dole out punishment. Adam and Stephanie are taking the law into their own hands.
veganlove said...
ReplyDeleteIs there any way that people who are reading this can see the statements from accusers? I understand that it might be sensitive info and that the names and other private info would need to be redacted, but just hearing about statements from victims and corroborators from multiple people on here is not enough information to base a truly informed decision on unless I can see these claims for myself.
I completely applaud this post.
I don't know if Stepahie Wilson and Adam Weissman are guilty or innocent of defamation of character.
What I object to is them going around the law by doling out punishment via the internet. The legal system, as flawed as it is, would guarantee certain decencies. Like the depositions, necessary for a better decision ( Cooney has about a half dozen on his site ).
Another decency of the legal system is the right to face your accusers. I noticed on Cooney's site there are no pictures, but Adam has Cooney's picture here.
Adam, would you be willing to post a visible picture of yourself and Stephanie Wilson?
Nick's picture is easily found on a google search. he's a public figure. I believe nick has had plenty of opportunity to "face his accuser", which is exactly why we're having this conversation in the first place.
ReplyDeleteas has been established, Nick himself has prevented these statements from being released under threat of an expensive lawsuit.
Adam is a public figure too. Why isn't a visible picture of him posted here or on Nick Cooney's site?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePeople keep talking about this man who helps animals as if BECAUSE he does do some good, he can not also make grievous choices.
ReplyDeleteSo, even though this avenue of thinking is weak and indefensible, I'd like to say something about Stephanie Wilson to perhaps counter some assumptions about her.
Stephanie Wilson is committed to helping people. She is a rape crisis counselor, a domestic violence counselor, and a volunteer doula-in-training for teen moms.
She helps to run an animal rescue group and is constantly transporting dogs, calling shelters, pulling puppies,dogs, and cats from shelters, and fostering animals. She is constantly helping people and animals and devotes her LIFE to it. I have never known anyone who gives as much as she does and who is affected so much by her own compassion that she acts on it so fervently. It's pretty incredible.
So, your theory that a person can't hurt women on the basis that he helps animals and therefore the accuser must be lying? Well, you might be forgetting that the people making the claims also help animals and people all the time. Just using your logic...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteReading these comments is so disheartening to me, both as a survivor of assault and as an activist who has known both Nick and Stephanie for over five years. It will never cease to shock me that people in our community still partake in victim blaming and woman-bashing. I will always expect more than this.
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of the allegations:
I very clearly remember when Stephanie and Nick broke up. She called me and told me that she was scared of him, that he had threatened her and her cats, that he had intentionally broken her glasses, and that he had locked her out of the computer and set up a password hint that just read "bitch," and that he had thrown plates at her, among other things. Stephanie was talking about this RIGHT after it happened. In fact, among our group of friends, everyone was talking about it. After this happened a lot of people stopped talking to Nick, including me. This is not new information to a lot of us, as Nick would have it appear.
On the subject of posting Stephanie's statement and photo:
It is absolutely disgusting that you ask to have Stephanie's statement and picture posted. I understand that you don't feel that you have enough evidence to fully believe these claims yet. That's valid. I get it. However, when a person is processing physical and emotional trauma, the worst thing in the world is to not only have people all over the internet calling them crazy, a liar, a fed, etc, but to have their name and their face displayed for everyone in the community to see, along with a detailed description of the trauma they've endured. I think it's disgusting that anyone even posted her name to begin with. As a community that supposedly seeks to fight oppression, we should protect the identity of women who have been abused, especially when they specifically ask for this protection. Again, I understand that you don't feel that you have proof, but it is incredibly rare for a woman to make these kinds of claims for no reason, so if it turns out that she is telling the truth, you are sitting here asking to parade her identity around the internet as a survivor of assault. This is just atrocious. This will discourage women from coming forward about assault, further silencing female bodied activists and allowing the abuse to continue.
On the subject of not going to the police:
ReplyDelete1) Do you have any idea how rare it is for the police to actually do anything about assault? So few cases actually result in any kind of justice. The system is not set up in a way that takes into consideration the complexities of assault. Not every case of rape is the "man jumping out of the bushes with a knife" variety. Partner rape is not uncommon, and coercive rape is a serious issue which the justice system is in no way interested in addressing. Nothing would have come from Stephanie calling the police.
2) The justice system attacks survivors just as much as these bullshit comments on the internet do. People often choose not to go through a trial because they know they will have their character systematically torn to shreds on the stand by the defense. As someone who has gone through this myself, I can tell you that seeking justice through the court system can be just as traumatizing as the assault. This isn't something many people will want to go through, especially when there is likely nothing that will come of it anyway.
3) Do you realize that at the time this happened, Stephanie and Nick were part of a campaign that was getting a ton of police and FBI activity? It's absolutely crucial to understand that in many activist communities, the general rule is to not talk to cops, period. We've seen that cops are not there to help us and we find other ways to process these issues. For Nick, this meant that there was a formal accountability campaign that occurred just after the breakup. This is the equivalent of a justice system within the radical animal liberation movement. Justice was sought and Nick even agreed, himself, that he would follow through with it.
On the subject of Stephanie being a crazy or a fed:
Not true. Just isn't true. Not much else to be said about that. I've known her for over five years and she has spent every moment of those years helping animals and women. Stephanie works full time in animal rescue, and volunteers for the domestic violence center and the rape crisis center. Stephanie lives in a small house with between 5 to 25 rescued animals at any given time that she is caring for and rehoming. If people want to talk about someone not caring about animals, they should go check out the neurologically damaged pit bull she rescued from a dumpster, the four puppies in her bathroom that she saved from death row, the two giant aggressive pit bulls she's rehabilitating, or any of the other countless animals she's helping on a daily basis. If Nick sues her, it's those animals he will be hurting, because they get every last penny she has.
I encourage everyone to be more sensitive to the fact that we are talking about real trauma that a real person is still processing to this day.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"
ReplyDeleteOur legal system does not convict people based on statistics. If judges thought like you do, that statistics matter in the case of an individual ( to their shame, some do ) they would just forgo the formality of a trial and sentence people based on demographics."
I didn't convict anyone based on statistics. I came to believe these accusations from knowing the people involved (both Nick and Stephanie as well as others who lived in the house that Nick didn't mention in his side of the story) and being there to witness these things as they were going down.
My point on the statistics was that you, as someone who has admittedly no connection to this, is just guessing at who to believe and statistically, you are betting against the odds. Not to mention all the proof you provide (Nick's side of the story) has equal counterparts on the other side. For instance, the ever growing number of people posting on here that they have personal experience with this and believe the survivors. As well as the growing number of people stepping up to give their statements in preparation for the lawsuit Nick is attempting to use to silence these people.
"Sort of like what happens with African Americans in places like Texas."
Did you really just compare believing a survivor of abuse and sexual assault to a judge convicting someone based on race? Are you for real? So now people who come forward about abuse are snitches and the people who back them up because they witnessed what happened are the same as racists. Am I getting this right. So what about the people who blindly believe abusers based on nothing more than their personal desire to believe they are incapable of doing something wrong?
Believe it or not, those of us who believe the survivor don't do so based on prejudice against vegan authors or men in the animals rights movement (a category I fall under), we do this because this movement is supposed to be about ending oppression. I care about oppression of my fellow activists just as much as I do against animals and I have seen far to many women run out of this movement by things such as this and the reactions such as yours when they come forward.
Also, think about the fact that Nick has everything to gain by denying these claims and nothing to lose. We have seen what happens to the people who come forward against another activist in this thread and share what is an incredibly difficult and traumatic experience in an attempt to protect the movement they are a part of. Strangers decide they are non-vegan, mentally unstable snitches who are trying to destroy the movement in an attempt to hurt animals. Why would someone put themselves through that?
The insinuation that Steph is a fed is completely insane, but a very typical claim for people to make in our movement. That's the easiest way to try and discredit someone. I went to the police being assaulted by a man who was not part of our activist community, and had a handful of activists try and ruin my name by calling me a snitch, and so I stopped pursuing the case. I was frequently around Steph and Nick while some of this was going on. I was one of the people she called crying and panicking when Nick had smashed her glasses. I came home to him meekly trying to fix them, which is typical scene in a domestic abuse scenario. She was afraid to treat the cats in the house for fleas because of what he might do if he found out that she had used medications on them that he arbitrarily prohibited. I was with them when they first moved in together and he basically admitted to stalking one of his previous girlfriends who he still hated fiercely, and explained to us how he had tried to disrupt her home and personal life. Of course we can't go to the police with this information. It is not acceptable in our community to do so, and the police are not there to protect us. They're there to defend the rich and powerful, the very system that abuses animals, and exploits the land and people. Many of the people Nick did things to don't want to be in the public eye. They don't want to have their names run through the mud, and they're trying to forget about it and not have their current lives disrupted. If Nick sues Steph for money, he's not only forcing her into a future of permanent poverty, but he's going to directly stop all of the animal rescue that she spends all of her time doing. She has probably rescued close to a hundred animals this year from gas chambers, and she is the most active animal rescuer that I know. If he sues her, it will be very clear to me that Nick does not care about animals-he only cares to enhance his own ego.
ReplyDelete"Adam is a public figure too. Why isn't a visible picture of him posted here or on Nick Cooney's site?"
ReplyDeleteUhh, Meghan -- you did notice that my picture is the avatar on every one of my posts right? And that it appears on every page of the site on the followers list?
Adam is not being honest about his history blackmailing people in the movement. One after another, Adam attempts to have people ostracized from the AR movement for allegations which Adam makes up or exaggerates. That is what is happening here.
ReplyDeleteAdam Weissman's M.O. is as follows:
*Presents a person with allegations which Adam has made up or exaggerated.
*Tells the person if they do not enter into an "accountability process", they will be publicly ostracized. The person is given no opportunity to present counter-evidence. It is "plead guilty, or else".
*Faced with this impossible lose-lose scenario, the person refuses.
*Adam Weissman publicly outs them as an "abuser".
Stalin would be proud.
Adam Weissman is drunk on his illusory power, and presumably takes on these campaigns to get a taste of being one of the bullies who picked on him in grade school.
People are finally pushing back. Adam Weissman is already the subject of a federal blackmail suit, which will result in him losing every dime he has ever owned or will ever own.
Adam's ship is sinking even further: Hundreds of emails he was foolish enough to allow a "friend" access to have been leaked, and are circulating. They reveal in detail the blackmail and bullying campaigns of Adam's "accountability" group. These emails will reveal to the public his dishonesty, bullying tactics, and concealment of evidence which disproves his lies. (As a bonus, the emails show Adam and others in Accountability Now privately insulting many people, including conference organizers + more)
More to come.
What everybody seems to be ignoring in all this is a couple basic things that Nick posted online documenting that Stephanie's allegations are false (at http://tinyurl.com/defamationevidence ) :
ReplyDelete1) He took a LIE DETECTOR TEST administered by a professional whose SOLE job is testing criminals to see whether or not they have committed sex crimes. The test showed that not only did he never sexually assault stephanie, but that he also never physically threatened her, hurt her, threatened her animals, hurt her animals, or threatened or hurt any woman he's been in a relationship with (Stephanie claimed he did all of these things). Sure no test is fail-safe but come on - this is clear and convincing evidence he is telling the truth.
2) People that lived at the house, including a friend of Stephanie's, have written sworn affidavits saying that she is making up all of the claims mentioned above.
3) The sworn affidavits also make clear Stephanie is lying throughout her statement. For example she claimed she left the house suddenly to escape an abuser. The housemates (including a friend of Stephanie's) make clear that Stephanie was KICKED OUT of the house by THE ENTIRE HOUSE, and that she initially refused to leave. They also counter her allegation that Nick encouraged housemates to threaten her. Even if there was no lie detector test, her credibility is completely gone just from these things alone.
4) Isn't it odd that every other serious girlfriend Nick has had thinks he's a loving, gentle person who would never do the sort of things Stephanie alleges, both in terms of sexual things as well as general interaction? People don't switch back and forth like that between being super nice and super terrible from one relationship to the next.
All the posters above defending Stephanie are it seems close friends of hers who ignore each one of these points, post anonymously, and make vague accusations - none of which address the serious allegations Stephanie made, or respond to the points above. It's pretty clear that those people are NEVER going to believe Stephanie made up the serious allegations she made against Nick, no matter how much incontrovertible evidence is staring them in the face. Maybe that makes them a good friend, but it does not make them a good judge of what actually happened. And then they condemn him for threatening to take this to the courts, where an impartial judge can assess the evidence and make a decision on who's telling the truth and who's lying! They each apparently believe that Stephanie will lose in court (because they keep talking about how she'll lose money), which says alot.
Rape is terrible but rape of someone's reputation is terrible as well. The actual, concrete, delineated and sworn evidence posted on Nick's page make clear that Stephanie is the bully and abuser in this situation.
Sounds beautiful. And how is this helping advance feminism, social justice, economic justice, or animal liberation?
ReplyDeleteIf we want to actually contribute to some part of "saving the world," try using the pathetic steroid-enhanced arm of the law to fight unjust and oppressive laws, rather than to target an individual because he makes people look bad.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAdam Weissman wrote
ReplyDeleteUhh, Meghan -- you did notice that my picture is the avatar on every one of my posts right? And that it appears on every page of the site on the followers list?
I wrote "visible" as in being able to tell what you look like. A square centimeter avatar isn't the same as the full sized picture you put of Nick Cooney here.
Cooney didn't put a picture of you or Stephanie Wilson on his site.
Why don't you post a picture of her and yourself. Pictures the same size as the one you posted for Cooney?
r0wan said...
ReplyDeleteThe insinuation that Steph is a fed is completely insane, but a very typical claim for people to make in our movement.
It is not "completely insane". There were several articles about a month ago about AR activists in the UK who turned out to be police who had been undercover for the better part of a decade.
At AR 2010 Peter Young mentioned that he found out that various people who he and friends of his had relations with were working for or with the government.
I'm not saying this is what is happening, but it is a possibility.
Also a possibility, one that Nick Cooney mentioned on his site ( http://www.vegstarterpack.com/falseaccusations/index.htm ) is that Wilson is seeking revenge for being broken up with.
I'm not saying that is true, but it is a possibility.
That's the easiest way to try and discredit someone. I went to the police being assaulted by a man who was not part of our activist community, and had a handful of activists try and ruin my name by calling me a snitch,
Then how can you endorse what Adam Weissman and Stephanie Wilson are doing? They are doing the same thing to Nick Cooney that those activists did to you. They are bypassing the law which requires proof before punishing someone, taking the law into their own hands, convicting Cooney without a trial and are punishing him themselves via rumor mongering on the internet.
r0wan, I am not attacking you. I've had friends who have been raped. I've read the same things about what rape victims can expect in the legal system. I've also had lies made up about me on the internet the way you have.
As a community we should not let people who rumor monger have power. If someone has a problem, they should present proof. Until then we shouldn't take sides except for being on the side of insisting upon evidence instead of gossip.
"Why don't you post a picture of her and yourself. Pictures the same size as the one you posted for Cooney?"
ReplyDeleteI would say because they didn't assault anyone. Arguments have already been made as to why a survivor might not want to put their picture out on the internet and become a public figure based on the trauma they suffered, so I won't beleaguer that point. As for Adam, not that it matters, but pictures (and video, interviews and whatever else you might like) are not particularly difficult to come by. He is hardly the hidden puppet-master hiding in the shadows people are making him out to be. Dude was on life and style for fucks sake.
But lets talk about you for a second Meghan, I want to know why someone with admittedly no personal connection to the situation is so inclined to ignore the ever growing number of people coming forward to back up the claims made against Nick. While continuing to believe Nick's story at face value with no real questioning as to why so many people would come forward against him?
The more your erroneous claims of conspiracies against the movement or snitches trying to bring down activists or whatever else you decide to make up to back your argument based on nothing more than your gut feelings are challenged and presented with counter arguments, the more you simply resort to vilifying the accusers and their supporters or pushing ideas that they all have something to hide.
I would think that you would at least be able to apply logic to the degree that you would see that there are clearly two sides to this and, as someone with no personal involvement, you might perhaps concede that your snap judgment of the situation might not be as strong of a position as you initially thought. Or at least entrain the thought that maybe this is possible.
But the more evidence that stacks against your position, the more entrenched you seem to become. Left without the ability to say this is just one crazy ex-girlfriend against a great activist, vilifying the survivors and their allies seems to be more your goal than actually weighing the possibility that a movement figurehead might have actually done something that isn't acceptable within our community.
Unless you have any actual proof or any actual personal knowledge of the situation (which you have said in these posts you don't), I would argue that your comments and insights are about as helpful as a stranger who wanders into a movie halfway through and insists on telling you how its going to end.
"1) He took a LIE DETECTOR TEST administered by a professional whose SOLE job is testing criminals to see whether or not they have committed sex crimes."
ReplyDeleteIn an act of coercion and bullying to get what you want sexually, it is entirely possible Nick doesn't believe he did anything wrong. But just because someone doesn't believe they assaulted someone and just because no one cried and begged a person to stop while they were violated doesn't mean an act of violation didn't take place.
"2) People that lived at the house, including a friend of Stephanie's, have written sworn affidavits saying that she is making up all of the claims mentioned above."
But not everyone who lived in the house and statements from at least 2 other people who did live in the house are forthcoming (in preparation for Nick's lawsuit he is planning to file) that support these claims. Not to mention the various other people with personal connections to this situation who have given their accounts that support these claims. I certainly am biased based on the fact that I witnessed all this when it went down, but an outsider would still need to recognize that whatever they end up believing, this is not a clear case that Nick is telling the truth and at least entertain the idea that these things allegations could be true.
"3) The sworn affidavits also make clear Stephanie is lying throughout her statement. For example she claimed she left the house suddenly to escape an abuser. The housemates (including a friend of Stephanie's) make clear that Stephanie was KICKED OUT of the house by THE ENTIRE HOUSE, and that she initially refused to leave. They also counter her allegation that Nick encouraged housemates to threaten her. Even if there was no lie detector test, her credibility is completely gone just from these things alone."
ReplyDeleteI wasn't in the house and can't speak to that, but the first I ever heard about Steph being kicked out of the house was when I read it on Nick's account. But saying that that alone proves this is made up can be said on the other side just as easily. People who took part in the accountability process have said they heard Nick say he acting in abusive ways towards a partner. Why is it the word of Nick & his friends (who I am guessing did in fact have a personal connection to the situation as is claimed) are automatically right and the word of Stephanie and her friends (who I know for a fact had a personal connection to the situation as is claimed) are automatically lying? Cases like this always come down to perspective and "he said/she said" arguments. If you are skeptical and don't believe the claims, I can't really convince you. But to simply ignore the counter arguments and believe Nick to be truthful while everyone else contradicting him is simply lying doesn't make any sense to me.
"4) Isn't it odd that every other serious girlfriend Nick has had thinks he's a loving, gentle person who would never do the sort of things Stephanie alleges, both in terms of sexual things as well as general interaction? People don't switch back and forth like that between being super nice and super terrible from one relationship to the next."
I know at least one other person who dated Nick who was not on that list. I don't know if she would make similar claims or not and am not saying she would, but the omission struck me when I first read his side of things. Just as the omission of multiple other house members who did not agree with his take on the relationship struck me.
As for the idea that Nick being a good partner to some people and not to others proves he never did anything wrong, I simply don't believe that argument holds water at all. By all accounts the relationship Nick and Stephanie had was rocky. People are not always the same person in a good situation as they are in a bad one. Being in an unhealthy relationship brings out the worst in people and I think we all have done things in unhealthy relationships we think are most likely dramatic or stupid that we wouldn't do in other situations. Usually that doesn't mean one has crossed a line into abuse. In this case, I believe it did and the fact that Nick can be nice to people in a functional relationship doesn't discount the fact (in my opinion) or possibility (from an outside perspective) that he could in fact behave abusively in a dysfunctional relationship.
As to the rest of your post, which, to paraphrase, basically just says the people who believe this allegations ignore the facts, post anonymously and believe Stephanie will lose a lawsuit, I would argue that facts are subjective. Ask any investigator, prosecutor, defense lawyer, judge or anyone else and they will tell you that different people will view the same situation many different ways. I have said in my posts it is possible that Nick doesn't believe he did anything wrong. But his belief in what is fact doesn't make it the truth. The only thing I know for sure is what I saw and what I saw and the aftermath of the trauma I witnessed tells me that Stephanie suffered trauma within a relationship that went far beyond that of a bad breakup. I believe her because I helped her to deal with that trauma and I don't believe Nick's retelling of the facts to be the actual truth. Even if it is the subjective truth that he believes (a claim I find dubious, but can't prove one way or the other).
ReplyDeleteLastly, as to why people choose to post anonymously, Nick has contacted anyone who dared to even post a link to this page on facebook with threats of lawsuits if they didn't stop talking about it. So while I am personally willing to and planning on giving my testimony to the lawsuit (if it comes to that), I am not really interested in giving Nick the ammunition to seek out and attempt to silence more individuals through lawsuits if I can help it. But if the lawsuit does come down, I don't believe Nick to have the slam dunk case you are making it out to be and think that at best he can make a strong case that there are two sides to the story. But litigating a persons lived experience is a very difficult legal burden to cross and one I don't honestly expect Nick to be able to clear. I wonder if Nick loses the case if all his defenders will be so quick to put stock in that ruling. For all your claims that the defenders of Stephanie and these allegations are wedded to a side (a claim that I don't really deny), the same is true on the flip side and I don't know that Nick's friends and girlfriends are exactly the impartial, unbiased individuals they are being painted to be in your post.
BelieveSurvivors wrote:
ReplyDeletebut an outsider would still need to recognize that whatever they end up believing, this is not a clear case that Nick is telling the truth and at least entertain the idea that these things allegations could be true.
But that is exactly what people aren't doing. They are either convicting Cooney of rape or Weissman & Wilson of defamation instantly.
The irony is that they are going to end up taking the matter to court anyway.
I posted a few other comments that have disappeared responding both to Meghan as well as to points 3 & 4 of what Emily wrote. They were on here & now are gone? Anyway to get those back. I don't much feel like rewriting all of it.
ReplyDeleteRe: Why don't you post a picture of her and yourself. Pictures the same size as the one you posted for Cooney?
ReplyDeleteI already posted about this, but I have to say it again. Since WHEN is it okay to ask a survivor of abuse to post their photo publicly? Even if you don't feel that you have enough evidence to believe this claim, it is never standard or acceptable to ask someone who is saying that they were raped or abused to share their identity publicly.
And regarding the polygraph test, do you realize how rarely these are actually admissible in court? The results of a polygraph have more to do with the temperament of the person while they are being tested, which can be affected by any number of factors. A huge factor, which Believe Survivors touched on, is that Nick may very well believe that he is innocent, which would obviously impact his ability to believably say so. I fully believe that Nick could think that he did not assault Stephanie, because unfortunately many people have a poor understanding of what assault is. Coercive rape is still rape, and if Stephanie did not give her consent, then he is guilty of assault.
The allegation that Stephanie is motivated by being angry that she was broken up with is so absurd! Stephanie is motivated by wanting to stand up for herself and for other women who have experienced abuse by Nick, and to prevent other women from being hurt in the future. A person who has been accused of such acts has no business even entering a radical feminist space, much less holding a speaking event there about how to manipulate others.
And to the person who said that no one defending Stephanie is posting under their real name, please take a look back and see that there are several of us who are.
Meghan seems totally caught up in wanting this to be addressed by a judge. This is something that is so common when a person from outside of a radical community sees an empowered group of individuals taking actions into their own hands. The person is just so horrified that there is another way of dealing with accountability than to go to the police, so they decide the people must be out of their minds and lying through their teeth.
ReplyDeleteAdam is part of these accountability processes not because he is "blackmailing" anyone, but because it is clearly important to him that the women in our community be safe and empowered, so he takes part in the alternative process that our community uses to address these issues. If Stephanie had wanted to speak to the police, I would have totally supported that. However, she did not want to speak with them, and I still support her. Survivors' wishes ought to be respected. Megan clearly disrespects those who do not pursue legal action against perpetrators, and I think that just shows a lack of understanding of our community as well as a disregard for the choices of survivors.
Hannah touched upon this but i'd like to reiterate.
ReplyDeleteIn any of the jurisdictions that Nick is likely to bring suit in (including federal district court), his "lie detector" test would NOT be allowed. The courts have found these to be UNRELIABLE. So if the courts won't use that as "proof", and if Meghan is so caught up on the courts deciding this, then rationally Meghan must accept that the lie detector is not valid.
additionally, the "affadavits", or at least the scope of them, are incomplete and when compared with corroborating stories they're blatantly dismissed and can't be held as definitive proof in Nick's defense. This is not only how a rational / reasonable person (ie: a jury) would view it, but its empirically how the courts view such testimony. Especially for cases of domestic abuse (where the matter is extremely private and personal).
Couple of points just from a legal perspective, and I'm speaking as a practicing attorney here:
ReplyDelete1) polygraph tests are permitted in federal court; it is up to the discretion of each judge whether they want to allow them into evidence or not. The reason that polygraphs are sometimes not allowed is because they occasionally give FALSE POSITIVES (i.e. suggest a person is lying when she/he is not) - not because they often give false negatives.
2) the polygraph test Nick posted isn't just about the supposed rape, it's also about every other serious claim Adam and Stephanie make. You really think that with every one of these issues, Nick's tricking himself? IE thinking to himself, "I didn't throw plates at Stephanie" when he did? If you do some research on polygraph testing you'll see that the only instances in which that happen are when someone is actually psychotic (seeing things, hearing voices, etc.) And you're ignoring the fact that the person who did the test is a trained professional who works for the police and court system, works with convicted offenders, and knows how to give the test in a way that will get accurate answers.
3) FYI, in civil defamation cases the burden of proof is on the defendant, in this case Adam and Stephanie (and any of you if you are repeating defamatory claims). They need to prove that Nick likely committed all of the things they are accusing him of, otherwise (if they keep this defamation going and it does land in court) Nick wins.
4) to repeat my last post: clearly for the three of you who are close friends with Stephanie, nothing is going to convince you otherwise. But you can sure bet that if Stephanie took a lie detector test and it showed she was telling the truth, or if she had affidavits from people who lived with her and Nick backing up her claims, you'd be waving that around like a flag of absolute proof.
Lastly, in case you didn't notice, there's yet another affidavit on Nick's site from a third person that lived with him and Stephanie when this was going on. Not only that but his job is working with outpatient sex offenders. http://www.vegstarterpack.com/falseaccusations/thomas.htm
But I'm sure he's just lying too like everybody else that lived with Stephanie and Nick, and like all of Nick's serious ex-girlfriends, and like the lie detector test too, right?
Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
Forensic "Lie Detection":
ReplyDeleteProcedures Without Scientific Basis
William G. Iacono, PhD
http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-018.shtml
Right Adam, because one article on a site that's called "Antipolygraph.org" is clearly a valid source to turn to for impartial information on the validity of polygraphs.
ReplyDeleteThey are legal and used by courts and police departments because they in most cases give accurate information.
Emily, did you actually click the link?
ReplyDeleteMoreover, do you understand the concept of a peer reviewed academic journal? The article was from the Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice - http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/WFPP.
That a website against polygraphs should include the article is no surprise. Your logic is circular. The study must not be credible because it is cited by people who agree with its conclusions. This is akin to arguing that a peer reviewed article in a respected medical journal documenting that meat consumption contributes to heart disease shouldn't be trusted because the article is cited on PCRM's website.
Emily, Studies show that lie detector tests are inaccurate. I don't care if you are a lawyer. Did you have any psych classes that included the polygraph? It is incredibly easy to fool. False positives and false negatives and so on.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest thing in reading all of this seems to be that Nick was in an accountability process long ago that he fled. He refuses to mention this and writes a statement about his infallible self. No one is that infallible.
Any assailant or abuser can get 10, 20, 100 letters of approval. You can see from these comments that people who don't even know the guy are bending over backwards to bash the survivor and support him. It's called rape culture. And the law suckers who play into the cops-should-be-called bullshit don't understand that cops aren't your friends.
And, to say something that hasn't been mentioned, the job of police is to assault and intimidate people on a daily basis. I know people who have been sexually assaulted and physically assaulted by cops. Going to the cops should always be the choice of the survivor. I for one, could never consult the assailants in blue for assault help.
"The biggest thing in reading all of this seems to be that Nick was in an accountability process long ago that he fled."
ReplyDeleteReally Corvus? I seem to have only read one instance of someone alleging that here. As a matter of fact I have read a heap of eluded to allegations but really no concrete ummm anything.
First off, I am no fan of Cooney's, and I will gladly eat my words if this all turns out to be a true case of sexual assault, but after reading all the available info, I got to be honest, I think Cooney is telling the truth.
I also think that AW is at best being lied to and at worst an instigator.
It's odd, all of this seems so familiar. It's like I have heard this kind of "he-said-she-said-bad-breakup-everybody-choose-sides" thing before. When was that?
Oh yeah, Jr. High.
Emily wrote:
ReplyDelete3) FYI, in civil defamation cases the burden of proof is on the defendant, in this case Adam and Stephanie (and any of you if you are repeating defamatory claims). They need to prove that Nick likely committed all of the things they are accusing him of, otherwise (if they keep this defamation going and it does land in court) Nick wins.
Pay attention to this point people, it is the most important piece of content in this conversation.
Pseudonyms are not protection. Google and ISPs do not hesitate to identify people once things go to court. Posting from wifi connections in coffee houses may not be enough to mask your identity these days.
Defending against a defamation of character charge means proving what you wrote is true.
If Stephanie Wilson didn't have enough evidence to go through legal channels to prove a charge of rape, then there isn't enough evidence to defend Adam Weissman from a defamation charge.
The heat of argument may be driving this thread now, but the financial burden of losing a defamation case are only going to feel heavier and heavier over time.
Their will also be the cost to your reputations. The activist community will come to see you as tale bearers. Many will not trust you, many will not work with you and many will not give you work.
As a member of the AR community I do not like seeing one of our own get punished and have their lives destroyed. I feel that way even when it is someone I don't like.
I don't know any of the people involved in this situation.
Please, take a few minutes and compare the potential costs and the tangible rewards you hope to gain ( and likely will not get ).
I don't want to see anyone in our community pounded.
I used to be bothered by this thread but now it amuses me. Ah, back to my real life now.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Meghan "As a member of the AR community I do not like seeing one of our own get punished and have their lives destroyed. I feel that way even when it is someone I don't like.
ReplyDeleteI don't know any of the people involved in this situation."
So you don't know anyone involved in the situation but are blatantly taking the side of the accused and bashing the survivor? And verbally "punishing" the survivor?
"Please, take a few minutes and compare the potential costs and the tangible rewards you hope to gain ( and likely will not get )."
Perhaps you should weigh that. As you can see, the survivor's name is already being dragged through the mud. This usually happens in these cases (even when they call the almighty police) because of rape culture and people like you who would rather ask "what did SHE do wrong?" when a survivor comes forward. Perhaps you should ask, what did he do wrong? It is responses like yours that make people afraid to come forward.
"I don't want to see anyone in our community pounded."
Yeah, abused is totally ok. But facing up to that abuse is unnecessary "pounding". If you don't want to see anyone in the community being pounded, you should delete half or more of your comments on this blog. You're insensitive and are feeding into rape culture whether you realize it or not. All the cop talk in the beginning was where you officially lost me.
@Auto, there are multiple comments mentioning the process and also there are 3 other people who have reported abuse. This comes from folks who actually know those involved.
Hi Corvus;
ReplyDeleteI'm not on anybody's side. For all I know Nick Cooney is guilty. What I object to is people self-appointing themselves as prosecutors, judges and police. Take a look at r0wan's post. Such vigilantism can easily be used against undeserving people.
This tool by Google will let you get a web site removed from Google's web search
ReplyDeletehttp://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=164734&from=156412&rd=1
There are infiltrators in the AR movement. Since their goal would be to undermine the AR movement, it wouldn't be absurd to consider the possibility that they would try to set people in the movement against each other, possibly through defamation of character.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying that is happening here, only that it is a possibility:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/10/466477.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/12/second-undercover-police-officer
http://www.fitwatch.org.uk/2011/01/14/marco-confirmed-as-undercover-cop-in-cardiff/
In the US
ReplyDeletehttp://www.citypages.com/2008-05-21/news/moles-wanted/
Again, I'm not saying this is the case here, just proving that it looks like a realistic possibility to someone who doesn't know the people involved and who has only heard about similar cases ( which Adam has also been a part of ) that involve a prominent AR activist as the accused.
"This tool by Google will let you get a web site removed from Google's web search
ReplyDeletehttp://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=164734&from=156412&rd=1
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=164734&from=156412&rd=1 "
Meghan, what exactly is the post of this post?
The list is pretty far and wide for individuals that can vouch for these people, going back years, including prominent well known people in the AR community that have known steph since she was at least twelve.
ReplyDeletehowever, if we really want to play this game, you (and you, almost exclusively) seem pretty insistent in crying informant and yet no one knows who you are (nor do i particularly give a shit)
I wanted to post a statement written by Josh Harper about this situation. I feel like he has a good point and it is worth reading. Especially when looking over the comment section of this blog.
ReplyDeleteIt is too long for on comment so I am breaking it up. Here is his statement:
"There has been much talk lately in animal rights circles about the civil suits being pressed by Peter Young and Nick Cooney against young women (and their supporters) who have accused the two of sexual abuse. Predictably, the credibility of both accusers has been attacked. These young women are being called everything from "insane" to "liars." I feel that it is important to make a statement about those distortions.
Rape is a particularly difficult crime to prove, and rape by coercion is even more difficult. I have no way of knowing in any absolute sense what occurred between these women and the men they once dated. What I do know is that the terms being used to smear these two female activists do not mesh with reality. I know both Steph and Hanna, and would like to take this opportunity to share my opinions about them.
I met Steph in Ohio many years ago after a speaking engagement. Her friend had booked the event and afterwords a number of young activists and I went out to do home demonstrations in the area. Steph's fervor for animal rights struck me at the time, and I thought that her and her friends managed to be passionate without having that over-the-top militancy that was so prevalent at the time. Months later I was in Philadelphia and saw her again, this time at a small conference. It was shortly afterwords that she started dating Nick Cooney. Nick's activism and judgment have always been something I admired, and at that time he certainly did not seem to think that Stephanie was crazy, or untrustworthy. On the contrary, he included Stephanie in meetings that we had with Kevin Jonas to discuss activism against HLS' animal testing and they came together to many SHAC 7 support events. During that time I got to know Stephanie, and while I was in prison she wrote to me occasionally. We've rarely been in touch these last few years, but I still consider her a friend. While we all have our quirks in our teenage years, nothing about my interactions with her make me question her mental stability or honesty. I don't have any magic crystal ball to see into her past relationship with Nick, but I wish that those of you seeking to discredit her would at least have the integrity to point to facts rather than resorting to name calling. If Stephanie felt abused her concerns are real and should be addressed.
"The same is true for Hanna. I have had less interaction with her than Steph, but the time I have spent in her presence leads me to believe that she sincerely felt mistreated during her time dating Peter Young. She is articulate, motivated by a sense of justice, and even though she has been saddened by the accusations she has faced in her youth she still cares very much about the world. Hanna was only 18 years old when she dated Peter, and I expect young people to make mistakes. When people point to minor transgressions like writing an angry message in the dust on Peter's mailbox as proof of her being “crazy” I can't help but laugh. I have certainly done worse in my younger years. Hell, I've done worse in my older years. Again, I don't know what events transpired during the time that her and Peter dated and traveled the country together, but I trust Hanna and feel that her sanity is a strong as anyone else who becomes aware of the horrors in the world at such a young age. Peter has done amazing things for many hundreds of animals awaiting a miserable death on fur farms. He has inspired others to stand up and fight for animals. But his supporters do him an injustice by blindly attacking his accuser in this case. Again, facts, not name calling, build credibility.
ReplyDeleteI want to close by saying this- I grew up deeply sexist and my own behavior towards women hasn't always been exemplary. As I have grown as a person I have striven to make changes that reflect the compassion towards all life that veganism has brought me. At times, I have failed, but I will not fail now to speak up. The accusations brought by these two women deserve serious consideration.
Respectfully,
Josh Harper"
Our movement should be free of violence, especially sexual violence.
ReplyDeleteI don't know the specifics of the allegations here, and I don't know the people involved, but it seems to me that it's not fair to reduce this discussion to a he said/ she said controversy. The bigger issue is how our community deals with allegations of abuse.
People who don't agree with how the Wetlands Activism Collective is investigating allegations of abuse and trying to hold people who have committed abuse accountable should suggest alternatives that prevent future violence and ensure that victims are comfortable in our community. I would hope we can all come together around this idea: that we need to prevent suffering whenever possible, whether it's the suffering of other animals or the suffering of the humans trying to help them.
jessica-almy said
ReplyDeleteI don't know the specifics of the allegations here, and I don't know the people involved, but it seems to me that it's not fair to reduce this discussion to a he said/ she said controversy.
What else can it be in the absence of evidence ?
BelieveSurvivors said...
ReplyDeleteI wanted to post a statement written by Josh Harper about this situation. I feel like he has a good point and it is worth reading.
Is Harper's statement on the web anywhere? I searched Goolge with the first sentence of his statement and "Josh Harper Peter Young" and didn't get anything.
Adam, I absolutely believe that you are agitating on behalf of the FBI or one of the corporate giants that has an interest in seeing the animal rights movement divided, or that you just get some sort of twisted ego kick out of undermining other people. Shame on you for what you did to Nick Cooney and for what you have done to other groups and activists.
ReplyDeleteI would also like to make the point out that a woman being "insane" or having a diagnosed mental illness, (not that I am in any way suggesting Stephanie does) does not preclude her being sexually assaulted. Women with mental illnesses in fact are statistically more like to be victims of violent crime (all people with mental illnesses are more likely to be victims of violence). This also includes rape and women with mental illnesses are more likely to be raped. And rape survivors are more likely to suffer from a mental illness. So I really wish people would not make it sound like a choice between being raped and being crazy-they are not mutually exclusive.
ReplyDeleteEarlier in this conversation people scoffed at the idea that Adam or Stephanie could be government agents trying to factionalize the AR movement ( or were being manipulated into doing so by such agents ).
ReplyDeleteIt does happen:
http://vegan.com/blog/2011/10/25/activists-duped-into-relationships-with-undercover-police/
Because women never lie aboutrape:
ReplyDeletehttp://tinyurl.com/83j49zj