Lash
Full Member
Agreed, if what he was saying on the audio was racist, we wouldn't need definitive proof of hate in his heart, or context, in order to call him a racist.I do agree it does make a difference in terms of fair discussion of what he is accused of. So if we are going to be discussing it in legal terms yes the distinction should be made.
I disagree that it should absolve him from being criticised for rapist like behaviour and also being branded as one. If someone speaks in the way he did I would 100% assume his full intent was to perform the act and therefore while their is a legal distinction between attempt and actually carrying out of an act trying to rape someone or threatening it for me makes you morally as corrupt and undeserving of sympathy, respect and such like and shows you to be a real threat worthy of branding with an unpleasant societal label.
So while there is no smoking gun to evidence it there is enough in the public domain to enable people to have that opinion of him. Hand on heart would anyone who heard that from a colleague at work be comfortable around them again with no other context being explained to you? Would you think the worst or be naturally inclined to give them another chance?