"she has the right to remain silent".

this is a good example of the kind of backwards legal logic that you get out of screwy post-modernist thinking.

the right to remain silent is something that people are afforded when they are accused of a crime, so as to not incriminate themselves. further, it is a fundamental principle of justice in the british legal system that an accused be able to face their accuser - and, yes, this is exactly the situation that produces a clear reason that this rule exists.

you can run off foucault all day if you want, but in our legal system that actually exists, it is the accuser who must identify herself and the accused that has the right to remain silent.

academically. this idea forms the crux of what lawyers refer to as liberalism.

and, it would be nice to hear the leader of the liberal party stand up for what should be his own principles, in calling for his accuser to identify herself publicly, and press charges in a court of law if she feels compelled to do so - while standing up for his own right to remain silent, should he choose to do so.

if you would like to live in a society where people can make anonymous accusations against public figures with impunity, which those public figures are then forced to respond publicly to, i might suggest moving to china.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/06/28/on-groping-allegation-trudeau-ducks-the-rules-he-set.html