Wednesday, March 30, 2016
A Final Word on Ghomeshi
Now that the feeding frenzy seems to have abated with the passing of another news cycle, a last word on Ghomeshi and a judicial system that works just fine.
It seems only fitting that the last word go to Cruella, Ghomeshi's defence counsel, Marie Henein. It's a helpful interview - calm, reasoned - qualities that have been in short supply in the incendiary aftermath of Ghomeshi's acquittal.
Henein also shares some insights about politicians exploiting the popular outrage, notably Tom Mulcair. Sorry folks but Tommy has been shamelessly fucking with you, Presumably the leadership review problem hanging over his head has him scrambling.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
Sadly the rage merchants aren't interested in how the justice system works. It appears their only concern is the righteousness of their anger. Fair enough I suppose. I'm not very happy with how the trial ended either but my unhappiness is not caused by Heinen or the judge or the justice system generally. I'm displeased with the Crown and the police for being sloppy and poorly prepared.
Hopefully the June trial will bring about a different outcome.
And I hope there is a civil proceeding.
A very articulate, attractive person who didn't win her case. The complaintants lost theirs.
Well, John, that depends on what you think defence counsel are supposed to do. She won her case, hands down. Her task was to present the best possible defence to five criminal charges. Her client was acquitted on each.
She wasn't out to exonerate her client. She wasn't there to rehabilitate his reputation and popularity. You see, John, like so many others you just don't get it.
"John, like so many others you just don't get it."
Mound as you own the site you can be as superior as you like and slag off all those who do not agree with your POV. However as you ask for comments I can tell you that in this case looking from my superior position as the comment writer you are wrong.
@ Dana - I've not seen anything suggesting the Crown and the cops failed to do their jobs. They interviewed the complainants and got as much information from them as those women were willing to divulge. They didn't get warrants to seize their computers and get their emails or their phone records from years past.
Like just about everyone else I haven't seen or read the testimony or the transcripts of the cross-examination. I can't say whether they were deceitful or forgetful or both but that doesn't really matter. At best - best - they were forgetful, incapable of telling the "whole truth" and that means their evidence was unreliable, far from the standard necessary to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Well, Ben, wrong on what? Wrong on concluding that Ghomeshi deserved to be acquitted? Wrong on maintaining that the complainants undermined their own credibility? Wrong on asserting that Marie Henein did her job successfully? Perhaps you find my understanding of the criminal justice system and its foundational principles - presumption of innocence, proof beyond reasonable doubt, that sort of thing - wrong. Choose your poison.
I say they were sloppy due to the fact that they were blindsided by Heinen.
"I've not seen anything suggesting the Crown and the cops failed to do their jobs."
I disagree.
Their "job" in this case was to examine the evidence, dig a little further and then suggest 'bad date' & 'low self esteem' counselling to the misguided complainants.
Nice to hear the unapologetic voice of reason.
Seeing the reaction to this trial has been like watching an outbreak of mass hysteria. I imagine a similar feeling might have been in the air during the McCarthy era in the States.
Over at Kirby Cairo's, for example, the outraged consensus seems to be that Mound is a "misogynist" who has "no respect for women", and is part of a "cancer growing in the progressive blogosphere". That's as ad hominem as it gets. Yet the comments Kirby chooses to block are those (such as one of mine) that respectfully and substantively take issue with his opinion, sans name-calling. (His blog, his rules, I know, but it speaks volumes.)
Mound also appears to have elicited a sense of betrayal among some of these self-described progressives, who clearly display a sense of entitlement to his unconditional assent. That is not dialogue; that is an ideological purity test.
I stand with Mound insofar as I agree with him on a given issue. No more, no less.
I suppose there is something akin to a malignancy in the progressive blogosphere but, to me, it's when the supposedly progressive side attacks the courts along the same lines that we're accustomed to from the fringe right when one of their pet issues doesn't pass judicial muster.
I suppose I have a different view of the criminal justice system as I did the studying, passed the exams and did a bit of defence work and a lot of quasi-criminal prosecution work in fraud cases chasing some very nasty scoundrels. I'm pretty well steeped in presumption of innocence and burden of proof issues which apparently, to the homespun crowd, makes me a misogynist.
As for Kirby, I've dialed him out. As I said before, getting into this area means you're going to church whether you like it or not. You'll be judged if you're on the side of the saints or with the sinners and, if you question the integrity of honesty of any of the saints, that's simply proof that you're the first cousin of Satan.
Thanks for posting this interview Mound. Heinen is indeed a very impressive lawyer.I am one of those people who believe the judge made a right and fair decision. The complainants did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ghomeshi was guilty. I have a question for you Mound. Jian Ghomeshi addmitted that he did do what he was being charged for. You have had a number of critics accuse you of being wrong , even calling you a misogynist. This is my question. Do these people who disagree with the verdict of not guilty think that because Ghomeshi admitted that he did do what he was being charged for , he therefore should have been found guilty? Is this the key to why they think Ghomeshi should have been found guilty? Is this why they're their attacking you?
I guess what I'm trying to understand Mound is under what legal precedent would these critics find Ghomeshi Guilty. I don't see any.
No, Pam, we are protected against self-incrimination under British and Canadian criminal law. If he admitted to these assaults, and while he did tell CBC staff that he was into rough sex and even showed them a video (he's "all class") I think someone has just got in into their heads that he confessed to sexually assaulting any of the three complainants. If he had admitted it to a colleague at the CBC, for example, that person could have been called to give evidence of the confession as a statement made against interest. Had the Crown had that sort of witness they would have called him/her. That suggests to me that this is just another fanciful rumour - ginned up.
Why are these people attacking me? Possibly because I've told a few they're full of shit. Some don't appreciate my haughty tone in defending the integrity of our criminal justice system and the poor judge who got assigned this dog of a case. Some of them are just pissed off that I knocked down their favourite straw men. There's at least one who resents my past criticisms of Tommy "Angry Beard" Mulcair.
As for Ghomeshi's guilt, he lucked out. There were just the three complainants and each had done or said things that undermined their credibility to the point there was no reliable testimony on which the judge could enter a conviction. A witness has to hold nothing back and must tell not just the truth but the "whole truth" which means the good, the bad and everything relevant in between. That's what they are sworn to do when they take the oath and when they choose not to do it then they've made themselves and their selective evidence unreliable. The way they conducted themselves gave Ghomeshi his reprieve. But, to my critics, merely saying that is "blaming the victim", sure fire proof of misogyny.
The Mound is an establishment patriarch who finds nothing wrong with the fact that only a small fraction of rapists are convicted and how rape cases put the victims on trial. His false dichotomy: the system works perfectly and any suggestion that any kind of reform is required is hysterical.
These types of establishment bullies and henpeckers are helping the plutocrats drive the SS Humanity into the iceberg!
The Mound's posts also have a schizophrenic nature. One minute he's claiming the sky is falling and humanity is doomed. Next he's saying, "Everything is Ok here folks. Move along!" He offers nothing in the way of solutions. He's just a rant machine.
@ Anon - thanks for playing. See my remarks immediately above yours. I suspect you fall into the "full of shit" category.
This just proves my point that you're a bully who thinks he can win an argument by resorting to ad hominem attacks.
People who think there's something wrong with the way our criminal justice system handles sexual assault cases are not "full of shit." The statistical evidence shows there's a real problem here.
You stupid, fucking peckerhead. I resort to ad hominem attacks? I'm, in your words, an establishment patriarch, soft on rapists, establishment bully, henpecker, schizophrenic,a rant machine but I resort to ad hominem attacks. Yeah, sorry darling, but you are definitely full of shit. Try lithium, it just might help. Now, fuck off.
None of my characterizations of your attitudes and behaviors in relation to this issue are baseless ad hominem attacks. They're built upon facts and pertinent.
Your attempt to call people "full of shit" because they don't like your "haughty tone" in defending the justice system is an example of an ad hominem attack. You're claiming they have an agenda (they don't like your tone) and that's why they reject your reasoning. (They actually offer many logical reasons for why they disagree with your position.)
It's quite telling that when someone accuses you of being a bully you double-down on bullying.
.. arrggh .. !
Such a strange phenomenon to see people who proclaim themselves 'progressive' wanting to eliminate presumption of innocence and thereby give the state the edge of the wedge they need to dismantle it and round up whoever they wish.
Dana, it's not only the Right that has a fringe element. The Left has always had a healthy contingent of radicals who self-identify as progressive but ascribe to few of the values and principles of progressivism.
What I find disturbing is that they would deny an individual accused of sexual assault - that's a very broad gamut of conduct - the same rights and protections we would extend to any serial killer.
Mansbridge dances around this in the Henein interview although he stops short of coming out and directly advocating we eliminate the right to remain silent, the presumption of innocence or the reasonable doubt standard of proof.
You coined an apt term, "rage merchants," in your first comment. Imagine people attacking Henein as betraying her gender by defending Ghomeshi. Even try to discuss this dispassionately and you're denounced as "haughty."
I have tried, several times, to think of solutions that might satisfy the critics who, not surprisingly, come up with no considered ideas of their own. Ideas included a court with only female judges although I doubt that the bench would tolerate it and the idea would probably be rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada. We already provide protection for the complainants' identity. I'm not being facetious about this but other possibilities really derive from feudal or Third World judicial systems. It's telling that, for all the controversy and conversations the Ghomeshi verdicts have sparked, none of the great minds has come forward with any meaningful reform proposals.
The people who castigate me do nothing but throw child-like tantrums. I expect they have a few thoughts in their heads but even they don't want to give them voice. Oh dear, "Running Man" just popped into my mind.
Well, Mansbridge...
I still think we missed an opportunity back when Mercer was doing "Talking to Americans".
He asked some Yanks if Canada should "tear down Peterman's Bridge".
Most said yes, of course.
It should have been a plank of someone's election platform I think.
John Doyle, TV writer in the G&M, calls him Pastor Mansbridge.
Television newscasts and newscasters aren't worth watching anymore. None of them really. They're not truly about news anymore.
Running Man was prescient. I could easily imagine some young sociopath television producer pitching a reality show of this premise.
apparently the MOS needs the services of Henein,( if im to believe the attacks on his style, substance etc)
holyhellhominemsL:P
blah blah blah, im someone who can see logic in understanding that watching a bastard get off because his lawyer, knows the law, and skillfully uses her brains and knowledge to do her job, doesnt make me, MOS, Heinen misogynist, its just the facts.
now for the rest of people who dont logic...here is another fact, yes the victims were victimized but they didnt present their facts effectively, and by hiding or forgetting details they didnt allow the crown enough credible material to get JG.
its awful, terrible, shitty and watching the interviews on CBC was heartbreaking for them all...BUT
This is a case that was sunk by the victims not being forthcoming, whether its by design, or from fear, or from forgetfulness, still doesnt matter.
The judge ( who also isnt a misogynist because of his ruling) followed the law.
sighh>
I feel for MOS, blogging is like surfing with sharks:P
Post a Comment