Relax. Ghomeshi is still a perv. His celebrity lies at his feet in ashes. His acquittal, however, lies at the feet of the complainants. I know many don't want to hear that. Tough.
I know you don't want to hear this but suck it up.
A violent offense was committed more than one complaint was made by more than one person.
No means NO, old saw Mound but what if it was your daughter?
The age old question - "can you rape a prostitute" Sure as hell can the question is why can't we get convictions and why don't victims want to speak up?
A disgraceful situation and you should acknowledge that not just say that we need better complainants.
I have read a little about the basis for acquittal, Mound, and I think all of us should be glad that the standards for evidence were not lowered to accommodate the complainants. While I believe their stories, a conviction without solid corroborating evidence would mean we had all moved closer to a world where witch hunts were easier to mount. While I admire the strength of the witnesses, who undoubtedly faced real trauma and stress in their testimony, reasonable doubt as defined in law was definitely there.
If it is any consolation at all to Ghomeshi's victims, the court of public opinion means he will likely never work again in the public eye. They did accomplish something.
I agree with Mound... Ben Burd: you are now part of the problem for exactly the people you are concerned about ... "A violent offense was committed" huh? that is not what the evidence (even if you believe everything we heard) showed. A 'bad date' for many women, sure. And he lost his job, reputation and and everything before the charges. Seems well deserved.
But your description... and (for ex) the cartoon equating Ghomeshi with Cosby... and the whole long charade of trying to include these three weasley witnesses in with survivors of abuse ... does nothing but fortify MRA idiots and make average people less sympathetic to, and believers of, abuse victims.
This was a misuse of the justice system. Bad decisions by the cops and crown.
Oh, and there is another trial in June. Hope the crown gets it right this time or drops the charges before we see another spectacle that helps no one.
Warning to Mound: this post may attract a lot of 'heat' and most are not civil commenters like Ben.
@ Ben - if it was my daughter I would have expected her to report the incident promptly - and fully. My daughters know as much. I explained the law to them when they were in their teens before they moved to post-secondary.
A criminal complaint is a very serious business. It's serious for the defendant who often faces ruin and the deprivation of liberty. If you choose to initiate that process by bringing a criminal complaint you had better put all the cards on the table. That's the "whole truth" part and it's not in there for a giggle.
I would have thought you might have understood that, Ben. Judging by some of the preposterous outrage and accusations I'm not convinced many do.
Elsewhere on this blog I posted this. Seems relevant.
*There seems to be a minority opinion emerging that implies something along the lines of 'women accusing men of sexual assault are always telling the truth and must not be questioned in court'.
Thus in accusations of male sexual assault against women there should be no more right to face or question one's accuser and in point of fact there is to be no more presumption of innocence.
So when a woman is accused of sexually assaulting another woman which woman should be automatically presumed to be telling the truth?*
The courts found evidence from the complainants to be convoluted and it wasn't difficult to understand. However, the MAN is not without guilt...that is...if he feels any at all. It would seem he is suffering from some kind of sexual mental illness or dare it be said, cultural deviance. Actually, it is difficult to understand how women find him interesting enough to have wanted to date him. That look he wore in photos was enough of a warning.
Unfortunately, A..non, there's more than a grain of truth in your take on this situation.
One of the things I taught my family is that, when a significant event occurs, put it in writing at the earliest opportunity. Put in every detail of the immediate incident, date it and sign it. Leave out the "feelings" part. That can be dealt with later when those emotions coalesce. You can later do an addendum to incorporate all the background leading up to the day of the event.
Had these three complainants done that, went home and put it all in writing - i.e. he punched me three times in the head and then we had sex (or whatever) I think they would be far less likely to be conflicted about it the day after much less for weeks or even years following. You got punched in the head three times, there's not a lot more to say.
My goodness !! A lot of these posters would be much more comfortable living in North Korea!! Maybe we should start a moving fund for them! I kinda mean Ben Burd though!
Actually Ben Burt ,I was way too easy on you "Can you rape a prostitute "!! Are you a pimp? You sure sound like one !!! And a stupid moronic one at that !!! So suck it up asshole Ben Bur...... Sorry Mound, that I got this upset.
"Actually Ben Burt ,I was way too easy on you "Can you rape a prostitute "!! Are you a pimp? You sure sound like one !!! And a stupid moronic one at that !!! So suck it up asshole Ben Bur...... Sorry Mound, that I got this upset."
If you really mean to be insulting you sure know how to hurt a guy - let fly with all kinds of nasty names and then Whammo spell my name incorrectly, that really hurt.
But back to the question why am a pimp for suggesting that that you can't rape a prostitute?
BTW I need $1500 to start my moving fund so cough up, oh I forgot you can't get out of the basement in Mommy's house to give me a little coin - you spent it all on soda pop and twinkies!
Please, let's refrain from the nasty attacks. This is an intensely emotional issue, the sort that skews judgment and perception. The criminal law is an intricate thing. If you've never seen one, the Criminal Code of Canada is a pretty substantial book. Then there are rules of court specifically for Criminal Code matters. These rules govern procedure. Finally there is the law of evidence which is the least well understood but played a huge role in the Ghomeshi case.
This judge wasn't making a call based on his own notions of credibility or context. The law of evidence governs matters such as admissibility, credibility and the weight to be given to various forms of evidence - oral, extrinsic, documentary, expert (opinion), as well as inconsistency, contradictory and tainted evidence. This body of law has been honed over generations, centuries and our courts rely on precedent Canadian, then British, then Commonwealth, then American. There are stacks of case reports that define and then further refine points of law in the law of evidence.
The laity tends to have a feeble grasp of these things, sometimes none at all. It gives them a warped view of the judicial system, the roles of the lawyers and that of the judge. They can boil it down until there's nothing left but their instincts and biases.
Ghomeshi had a good lawyer. She did her job better, I'm sure, than most. That's the sad part about law - you sometimes get only as much as you can afford. Not everyone can retain the top talent - Clayton Ruby or Eddie Greenspan calibre.
It's interesting how some cases evoke outrage from the Right, others from the Left. It's all sadly predictable. I guess that's the genetic marker of what used to boil over into mob justice.
.. here's hoping his next & upcoming trial is based on a victim with cut and dried testimony.. and no convoluted after assault involvement..
ReplyDeleteI know you don't want to hear this but suck it up.
ReplyDeleteA violent offense was committed more than one complaint was made by more than one person.
No means NO, old saw Mound but what if it was your daughter?
The age old question - "can you rape a prostitute" Sure as hell can the question is why can't we get convictions and why don't victims want to speak up?
A disgraceful situation and you should acknowledge that not just say that we need better complainants.
I have read a little about the basis for acquittal, Mound, and I think all of us should be glad that the standards for evidence were not lowered to accommodate the complainants. While I believe their stories, a conviction without solid corroborating evidence would mean we had all moved closer to a world where witch hunts were easier to mount. While I admire the strength of the witnesses, who undoubtedly faced real trauma and stress in their testimony, reasonable doubt as defined in law was definitely there.
ReplyDeleteIf it is any consolation at all to Ghomeshi's victims, the court of public opinion means he will likely never work again in the public eye. They did accomplish something.
I agree with Mound...
ReplyDeleteBen Burd: you are now part of the problem for exactly the people you are concerned about ...
"A violent offense was committed" huh? that is not what the evidence (even if you believe everything we heard) showed.
A 'bad date' for many women, sure.
And he lost his job, reputation and and everything before the charges. Seems well deserved.
But your description...
and (for ex) the cartoon equating Ghomeshi with Cosby...
and the whole long charade of trying to include these three weasley witnesses in with survivors of abuse ...
does nothing but fortify MRA idiots and make average people less sympathetic to, and believers of, abuse victims.
This was a misuse of the justice system.
Bad decisions by the cops and crown.
Oh, and there is another trial in June. Hope the crown gets it right this time or drops the charges before we see another spectacle that helps no one.
Warning to Mound: this post may attract a lot of 'heat' and most are not civil commenters like Ben.
@ Ben Burt
ReplyDeleteWhat about replacing "No means no", with "I will put up with BDSM, but only as long as the perv remains my lover"?
A..non
@ Ben - if it was my daughter I would have expected her to report the incident promptly - and fully. My daughters know as much. I explained the law to them when they were in their teens before they moved to post-secondary.
ReplyDeleteA criminal complaint is a very serious business. It's serious for the defendant who often faces ruin and the deprivation of liberty. If you choose to initiate that process by bringing a criminal complaint you had better put all the cards on the table. That's the "whole truth" part and it's not in there for a giggle.
I would have thought you might have understood that, Ben. Judging by some of the preposterous outrage and accusations I'm not convinced many do.
Elsewhere on this blog I posted this. Seems relevant.
ReplyDelete*There seems to be a minority opinion emerging that implies something along the lines of 'women accusing men of sexual assault are always telling the truth and must not be questioned in court'.
Thus in accusations of male sexual assault against women there should be no more right to face or question one's accuser and in point of fact there is to be no more presumption of innocence.
So when a woman is accused of sexually assaulting another woman which woman should be automatically presumed to be telling the truth?*
The courts found evidence from the complainants to be convoluted and it wasn't difficult to understand. However, the MAN is not without guilt...that is...if he feels any at all. It would seem he is suffering from some kind of sexual mental illness or dare it be said, cultural deviance. Actually, it is difficult to understand how women find him interesting enough to have wanted to date him. That look he wore in photos was enough of a warning.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, A..non, there's more than a grain of truth in your take on this situation.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things I taught my family is that, when a significant event occurs, put it in writing at the earliest opportunity. Put in every detail of the immediate incident, date it and sign it. Leave out the "feelings" part. That can be dealt with later when those emotions coalesce. You can later do an addendum to incorporate all the background leading up to the day of the event.
Had these three complainants done that, went home and put it all in writing - i.e. he punched me three times in the head and then we had sex (or whatever) I think they would be far less likely to be conflicted about it the day after much less for weeks or even years following. You got punched in the head three times, there's not a lot more to say.
PROOF !! We all THINK he's guilty! But I
ReplyDeletesay again! PROOF PROOF PROOF And yet again!! PROOF PROOF
My goodness !! A lot of these posters would be much more comfortable living in North Korea!! Maybe we should start a moving fund for them! I kinda mean Ben Burd though!
ReplyDeleteActually Ben Burt ,I was way too easy on you "Can you rape a prostitute "!! Are you a pimp? You sure sound like one !!! And a stupid moronic one at that !!! So suck it up asshole Ben Bur...... Sorry Mound, that I got this upset.
ReplyDelete"Actually Ben Burt ,I was way too easy on you "Can you rape a prostitute "!! Are you a pimp? You sure sound like one !!! And a stupid moronic one at that !!! So suck it up asshole Ben Bur...... Sorry Mound, that I got this upset."
ReplyDeleteIf you really mean to be insulting you sure know how to hurt a guy - let fly with all kinds of nasty names and then Whammo spell my name incorrectly, that really hurt.
But back to the question why am a pimp for suggesting that that you can't rape a prostitute?
BTW I need $1500 to start my moving fund so cough up, oh I forgot you can't get out of the basement in Mommy's house to give me a little coin - you spent it all on soda pop and twinkies!
Please, let's refrain from the nasty attacks. This is an intensely emotional issue, the sort that skews judgment and perception. The criminal law is an intricate thing. If you've never seen one, the Criminal Code of Canada is a pretty substantial book. Then there are rules of court specifically for Criminal Code matters. These rules govern procedure. Finally there is the law of evidence which is the least well understood but played a huge role in the Ghomeshi case.
ReplyDeleteThis judge wasn't making a call based on his own notions of credibility or context. The law of evidence governs matters such as admissibility, credibility and the weight to be given to various forms of evidence - oral, extrinsic, documentary, expert (opinion), as well as inconsistency, contradictory and tainted evidence. This body of law has been honed over generations, centuries and our courts rely on precedent Canadian, then British, then Commonwealth, then American. There are stacks of case reports that define and then further refine points of law in the law of evidence.
The laity tends to have a feeble grasp of these things, sometimes none at all. It gives them a warped view of the judicial system, the roles of the lawyers and that of the judge. They can boil it down until there's nothing left but their instincts and biases.
Ghomeshi had a good lawyer. She did her job better, I'm sure, than most. That's the sad part about law - you sometimes get only as much as you can afford. Not everyone can retain the top talent - Clayton Ruby or Eddie Greenspan calibre.
It's interesting how some cases evoke outrage from the Right, others from the Left. It's all sadly predictable. I guess that's the genetic marker of what used to boil over into mob justice.