On Guard for Thee

You seem to want to keep blaming it on the police somehow. Pursuing charges is at the discretion of the crown. Apparently they thought there was sufficient evidence. Add to that the crown has ample opportunity to interview the complainants prior to trial, and you may get why you might conclude shoddy from them.

Don't forget the niqab ban and the "snitch" line.

It's the crown that decides whether or not to proceed with charges, not the police. Once again, the crown decided there was sufficient evidence, but presenting it seems to have fallen short.

Apparently they disclosed enough to police that when it got to the crown, charges were deemed appropriate. Which once again goes to the concept of lax pre trial preperation.

That's quite a story. But other than xenophobia, can you provide any reason for these wild assumptions?

So you don't think choking someone is assault?

Apparently the people who took delivery of the 118 million acres wanted to live there. I bet many of their ancestors still do.

No one is suggesting repressing that information, simply learning to disregard it as irrelevant. As stated, what is important is what happened at the time of the alleged assault. If Ghomeshi was choking someone and was asked to stop and didn't, that's assault. What happened the next day/week/month doesn't matter.

I think it could well be totally irrelevant. If Ghomeshi committed a crime of assault, and the victims made some later attempt to contact, possibly with the idea of rectification, it doesn't change what was previously done a whit.

This actually has nothing to do with removing the blindfold from justice, but rather keeping it in place. Assault victims have had cases go against them based on spurious questions about how short a skirt they were wearing and such nonsense. This outdated concept seems to think if you dress sexy, you must want sex and so "dang it, I was just givin' her what she wanted". I don't think clear minded people believe that is justified in any way.

Oh of course, this case is all over but the cryin'. But yes, I think a worthy effort from legal experts going forward would be to figure a way to better level the playing field. As I say, rape shield was an attempt, long ago, that seems to need some serious modifications.

You can tinker with format but still must respect the rights of all parties. The rape shield law was an attempt to stop harassment of assault complainants, but it seems to not be applied all that evenly, especially in jury cases were the old style can be used but by the time an objection is ruled on, the jury may already be to some extent tainted. Civil cases are a different format that already exists, although it won't provide for punishment beyond financial, but it's something.

It is highly unlikely we will change the "beyond a reasonable" doubt portion of criminal decisions, so these types of cases will likely continue to be a bit one sided against complainants. What assaulted women may begin to do is seek restitution through civil cases. We all know OJ was guilty, and walked. That didn't stop the affected families from taking him back to court and winning.

I'll get some popcorn and wait to see your description of "the corner".

It could well be the case that these complainants were bound to fail inevitably, however the reporting I heard of how they fell apart under very basic questioning under cross is what tells me that they weren't prepped very well. In other words, the discrepancies should have been discovered prior to trial. Not suggesting their testimony should have been somehow rigged, that's totally not allowed, but they could/should have been made aware what types of questions would be asked, and how to deal with things such as failure of memory, especially after such a long time lapse.

I guess you forgot about "Odyssey Dawn"

The jets are headed home soon, Trudeau did what he said he would. The allies seem quite happy with the alternate plan. Let's wait to see how it works.

I believe we have all heard how good Harper was at allocating funds here or there, but then never actually getting it out the door. I doubt JT would have been so open about pledging money to Alta. if he was planning the same kind of trickery.

How about an extra 700 mil. for infrastructure, over and above what will come out in the budget.

That's good, because we want Trump to stay in there so he can assure the GOP defeat in November. Yay Trump.

Trump accused the majority of his competitors as being liars, and then went after Bush Jr. as being a liar about WMD, so it turns out he was telling the truth about at least one thing for sure. However that didn't go over well in SC.

That was minor crap compared to Trump carrying on to say Bush was lying about WMD. Maybe he is actually working for Hillary.

One of those procedural issues was the lack of preparation of the complainants by the crown. But that has already been pointed out to you, but you don't seem to understand it. No sense wasting more time on it.

Apparently Harper wasn't aware of that concept.

I was just pointing out how actual stats fly in the face of your previous post about how immigrants have done in Canada. I think you don't need me to explain how a language barrier could be a setback, but obviously previous immigrants got over that. You learned a language once, and so can they.