Jian Ghomeshi Fired from Q

[Big Guy]

I certainly don't believe they were lying or colluded.

Do you consider saying things that are not true to be lying?

If a couple do physical things to each other that they consent to, is that "assault".

I believe that in this court case, there is no question that aggressive physical things were done by Ghomeshi to different women. Do not know how/if they reciprocated. The question is if it was done with their consent.

I know that if something physical was done to me which caused me pain without my consent then my behavior after the act would indicate my displeasure. It certainly would not be the behavior of these women after the fact.

If I was on a jury hearing this case I would have to vote - NOT GUILTY!

Edited February 10, 2016 by Big Guy

[TimG]

If a couple do physical things to each other that they consent to, is that "assault".

Technically yes since one cannot consent to a beating in this country (this causes issues for BSDM practitioners). Therefore the only question is are the women lying about the physical assaults. Their actions after the fact do undermine their credibility but do not destroy it since the relatively mild accusations have a ring of truth and are consistent. If this was a rape trial it would be a different issue because consent would matter.

[cybercoma]

So would you Deny the accused a vigorous defence?

You realize in cases about sexual assault that the way our justice system is set up, it demands that victims prove a negative—that they did not consent. I'm sure you're also aware that it's impossible to prove a negative. That's part of the reason why the justice department believes only 6-8% of victims report assaults. The system is rigged against the victims from the start. There is no justice in our criminal justice system for those who've been raped.

[Boges]

You realize in cases about sexual assault that the way our justice system is set up, it demands that victims prove a negative—that they did not consent. I'm sure you're also aware that it's impossible to prove a negative. That's part of the reason why the justice department believes only 6-8% of victims report assaults. The system is rigged against the victims from the start. There is no justice in our criminal justice system for those who've been raped.

That's not true, you're proving a positive. Did the assault or rape occur? In this instance the the defence is that anything that happened was consensual anyway.

But even if that's an accurate premise? What's the solution? Flip the table and force the accused to prove that they didn't rape someone beyond a reasonable doubt?

Now it's interesting that in the media (social and conventional) we're seeing people saying that it's completely irrelevant what these women did after the alleged assault. It's telling that the Crown didn't call any witnesses speaking to the idea that an assaulted woman may act irrationally afterwards and that there may have been a power dynamic that justifies their behaviour.

Is it hard to believe that the Crown didn't think they would need to put forward such evidence because these women never made their actions public until the defence dropped it on everyone's head this past week?

In that case the accusers did themselves absolutely no favours by being dishonest.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Boges

[cybercoma]

How do you prove a rape occurred without proving there was no consent? If the accused is proven innocent then he doesn't need to prove that consent was given. The accuser has to prove it wasn't.

Edited February 10, 2016 by cybercoma

[Boges]

How do you prove a rape occurred without proving there was no consent? If the accused is proven innocent then he doesn't need to prove that consent was given. The accuser has to prove it wasn't.

Well in some cases there would be physical evidence that a sexual assault occurred. That assumes a fight was put up though. That's not applicable in this case because even if there was physical evidence at the time, we're 13 years after the fact and accusers did nothing in the wake of the assault.

I understand the problem you're putting forward, I just don't see any solution.

[cybercoma]

I don't see any solution either, but it's a very real problem and the reason so many people get away with rape. I get that there are concerns about false accusations, but the fact of the matter is those are dwarfed in comparison to the number of rapists who don't even see a court room.

[Hal 9000]

I don't see any solution either, but it's a very real problem and the reason so many people get away with rape. I get that there are concerns about false accusations, but the fact of the matter is those are dwarfed in comparison to the number of rapists who don't even see a court room.

Wait a second! Did somebody get raped?

[cybercoma]

Thousands of women every year and even some men.

Edited February 10, 2016 by cybercoma

[Boges]

Today a statement by another Trailer Park Boys actress that bolsters Lucy Decouture's testimony was submitted into evidence.

But she didn't get cross examined. If Ghomeshi is convicted it's grounds for immediate appeal. Must mean the judge is leaning towards an acquittal.

[Hal 9000]

Thousands of women every year and even some men.

This isn't a rape case.

Please start a new thread if you want to discuss rape, this isn't the place for it.

[Hal 9000]

Today a statement by another Trailer Park Boys actress that bolsters Lucy Decouture's testimony was submitted into evidence.

But she didn't get cross examined. If Ghomeshi is convicted it's grounds for immediate appeal. Must mean the judge is leaning towards an acquittal.

Her statement obviously added nothing, would likely be more damage to the Crown to see the same old same old from these women. If there was anything to her statement, she woulda testified and been crossed. It can be recorded that she had her say - that's all this is about. I think everyone just wants this case to end.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Hal 9000

[The_Squid]

I think he probably did assault them. I think their behaviour afterwards hurts their case very much. He obviously picked his victims very well. There is certainly reasonable doubt that he actually committed a crime.

But to demonize these women as if they falsely accused him of this is very naive (and mysoginistic). He will be found "not guilty", he won't be found "innocent".

Edited February 10, 2016 by The_Squid

[overthere]

I think he probably did assault them. I think their behaviour afterwards hurts their case very much. He obviously picked his victims very well. There is certainly reasonable doubt that he actually committed a crime.

But to demonize these women as if they falsely accused him of this is very naive (and mysoginistic). He will be found "not guilty", he won't be found "innocent".

Ghomeshi is the Devil, with the ability to slap women, bedazzle them after that, then look 12 years into their futures for women who will turn out to be liars.

Now please reconcile your notions that he is not guilty, yet had 'victims'.

The blame rests with the Crown and the police, who both failed in their duty. If they had interviewed the complainants( not victims), with any level of professionalism- this case would not and could not have come to trial.

I would be willing to call them 'victims' if they were in any way credible.

And now Ghomeshi has no job, no career and probably owes several hundred grand in legal fees. He is not going to let that go.....

[TimG]

The system is rigged against the victims from the start. There is no justice in our criminal justice system for those who've been raped.

You can use that same argument for victims of assault, murder, fraud, et. al. There is nothing special about victims of rape. That said, the system is designed to ensure that innocent people are not likely to be convicted and that the police are held to high standards of conduct. If that means that some victims don't get the justice they are seeking then so be it. Your complaints do not justify turning the principals of the system on its head.

[Hal 9000]

I think he probably did assault them. I think their behaviour afterwards hurts their case very much. He obviously picked his victims very well. There is certainly reasonable doubt that he actually committed a crime.

But to demonize these women as if they falsely accused him of this is very naive (and mysoginistic). He will be found "not guilty", he won't be found "innocent".

I can accept you making the argument that their accusations being false is naive, but there is nothing misogynistic about it. You people have to stop screaming misogynist every time someone possessing a vagina gets called out for her behaviour.

BTW - Most people here, maybe all of us agree that Ghomeshi is a douche who likely did what he was accused of, the question is one of degree and consent. Also, what can and was proven in a court of law.

[TimG]

BTW - Most people here, maybe all of us agree that Ghomeshi is a douche who likely did what he was accused of, the question is one of degree and consent. Also, what can and was proven in a court of law.

Consent is not at issue for the physical assault charges. No one can consent to physical assault in this county. The sexual assault charge does depend on consent. That will be hard to show.

[Big Guy]

Thousands of women every year and even some men.

Actually, there are more men that are raped than are women:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449454/More-men-raped-US-women-including-prison-sexual-abuse.html

[The_Squid]

Actually, there are more men that are raped than are women:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449454/More-men-raped-US-women-including-prison-sexual-abuse.html

Not in the general population.... you have to look at prisons in the U.S. to skew those statistics. Although, that says a lot about how messed up the prison system is down there.

[cybercoma]

You can use that same argument for victims of assault, murder, fraud, et. al. .

The same argument? Consent has absolutely nothing to do with those other crimes. So maybe some argument that you mistakenly think I made could be made about those other things, but certainly not the actual argument I made. Edited February 11, 2016 by cybercoma

[TimG]

The same argument? Consent has absolutely nothing to do with those other crimes.

But in all of those crimes the crown has to prove the accused committed the crime beyond reasonable doubt. As part of the trial victims and eye witnesses are often attacked by defense lawyers to undermine their credibility. Inconsistencies in stories are hammered on as is the behavior of the victim/witness before and after the crime. You are trying to make a distinction that is not relevant. The issue is the justice system requires that the crown prove its case and that onus can be traumatizing for witness/victims no matter what the crime.

[cybercoma]

The distinction of consent is absolutely relevant because it puts the Crown in a position of proving a negative, I'm not sure why it's so tough for you to see the difference in these cases.

[cybercoma]

Also, I'm not going to go back and forth on your false equivalences. If you don't get it, I don't care. But know that you're not discussing any argument that I've made if you continue to ignore hiw consent plays into this.

[Smallc]

I'm not really convinced by this whole story anymore. If it were up to me, he would walk.

[TimG]

The distinction of consent is absolutely relevant because it puts the Crown in a position of proving a negative, I'm not sure why it's so tough for you to see the difference in these cases.

Not at all. All the accuser needs to do is demonstrate that he/she did not consent by pointing to concrete actions that communicate the lack of consent (such as saying no or stop). Doing that does not require proving a negative. It requires proving that concrete actions took place. Your "proving a negative" narrative is nonsense.