2 more liberal MP's gone.

[On Guard for Thee]

Last I looked, this was about MP's claiming sexual harassment, now it's about raping hookers! Seriously people!

And you fail to see the connection? Seriously? Maybe reread the posts.

[Smallc]

Isn't assault criminal activity?

We're talking about an alleged assault.

[Smallc]

Last I looked, this was about MP's claiming sexual harassment, now it's about raping hookers! Seriously people!

I'm not sure how it migrated there. For me, it serves to show that many on the left are not so attached to the idea of innocent until proven guilty.

[On Guard for Thee]

We're talking about an alleged assault.

Yes. Alleged is what happens that can end up getting into a court. We know that. Have you been asleep? And again. what's your point?

[Smallc]

Yes. Alleged is what happens that can end up getting into a court. We know that. Have you been asleep? And again. what's your point?

That the assault hasn't been proven. In a situation where the evidence is not overwhelming, but enough to get everyone into court, the trial often becomes a battle of credibility. Those involved in criminal activity and/or a risky lifestyle are not as credible. It's not really that difficult a concept.

[On Guard for Thee]

That the assault hasn't been proven. In a situation where the evidence is not overwhelming, but enough to get everyone into court, the trial often becomes a battle of credibility. Those involved in criminal activity and/or a risky lifestyle are not as credible. It's not really that difficult a concept.

And that credibility should not be calculated based on how many previous boyfriends the woman may have had. Keep in mind it wasn't all that long ago we couldn't even work or open our business on Sundays because apparently the bible told us so. It's that kind of stilted mentality we need to expunge from our legal system. We've come a ways but we have a ways to go.

[Smallc]

And accusations with little base should hold even less weight. When you're comparing two people with a lack of convincing evidence, their life comes into play as much as the circumstances of the alleged crime. Also, it's worth noting that prostitution is illegal. It shouldn't be, but it is. Those openly engaged in criminal activity will never have the same credibility.

Again, this is all very situationally based.

[Hal 9000]

And you fail to see the connection? Seriously? Maybe reread the posts.

I know how it's progressed, but it's like beginning a thread about name calling and correlating it to murder.

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

Has anybody stepped back and seen how immature this is?

First of all this whole discussion is based on 100% hearsay, we don't have a clue what actually happened.

Parliament should have a "timeout" provision where they can send the quarreling parties to a room with a mediator until they can straighten out their differences. If the offending people were that bad charge them and get it over with, if not make them apologize and get on with business. I find it amazing parliament needs to be run like a daycare.

Another thing. If this is being used as a lever for political advantage the whole party should be kicked out and made to watch from the sidelines for a month.

It's like Alberta politics where grade six kids found their behavior appalling http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-legislature-too-disrespectful-for-school-visits-1.2568871 .

[Argus]

Whether she likes to wear mini skirts or how many sex partners she has had in her life are not at all relevant.

What she's wearing, probably not, but her past sexual history could be important if it contradicted the story she's telling and supported the story he told.

For example, say she complains he raped her, and as a bit of evidence, she shows rope burns on her wrists from where he tied her up. But supposed the defense has evidence showing she liked bondage and often asked guys to tie her up? Should that not be introduced?

Or say a woman complains another woman raped her, and in her testimony says she's completely heterosexual and has zero interest in women. Yet she has had sex with women many times in her past. Should that not be something the defense can use?

Edited November 23, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

Oh, you think Jian Ghomeshi can't afford a pretty good lawyer? Or how about Bill Cosby? And BTW, if I'm the accused I don't have to say anything. It's her word against my lawyers.

Well paid media personalities are normally the people charged in these cases, of course...

[Argus]

Are we still talking about sexual harassment, or have you guys drifted into the rape topic again? I like to know because sometimes the answers are different.

Had a young lady used to sit across from my cubicle liked to wear low riding jeans and thongs. My desk faced out my door and into hers. Her desk faced to the side. Every time she bent over the desk I could see several inches of her thong, and so could anyone passing by in the aisle. Now we had a very friendly relationship (totally asexual) so I used to comment on that "Oh, you're wearing the purple thong today. Good choice!" Her response was normally to roll her eyes and pull up her pants. Now, if we didn't have a good relationship, I suppose that could be seen as sexual harassment. On the other hand, maybe I could complain she was sexually harassing me with those thongs. It's really all a matter of evaluating the situations and personalities.

[Big Guy]

Scene one - Mary is treated for a gunshot wound. She claims that Joe shot her. Mary goes to the police with her accusation. There is no other evidence than "he said, she said". The police do not lay any charges. Is this justice?

Scene two - Mary claims that Joe shot her. She goes to Joe's boss and asks him to deal with it. She does not want to be identified and does not want the police involved. She has no evidence except for her accusation. Joe says he did not do it. Joe's boss suspends Joe with pay. Is this justice?

[Argus]

How many times? Seriously, how often do I have to ask this?

Hard to find stats when no one is keeping stats.

On a related issue, we have this:

http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201206042026/headline-news/lawyers-alarmed-at-criminal-charges-in-family-cases

[On Guard for Thee]

What she's wearing, probably not, but her past sexual history could be important if it contradicted the story she's telling and supported the story he told.

For example, say she complains he raped her, and as a bit of evidence, she shows rope burns on her wrists from where he tied her up. But supposed the defense has evidence showing she liked bondage and often asked guys to tie her up? Should that not be introduced?

Or say a woman complains another woman raped her, and in her testimony says she's completely heterosexual and has zero interest in women. Yet she has had sex with women many times in her past. Should that not be something the defense can use?

[On Guard for Thee]

What she's wearing, probably not, but her past sexual history could be important if it contradicted the story she's telling and supported the story he told.

For example, say she complains he raped her, and as a bit of evidence, she shows rope burns on her wrists from where he tied her up. But supposed the defense has evidence showing she liked bondage and often asked guys to tie her up? Should that not be introduced?

Or say a woman complains another woman raped her, and in her testimony says she's completely heterosexual and has zero interest in women. Yet she has had sex with women many times in her past. Should that not be something the defense can use?

Well I see where you are trying to go but your examples are actually quite flimsy. In the first, even if she does like to be tied up during sex it does not follow that she likes to be raped. If she is trying to present rope burns as evidence that were not part of the rape then she's perjuring herself and then hopefully a medical expert could determine the age of said injuries. The second one doesn't make a lot of sense either, but I suppose it's possible, but again, what her sexual orientation is, or was, or has been, has really no bearing on whether or not she was raped. As I think Cyber pointed out in these cases if there is evidence of the kind you are trying to put forward, it is supposed to be provided to the court confidentially so as to be assessed as to whether it can actually be brought into the court room. Also I think someone on this thread tried to insinuate than in such cases the Crown is the accuser's lawyer, and that's also faulty.

[Argus]

Well I see where you are trying to go but your examples are actually quite flimsy. In the first, even if she does like to be tied up during sex it does not follow that she likes to be raped. If she is trying to present rope burns as evidence that were not part of the rape then she's perjuring herself and then hopefully a medical expert could determine the age of said injuries. The second one doesn't make a lot of sense either, but I suppose it's possible, but again, what her sexual orientation is, or was, or has been, has really no bearing on whether or not she was raped. As I think Cyber pointed out in these cases if there is evidence of the kind you are trying to put forward, it is supposed to be provided to the court confidentially so as to be assessed as to whether it can actually be brought into the court room. Also I think someone on this thread tried to insinuate than in such cases the Crown is the accuser's lawyer, and that's also faulty.

In both cases her past history could be used to discredit her statements and evidence. The age of the rope burns is unimportant. If she is someone who likes being tied up then even consensual sex could produce rope burns.

Accusations of rape often turn on whether it was consensual or not. Clearly a heterosexual woman (or man) who has zero interest in the same sex would be unlikely to give permission for such sex, but if it emerged they actually did enjoy it from time to time, where is their case?

[On Guard for Thee]

In both cases her past history could be used to discredit her statements and evidence. The age of the rope burns is unimportant. If she is someone who likes being tied up then even consensual sex could produce rope burns.

Accusations of rape often turn on whether it was consensual or not. Clearly a heterosexual woman (or man) who has zero interest in the same sex would be unlikely to give permission for such sex, but if it emerged they actually did enjoy it from time to time, where is their case?

Look, the whole thing boils down to was what is being contested consensual or not. What happened yesterday or last week is often improperly used as a discrediting tactic which does nothing to address real issue. The age of the rope burns could very well be important is she tried to use them as evidence but it turns out they were much older than when the contested event occurred. That kind of thing would and should go to discrediting a witness.

[Argus]

Look, the whole thing boils down to was what is being contested consensual or not. What happened yesterday or last week is often improperly used as a discrediting tactic which does nothing to address real issue. The age of the rope burns could very well be important is she tried to use them as evidence but it turns out they were much older than when the contested event occurred. That kind of thing would and should go to discrediting a witness.

The point I'm making is that there are situations where the past sexual history of a complainant could be quite properly used to throw doubt on her testimony. I don't agree that past sexual history ought to be used to cast doubt on the morality of the complainant, but as a witness, they certainly should, in some situations, play a part in assessing the veracity of her testimony.

[On Guard for Thee]

The point I'm making is that there are situations where the past sexual history of a complainant could be quite properly used to throw doubt on her testimony. I don't agree that past sexual history ought to be used to cast doubt on the morality of the complainant, but as a witness, they certainly should, in some situations, play a part in assessing the veracity of her testimony.

I would agree as long as the testimony is germane to the case at hand. I think far too often in the past, frivolous character assassination has intimidated valid victims from bothering to come forward. That tide seems to be turning quite quickly.

[Argus]

I would agree as long as the testimony is germane to the case at hand. I think far too often in the past, frivolous character assassination has intimidated valid victims from bothering to come forward. That tide seems to be turning quite quickly.

There was a time when simply showing a complainant had had out-of-wedlock sex a few times previously was sufficient to mark her as a whore in the minds of the good burghers of a community. That time, I would think, is long past.

[overthere]

I would agree as long as the testimony is germane to the case at hand. I think far too often in the past, frivolous character assassination has intimidated valid victims from bothering to come forward. That tide seems to be turning quite quickly.

Yep that tide of 'frivolous character assassination ' turned in a heartbeat for the two people suspended from caucus.

[hitops]

" Sexual harassment poisons the workplace, needs to be addressed"

means ... that workplaces have policies and procedures in place to deal with harassment ... except in parliament ... and that needs to be addressed.

Still nothing here with any real meaning. Sounds like a politician.

[hitops]

Of course they're analogous. It's the kind of logic you're using. In all of those cases, people have systemic barriers to doing what a white middle-class male would do. In this case, you're saying women should just do what you as a man would do. They should just come forward, despite all of the barriers to doing so that women have been trying to tell us over and over again. Instead of actually listening to what the women in the thread are saying, you keep telling saying, and I'm paraphrasing, "Listen here, kitten. My opinion is more important than yours even though you've experienced these things in a way I can't possibly imagine."

Well I guess we should all get hooked on heroin the, since that's the only way we can possibly understand what they go through to make appropriate policy. I guess we should allow industries to regulate themselves, because you know, us peons have no inside knowledge of what it means to be in that industry.

Obviously terrible arguments, just as yours is above. Now THAT's what a correctly applied analogy looks like.

'The systemic barriers' argument is cute. Firstly, there's no evidence of any systemic barriers beyond the word of a few loud complainers. Secondarily, while woman can be a more vulnerable position because of being physically weaker that men do not, men have a different barrier - the possibility of being falsely accused, that women do not, due to current social attitudes.

Anyway my immigrant family laughs at this kind of nonsense. Being Indian, when you are not the right 'colour' yet you succeed well beyond the average white (which Indians and Chinese do statistically), you realize how silly the race arguments is. To be more specific to your comment on blacks, black immigrants in the US outperform the average white, and FAR outperform the average black, putting to bed the racism argument. Nevermind the fact that black women widely outperform black men, despite being the same color.

It has very little to do with how you believes people see you, and everything to do with how you see yourself. Different people, different cultures have different outcomes. Successful women do not spend time lamenting the possible male predators out there, they spend time being successful (like the women in my family). Successful immigrants do not think about their color, they think about bettering themselves and accomplishing their goals (like my family).

Your attitudes are insulting to immigrants who don't see themselves as the victims, because when it results in pointless navel-gazing and affirmative action approaches, it diminishes the success of those immigrants.

Edited November 24, 2014 by hitops

[cybercoma]

Well I guess we should all get hooked on heroin the, since that's the only way we can possibly understand what they go through to make appropriate policy. I guess we should allow industries to regulate themselves, because you know, us peons have no inside knowledge of what it means to be in that industry.Obviously terrible arguments, just as yours is above. Now THAT's a correctly applied analogy. I suggest that you take your own advice, and until you become a woman, refrain from commenting on this issue.

I'm not the one who thinks my experiences are generalizable to everyone. You are. The opportunities you have in situations aren't the same as everyone else. That's the problem with your logic. If you don't care to understand it, continue buring your head in the sand and acting baffled when others don't or aren't able to do what you would do.