2 more liberal MP's gone.

[guyser]

... is that I know of people who were mugged and/or robbed and chose not to bother with reporting it for various reasons.

Oh those didnt happen. Your friends lied.

Heres why....

If you are not prepared to name the perpetrator and/or have no proof that it happened then it did not happen.

[guyser]

If you have been abused then report it and prove it. If you cannot, then keep your allegations to yourself.

The Catholic Church says thank you.

FN Children (now adults) say thank you.

Every abused child says thank you.

I say.....give your head a shake.

[Big Guy]

All those innocent people who would now be in jail because they were ruined, investigated, shunned, labelled and imprisoned if we just took the "word" of somebody without proof - thank me. I find your comment unsavory but it is an anonymous board where you can get away with that kind of dialogue. I assume you treasure anonymity.

If you feel that you have been wronged then you report to the proper authorities, name the people involved, present your case so that it can be investigated. That is the way our system operates.

As to my head shakes, I find it gives me a headache and my teeth rattle so I try to minimize that exercise.

Thank you for your concern.

[guyser]

All those innocent people who would now be in jail because they were ruined, investigated, shunned, labelled and imprisoned if we just took the "word" of somebody without proof - thank me.

I read and re-read your post to attempt to figure out who to and what you are saying.

No one goes to jail an innocent based on someones word.

I find your comment unsavory but it is an anonymous board where you can get away with that kind of dialogue.

I used the term to make you shake your head and think deeper, it didnt work, you are still stuck on simplistic thoughts.

Children did complain about Priests (et al) and the church. A 10 yr old being told "No it didnt" is suppose to do what? Shut his mouth because he is unable to prove it?

The same applies to the other examples.

When an adult tells a child that they are unbelievable, what is to happen?

Or...it didnt happen then ...right? You are on record as agreeing to that.

Your thinking is shallow and is certainly welcome by the abusers of society.

If you feel that you have been wronged then you report to the proper authorities, name the people involved, present your case so that it can be investigated. That is the way our system operates.

Black and white, just like that huh?

Here is what I hopoe is perfect example.

I grew up hearing about Police excess and abuse to citizens. I would also hear the Police tell us they investigated and nothing was found to coroborrate the complaint of same. SO i was pretty confident it was just bad men who got into bad situations and they hassled the Cops who in turn doled out justice.

Today w the advent of video recording we know that much of that abuse was occurring, that police could be worse than the criminals, the the Cops would routinely violate ones rights.

Now what?

Edited November 12, 2014 by Guyser2

[On Guard for Thee]

To Michael - When you make allegations about one person about a specific incident where other "potential suspects" were present then they are all painted with the same brush. By not naming the individual you have made every person there a suspect. It is not a matter of an embarrassment but one of character assassination.

It is one thing to say that "I was sexually assaulted by another MP in my early years" and saying "I was sexually assaulted on my trip to .... with ..... and staying at .... and was assaulted by another MP staying there". Now every male who was at that event and staying at that hotel is a suspect - and cannot defend themselves.

And to jaycee - I am a Judge Judy fan. Any time someone makes an allegation and has "lost the paperwork" or "forgotten to bring that evidence" or "No. I do not have the proof" then the Judge rules that "If you do not have the proof then it did not happen".

I still believe that accusations of individuals without proof should be ignored lest innuendo become the basis of our legal system.

Following this logic then I guess you actually think OJ is innocent?

[cybercoma]

She should have made a scene about it wyen it happened, don't come out now and and ruin someone sl;ife when they get mistaken for the guy she is talking about. Maybe shiela was giving off signals that the guy took wrong . But to just come out like this is wrong.

Sexual assault is not a consequence. Only scum bags think that way.

[Big Guy]

To Guyser 2 - Either I am not making myself clear or you are choosing to misunderstand me. The examples you give indicate that someone was abused, they went to the authorities, identified the person(s) involved and the process went on to completion.

That is very different from making a claim, not identifying the person(s) involved and then expecting some resolution to the accusation. If you choose to not see the difference then we are both wasting our time on this dialogue.

And I took your advice. I shook my head and wondered why I bother to respond to you. It worked. Thanks for the tip.

To On Guard For Thee - Following my logic, OJ was found "not guilty" of the charges with which he was charged. That is the way our system works.

I believe our rule of law is based on the principle:

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".- English Jurist William Blackstone

Historically, the details of the ratio change, but the message that government and the courts must err on the side of innocence is constant.

If you don't like that then .....

It appears than neither of us is convincing the other. I have nothing more to say on this particular issue of "you are presumed innocent until proven guilty" and your arguments have not changed my mind. I shall therefore probably be not commenting father unless you propose a different angle to your argument.

[WestCoastRunner]

It appears than neither of us is convincing the other. I have nothing more to say on this particular issue of "you are presumed innocent until proven guilty" and your arguments have not changed my mind. I shall therefore probably be not commenting father unless you propose a different angle to your argument.

Try and follow this logic:

Have you ever been sexually assaulted as a teenager, as a young individual, as a mature individual? Have you ever worked in a woman's shelter? Have you ever witnessed victims of these assaults? Have you ever counselled these victims after an attack, perhaps years later. Many, many grown women are just now acknowledging they were sexually abused by their fathers, their uncles, their grandfathers. Should they have stayed quiet? Should they be forced to acknowledge publicly what happened to them?

[WestCoastRunner]

To Big Guy:

You are trying to dismiss a woman's allegation from your righteous pedestal. Not every woman follows your protocol of justice. You need to educate yourself with victims of violence.

[Michael Hardner]

I believe our rule of law is based on the principle:

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".- English Jurist William Blackstone

In practical terms, though, if that number goes to one hundred, one thousand, or ultimately all guilty persons escape then it means that the only innocents that suffer are the victims. And then you don't have a justice system, so people take the law into their own hands using whatever means they can. For women, this means that they will accuse and talk to each other and they will name names. For women in this day and age, it means they will do it on social media.

If you worry too much about innocent victims [sic] of false accusations and not enough innocent victims of sexual assault then the system will just collapse.

[jacee]

To Michael - When you make allegations about one person about a specific incident where other "potential suspects" were present then they are all painted with the same brush. By not naming the individual you have made every person there a suspect. It is not a matter of an embarrassment but one of character assassination.

It is one thing to say that "I was sexually assaulted by another MP in my early years" and saying "I was sexually assaulted on my trip to .... with ..... and staying at .... and was assaulted by another MP staying there". Now every male who was at that event and staying at that hotel is a suspect - and cannot defend themselves.

And to jaycee - I am a Judge Judy fan. Any time someone makes an allegation and has "lost the paperwork" or "forgotten to bring that evidence" or "No. I do not have the proof" then the Judge rules that "If you do not have the proof then it did not happen".

I still believe that accusations of individuals without proof should be ignored lest innuendo become the basis of our legal system.

Your arguments are confused and irrelevant. This is not a court. This is a public conversation about sexual assault and harassment.

Sheila is contributing to the discussion by sharing her experiences, exercising her freedom of speech to do so while avoiding making public allegations about individuals.

If individuals feel they've been slandered, they are free to sue.

If she wishes to make private allegations to police to pursue formal investigation, charges, court etc. that's her choice.

But that's not the context here.

Are you suggesting that freedom of speech be outlawed for victims of sexual harassment and assault?

.

Edited November 13, 2014 by jacee

[Michael Hardner]

I was involved in investigating an alleged sexual assault incident where a female claimed that she was assaulted by a member of the staff of a large high school, 23 years after the alleged assault took place. She would not divulge the name of the individual. After hundreds of hours of work and numerous "uncomfortable" interviews it was found that there was no evidence to substantiate any of her allegations. She would not cooperate so the investigation was dropped.

Meanwhile, hundreds of hours of time were wasted, innocent individuals were forced to sit through interrogations and a lot of money was spent for nothing.

If you are not prepared to name the perpetrator and/or have no proof that it happened then it did not happen.

This sounds like a complete anomaly. Who would investigate an unnamed suspect 23 years later unless there was something significant about this case such as violence, or other statements or evidence. If no one was named who were these "innocent individuals" that were interrogated ? It doesn't add up.

Your last statement makes no sense either. One claim such as this (ie. unsubstantiated by further evidence) doesn't lead to such a conclusion. I have had family members accused falsely by high school students, and although they're taken seriously they also aren't believed outright.

The fact is that the "system" as it is, is perceived to have failed women. The response will involve some kind of change to the system.

[Hal 9000]

This sounds like a complete anomaly. Who would investigate an unnamed suspect 23 years later unless there was something significant about this case such as violence, or other statements or evidence. If no one was named who were these "innocent individuals" that were interrogated ? It doesn't add up.

Your last statement makes no sense either. One claim such as this (ie. unsubstantiated by further evidence) doesn't lead to such a conclusion. I have had family members accused falsely by high school students, and although they're taken seriously they also aren't believed outright.

The fact is that the "system" as it is, is perceived to have failed women. The response will involve some kind of change to the system.

What type of change might that be?

We could implement a system where a man's word carries half the weight as a woman's. That would be good, a man would need a second witness to prove his innocence and if it was a he said/she said, he would be found guilty.

[jacee]

I am sure that the members of the media are looking into who attended that conference and who stayed in that hotel. I believe we shall soon know.

My point is that you have an obligation once you start to go into detail. If you are sexually harassed or sexually assaulted then of course you should do something about it if you feel strongly about it. The reason I say "if you feel strongly about it" is that I know of people who were mugged and/or robbed and chose not to bother with reporting it for various reasons.

I was involved in investigating an alleged sexual assault incident where a female claimed that she was assaulted by a member of the staff of a large high school, 23 years after the alleged assault took place. She would not divulge the name of the individual. After hundreds of hours of work and numerous "uncomfortable" interviews it was found that there was no evidence to substantiate any of her allegations. She would not cooperate so the investigation was dropped.

Meanwhile, hundreds of hours of time were wasted, innocent individuals were forced to sit through interrogations and a lot of money was spent for nothing.

If you are not prepared to name the perpetrator and/or have no proof that it happened then it did not happen.

That's ridiculous.

Sexual assault is by nature a private crime, without witnesses. There are many reasons why women don't "cooperate", in this case I'm sure she figured out that your 'investigation' was being stacked against her, because to say 'no evidence, thus no crime' is absolutely disgusting. Sounds like exactly the kind of 'investigation' that keeps victims from coming forward - a smear job against victims and a safe haven coverup for perps.

Sexual assault damages and destroys lives. Talk to addictions counsellors: It is the number one common factor in addictions and some other mental health issues.

.

[Big Guy]

To all those who disagree with my opinion - I believe our justice system functions only if it applied objectively. That is why "Lady Justice" is portrayed wearing a blindfold. There is a process to be followed if the system is to be respected. A person is wronged, they name their accused, the charge is investigated and is followed by a adjudication (court case) where the accused is able to face their accuser where guilt or innocence is decided by an impartial third party. An appropriate sentence is applied if warranted. You may disagree with the system because you think it fails women then that is your opinion. There are many people who feel the system short changes the elderly, children, visible minorities etc So be it.

A person is free to do their own investigation and sue the accused if they feel the Crown has not done an adequate effort.

If what you folks suggest that in certain cases the process should change because of ... whatever then I would disagree with you. If you suggest starting to change the criteria and process because it appears to be unfair to women then I would love to hear how you would change it.

As to my previous anecdote of my involvement in a school related accusation, the woman made the accusation publicly and one of the male staff members at that time asked for the investigation. He was now involved in politics and wanted his name cleared since he fit the criteria as stated by the woman. She continued to refuse to name the accused. Her lack of cooperation put every male member of the staff at that time into a suspects role.

Of course women who are assaulted are traumatized. When it comes to a he said she said situation that is not enough to evaluate guilt or innocence. If you suggest that a woman should be believed rather than a man in those he said, she said cases then I would strongly disagree with you. Use that criteria in divorce procedures and child custody cases and see what happens to the idea of justice.

I do not believe that there is something in female DNA that makes them any more or less truthful than men.

Justice is blind and must be seen to be blind for our society to trust our courts instead of trying to take the law into individual hands.

If something unsavory occurred and there is no accused identified and no proof then it did not happen.

Now, if any of you on this board who are critical of my opinion have suggestions as to how we change the judicial system, maintain objectivity and satisfy your concerns then please share them here. I would certainly like to read them.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Big Guy

[Big Guy]

To WestCoastRunner - I guess I did not make myself clear. If someone is wronged and does not make a complaint NAMING and IDENTIFYING the aggressor then that aggressor is free to continue hurting people. If one chooses to not name him/her then you have allowed that person the freedom to continue.

YES, I have been involved in cases of women who have been assaulted. For a short while, the "repressed memory syndrome" was accepted as a criteria for prosecution but has since appeared to lose credibility. During that phase, great injustices took place to families of those convinced that they experienced things that were later proven to not happen.

Please do not make this a question of lack of sympathy for the abused. No one feels that violence against anybody is acceptable. It appears to me that you feel that sexual violence against women is more noteworthy than sexual or other violence against men. That is your choice.

I do not. I believe in the equality of women and men in all aspects of law.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Big Guy

[Michael Hardner]

What type of change might that be?

First we have to agree that there should be a change, then we can discuss it.

We could implement a system where a man's word carries half the weight as a woman's.

I'll leave others to comment on your suggestion.

[Argus]

If you worry too much about innocent victims [sic] of false accusations and not enough innocent victims of sexual assault then the system will just collapse.

The problem is the justice system already treats women like children, and already gives them every possible benefit of a doubt in a lot of cases. Look at the spousal violence issue. No evidence is required at all for a man to be thrown out of his own house and charged. Look at the case where women, including one out east, have been excused from committing and planning to commit murder on the basis of their statements that they had been beaten - just the statements with no supporting evidence or history whatsoever. In cases of inebriation, her inebriation grants her total exemption from the results of the decisions she makes, including giving consent or even pursuing sex. However, a man may not use his own inebriation as an excuse in this case. He is considered fully responsible for all decisions taken while inebriated.

The standard is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. I don't think simply taking someone's word for it meets that standard.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Argus

[jacee]

To all those who disagree with my opinion - I believe our justice system functions only if it applied objectively. That is why "Lady Justice" is portrayed wearing a blindfold. There is a process to be followed if the system is to be respected. A person is wronged, they name their accused, the charge is investigated and is followed by a adjudication (court case) where the accused is able to face their accuser where guilt or innocence is decided by an impartial third party. An appropriate sentence is applied if warranted. You may disagree with the system because you think it fails women then that is your opinion. There are many people who feel the system short changes the elderly, children, visible minorities etc So be it.

A person is free to do their own investigation and sue the accused if they feel the Crown has not done an adequate effort.

If what you folks suggest that in certain cases the process should change because of ... whatever then I would disagree with you. If you suggest starting to change the criteria and process because it appears to be unfair to women then I would love to hear how you would change it.

As to my previous anecdote of my involvement in a school related accusation, the woman made the accusation publicly and one of the male staff members at that time asked for the investigation. He was now involved in politics and wanted his name cleared since he fit the criteria as stated by the woman. She continued to refuse to name the accused. Her lack of cooperation put every male member of the staff at that time into a suspects role.

Of course women who are assaulted are traumatized. When it comes to a he said she said situation that is not enough to evaluate guilt or innocence. If you suggest that a woman should be believed rather than a man in those he said, she said cases then I would strongly disagree with you. Use that criteria in divorce procedures and child custody cases and see what happens to the idea of justice.

I do not believe that there is something in female DNA that makes them any more or less truthful than men.

Justice is blind and must be seen to be blind for our society to trust our courts instead of trying to take the law into individual hands.

If something unsavory occurred and there is no accused identified and no proof then it did not happen.

Now, if any of you on this board who are critical of my opinion have suggestions as to how we change the judicial system, maintain objectivity and satisfy your concerns then please share them here. I would certainly like to read them.

You are confused:

This has nothing to do with the judicial system at present. Sheila Copps is speaking of her own life experiences without naming perps.

She has every right to speak freely about herself.

.

Edited November 14, 2014 by jacee

[Big Guy]

To jaycee - I believe in the freedom of speech for everybody. If I exercised it by declaring that over the last two years while I was at a social function I saw a female NDP member of caucus selling drugs and taking drugs but I refused to give her name, would I be exercising my right to free speech?

What would be my expectations as to the consequences of my statement?

[Hal 9000]

First we have to agree that there should be a change, then we can discuss it.

I'll leave others to comment on your suggestion.

Because you can't find a better system - that's why.

It's all wonderful for you to be a champion for WCR, cybercoma and Jacee and shout things like changing the system for the betterment of women, while Big Guy, Argus (and others) and me take the heat for using logic and suggesting that our legal system, although not perfect, has to follow certain philosophies; that is "innocent until proven guilty" and "burden of proof".

If you can think of a system that makes it easier for victims to prosecute while keeping these philosophies, then let's hear it.

[Michael Hardner]

No evidence is required at all for a man to be thrown out of his own house and charged.

Cite ? I posted on the Ghomeshi thread, I think, the basis for the process. I believe that the Crown decides on laying charges based on evidence.

Look at the case where women, including one out east, have been excused from committing and planning to commit murder on the basis of their statements that they had been beaten - just the statements with no supporting evidence or history whatsoever. In cases of inebriation, her inebriation grants her total exemption from the results of the decisions she makes, including giving consent or even pursuing sex. However, a man may not use his own inebriation as an excuse in this case. He is considered fully responsible for all decisions taken while inebriated.

The standard is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. I don't think simply taking someone's word for it meets that standard.

Right, so I guess you're saying the system is biased against men then ?

[Michael Hardner]

Because you can't find a better system - that's why.

The better system is the current system, but improved.

It's all wonderful for you to be a champion for WCR, cybercoma and Jacee and shout things like changing the system for the betterment of women, while Big Guy, Argus (and others) and me take the heat for using logic and suggesting that our legal system, although not perfect, has to follow certain philosophies; that is "innocent until proven guilty" and "burden of proof".

If you can think of a system that makes it easier for victims to prosecute while keeping these philosophies, then let's hear it.

I'm not a champion, and I'm not shouting. A system of justice where the crimes are impossible to prosecute can't claim to work for the victims. And if 94% of the criminals are not even reported, partly thanks to a system that protects a potential 3% false claim rate then how can we say that the system works ?

We have reports that 4% of death row inmates are innocent too - would it make sense if the system wasn't trusted enough to report murder ?

The system doesn't work. Don't try to make it perfect, but make it better.

The first change, as being proposed here, is for people to talk about the pervasive crime of sexual assault in our society. Given the reaction to this very basic proposal, it seems like a good first step to get a reaction at least.

[Mighty AC]

The first change, as being proposed here, is for people to talk about the pervasive crime of sexual assault in our society. Given the reaction to this very basic proposal, it seems like a good first step to get a reaction at least.

That is the first step and it is taking place thanks to some brave women sharing their experiences. Yet, the simple act of talking about the harassment and abuse that women currently live with, is scaring some men. I was blown away that members of this forum actually used versions of the 'she shouldn't have worn that dress' defense.

[hitops]

That is the first step and it is taking place thanks to some brave women sharing their experiences. Yet, the simple act of talking about the harassment and abuse that women currently live with, is scaring some men. I was blown away that members of this forum actually used versions of the 'she shouldn't have worn that dress' defense.

It's a lot more complicated than that. We have to live in a society where accusation need to be proven, or at least made. Many women't rights advocates don't want to be part of the process of law and order, they just want accusation = conviction. In any case, humans are complicated and both men and women will flirt or interact in ways that gratify their own desires to be wanted, appealing, etc, and then sometimes don't like the consequences of behaving that way around others. There are many ways to avoid getting yourself into bad situations. But if you don't want to do that, and would prefer taking the risks, then the very least that's required would be a formal complaint if something happens. And not way after the fact, but at the time.

I've asked women friends who I respect, who are married if they ever run into this problem. Without exception the answer is no, because they understand how not to send the wrong signals to men. Unless we go Saudi Arabia on our men-women workplace interactions policy, misinterpretation of somebody's intentions, or probably more commonly, perfectly understood and correct interpretation but then later regret, is going to happen.

Edited November 14, 2014 by hitops