Jian Ghomeshi trial

[Forty Two]

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/24/jian_gh ... ult_cases/

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/03/24 ... 40988.html

Seems to be a lot of controversy about this. Jian Ghomeshi went on trial for alleged sexual assault, where three women accused him.

In the Salon article --

In a deeply disappointing verdict issued today, Justice William Horkins found former CBC Radio host Jian Ghomeshi not guilty on four counts of sexual assault and one count of overcoming resistance to sexual assault by choking. Horkins’ verdict, especially in the absence of testimony from Ghomeshi, hinged on the credibility and behavior of the three complainants, and highlights the unfair burden placed on accusers to behave in a way that others perceive as “consistent” with how a victim “should” behave.

The thing is. What actually happened during the trial is that all three women were revealed to be lying.

But, the feminist movement portrayed the judge as:

The judge was immediately portrayed as an aging, shameful, misogynistic, hate-filled, victim-blaming, ignorant, abusive, sickening, brutally vilifying, mansplaining, privileged white male.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ghomeshi- ... -1.3506958

The judge described

in relentless detail how Ghomeshi's accusers had colluded, misled and lied, to reporters, to police, to prosecutors and ultimately, to the court itself."Each complainant," he concluded, "demonstrated, to some degree, a willingness to ignore their oath to tell the truth on more than one occasion."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ghomeshi- ... -1.3506958

What do our Canadian friends think?

After reading the judge's decision, it seems like acquittal would be the only reasonable outcome. If there wasn't reasonable doubt there, then I fail to see how any defendant could be acquitted. Some have suggested that the criminal justice system is unfair in sexual assault trials, and we need to change the burden of proof, eliminate the presumption of innocence, or require a defendant to testify, etc.

Feminists appear to have taken up this cause as an example of injustice and victim blaming. But, it looks like the allegations were probably bullshit, based on the complainant's "willingness to ignore their oath to tell the truth on more than one occasion." How is this "victim blaming?" I mean - you have to have a justice system to decide criminal cases. You can't just take people at their word without testing the evidence. What do feminists want? Guilt by accusation? It sometimes seems that way, what with the "I believe" hashtags and whatnot.

Why should we "believe" people like that? We don't believe anyone else just on their say so, not when the stakes are putting someone in prison. I can't accuse someone of any other crime and expect them to be imprisoned on my say so, just because most people don't lie about stuff like that. Of course women don't generally lie about stuff in serious criminal cases. But, sometimes they do. Just like men.

[pErvinalia]

Those damn "the feminists"! As a "the feminist" I definitely called him a something something something.

More seriously, I really dislike people and media commenting on the right or wrong of a verdict without actually having heard all the evidence.

[Forty Two]

Well, it is feminists. Did you see the protests out front of the courthouse? Feminist groups, including Femen Canada, etc.

Read the Salon article. The author there suggests that we shouldn't examine the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged rape and should not take into consideration what women say and do after an alleged sexual assault, because sometimes they'll act in ways that appear inconsistent with having just been sexually assaulted, even though they have been sexually assaulted.

In the Salon article, the author takes issue with the judge examining the behavior of the complainants, which was inconsistent with their stated level of animus towards Ghomeshi.

“Deeply entrenched ideas about how victims should be — i.e. they remember all their emails and definitely do not send after-the-fact bikini photos to their alleged abusers — do at least some of the work when it comes to poking holes in a complainant’s credibility, the benchmark for which is already set high for sexual assault victims. To be a credible victim is to be a perfect victim. A victim who went to the police right away, not the media. A victim who broke off all contact.”

Here, of course, they did not just fail to remember "all" of their emails. They lied to the police, prosecutors and the court about those emails, figuring that they would not be confronted with them. And, going to the police right away is a rather common sense approach to any crime. If someone is robbed, they should go to the police right away. Waiting makes one think that whatever happened wasn't all that bad, because if it was bad, you'd go to the authorities. Waiting also let's evidence get stale and disappear. If you want there to be any forensic or other evidence preserved, you have to go right away. That's for any crime. This is not special treatment for sex assaults.

It’s worth noting that each of these women came forward as a result of the publicity surrounding Ghomeshi’s firing from the CBC in 2014, yet the fact that they waited over a decade has been used against them

It's certainly a valid question. Why now? 10 years later?

It's a weird disconnect, I think. I read the Salon article, and I just can't understand where that person is coming from.

[pErvinalia]

Well, it is "the feminists".

[Forty Two]

Look at this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/jeanpaul-b ... 42732.html

How can they say this? The evidence showed the complainants were lying. Clearly. That's what a willingness to ignore their oath to tell the truth means. They lied.

So, when these folks and their "I believe survivors" suggest that there has been an injustice and "these women" will be living with this horror for the rest of their lives -- they are assuming the complainants were telling the truth, which they weren't. They are assuming that there was sexual assault committed, but that was not established. None of them were there. They can't possibly know. They "just believe."

[Cunt]

The victim in any criminal case does not need any believing, protecting or other coddling. We have a decent justice system in that respect. The victim has broad enough shoulders that the lawyers can be as tough as they want, as tough as they HAVE to be to do a good job.

The trouble is that not everyone knows who the victim in a Canadian criminal case really is. I assure you, the real victim will NEVER need any crap like 'victims services'. It would be insulting, or worse, to the real victim to offer such.

[pErvinalia]

What's "victim services" and what's insulting about it?

[Cunt]

I can't believe that I have to say this to rEv, of all people.

EDUCATE YOURSELF!

It isn't MY job to provide your research. If you don't know enough about the subject of the thread, it isn't my fault.

[pErvinalia]

Ok, well I'm going to take the term at face value and assume "victim services" are services that help victims get over the trauma of what happened to them. I can't see how that could be insulting to anyone. But then again, you are the guy who argued that it should be ok for whites to call blacks 'nigger' to toughen them up.

[Cunt]

it should be ok for whites to call blacks 'nigger' to toughen them up.

If you can't quote me saying that, then it is just you saying it.

Funny.

Also, do you know who the victim in that case was? I doubt it, or you would understand why offering 'victims services' to that victim would be kind of missing the point.

If you were any more uninformed, it might be funnier, but I can't imagine how.

[pErvinalia]

Well I've given you the opportunity to inform me, but you've chosen to troll instead. Go you!

[Cunt]

I don't care if you understand reality or not, but my point is that the 'victim' in criminal cases doesn't need any help. Most, like yourself, don't even know who the real 'victim' is.

[Forty Two]

I can't believe that I have to say this to rEv, of all people.

EDUCATE YOURSELF!

It isn't MY job to provide your research. If you don't know enough about the subject of the thread, it isn't my fault.

[Cunt]

Fuck you, Forty Two. Don't tell him. His ignorance is strangely satisfying.

[pErvinalia]

I don't care if you understand reality or not, but my point is that the 'victim' in criminal cases doesn't need any help. Most, like yourself, don't even know who the real 'victim' is.

So a person who has been assaulted is a [air quote]victim[/air quote] and they don't need any help? If you would deign to stop trolling for a minute would you care to explain how that logic works? And the assaulted person isn't the real [air quote]victim[/air quote]? Fucking really? Who is the victim then?