Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jg

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    I guess if the person who "assaulted" me 35 years ago is charged by another woman, and I hear about it on the news, then I can cleanse my self-blame by joining in the lynch mob and call the prosecutor and have my name added as a witness.

    Is this the desired outcome?

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by mcdreamy View Post
      ...Working an assault case in a civil court, where a judge can focus on who is more believable, would perhaps be a better system...
      That would be a completely horrible idea, given, how often these cases end up not being what was claimed.
      Last edited by dad2bandm; 02-11-2016, 11:54 PM. Reason: Fixed quote brackets.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Links17 View Post
        ...Giving credit to heinen as if she pulled off some masterful defense rather than admitting the plaintiffs have 0 credibility proven by way of several emails, messages is disingenuous...

        I agree with this...or low credibility anyway; Heinen is a very excellent lawyer (had good mentors), but she didn't have to be brilliant in this case. It wasn't hard to uncover discrepancies or outright hiding the facts, when people actually looked into this. That is part of the article's point...and part of why this case is getting the attention it is.
        Last edited by dad2bandm; 02-12-2016, 12:11 AM.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Links17 View Post
          OMG, what will it take for it to be unanimous that either he DIDN'T do it (he never admitted to consensual choking) OR that it was consensual....

          I think the 3 are lying whores... and I wish they could be penalized but they can't because even when you are a woman lying about assault - you can hide behind the protections we try to give REAL assault victims...

          This wasn't the fault of the crown, this is the fault of lobby so strong that saying you don't "believe" makes you a criminal... The crown had to prosecute....

          It's the feminist movement that has turned so much of this life into gender warfare....

          Out of the "15" accusers, we somehow ended up with 3 of this caliber, what does that say about the 15 - you are rushing to judgement without the facts - exactly the problem.

          I think sexual assault accused should have their identities protected until found guilty.....
          There is no evidence they are lying.
          There is no evidence they are whores.

          There is plenty of evidence from this thread that you're one of the many bitter little tiny men who are choosing to identify with a pathetic sleazeball like Ghomeshi.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Links17 View Post
            OMG, what will it take for it to be unanimous that either he DIDN'T do it (he never admitted to consensual choking) OR that it was consensual....

            I think the 3 are lying whores... and I wish they could be penalized but they can't because even when you are a woman lying about assault - you can hide behind the protections we try to give REAL assault victims...

            This wasn't the fault of the crown, this is the fault of lobby so strong that saying you don't "believe" makes you a criminal... The crown had to prosecute....

            It's the feminist movement that has turned so much of this life into gender warfare....

            Out of the "15" accusers, we somehow ended up with 3 of this caliber, what does that say about the 15 - you are rushing to judgement without the facts - exactly the problem.

            I think sexual assault accused should have their identities protected until found guilty.....
            Let's go back: not very long ago, married women had to get their husbands' permission to open bank accounts or purchase property. A man could legally rape his wife repeatedly, and birth control was illegal. Women could be fired from work if they got pregnant. Rape trials routinely involved questioning witnesses about all the other men they might have had sex with, on the grounds that once a woman has lost her virginity, she deserves pretty much anything that might happen to her. You could go to medical school, law school, police academy and the House of Parliament and see nothing but men. This isn't Saudi Arabia, this is the Canada my mother grew up in.

            Then the feminist movement (technically the second wave of the modern feminist movement, but who's counting?) came around and changed all that. Gender warfare? The battle of the sexes had been going on for centuries before feminism. Like Billy Joel says, we didn't start the fire - it was always burning. Feminism has brought equality before the law between the sexes, and has at least partly changed the enormous institutional discrimination against women. I don't always agree with everything that every other feminist says or thinks, but I'm enormously grateful to live in a world transformed by feminism. The alternative is the world portrayed in Mad Men.

            I happen to like men very much, and part of the reason I like them is that I can relate to them as equals, thanks to the groundwork done by feminists. In a world in which I was economically, politically, socially and legally inferior to men - a pre-feminist world, in other words - that's when I would end up resenting and hating men. So for me, feminism is the opposite of gender warfare.

            I have noticed a tendency for some individuals to see everything that they don't like as part of a giant feminist conspiracy, as though we have nothing better to do with our time than plot against an entire gender. I can assure those individuals that they really aren't that high on our radar screen.

            Comment


            • #51
              The sad part about this is that the prosecution should have done a bit more on the redirect. They were at the mercy of the info from the police investigation. Regardless of what happened after the fact, the prosecution should have redirected back to "did you discuss with jg about rough sex? Did you tell him it was ok? What did you tell him after it happened?" Or something to that effect. The police definitely dropped the ball in disclosure since they were the ones who should have found that info. What he did was assault and non consensual. Its like marital rape. Because theyre married its ok for a husband to hold down his wife and force intercourse? Have we taken a step back in time?

              Links, you have a daughter yes? You mean to tell me if she came home from a date with bruises on her neck or face and you found out the guy she was with slapped her you would tell her shes lying and went out with him? I would hope you would be a better father than that.

              As for the firing, that was sexual harassment at work and not only did he get let go but the people who protected him did as well. Its one thing to welcome someone slapping your ass on a date but at work? Not right!

              P.S. There was a great article on Marie Henein in Toronto Life magazine. However you feel about jg, she is an incredible lawyer.

              Comment


              • #52
                I believe the case will centre upon the definition of "sexual assault" and "consent"

                "The complainant expresses by words or conduct a lack of agreement to engage in the act the complainant,
                or
                having consented to engage in the sexual activity, expresses (by words or conduct) a lack of agreement to continue to engage in the activity"

                What is Sexual Assault?

                Did the prosecutor elicit testimony from the witnesses that they objected, at any time, to the activity?

                Comment


                • #53
                  In theory, Canada has an "affirmative consent" standard for sexual assault, according to which consent has to be "active and ongoing". In the absence of explicit consent, implicit consent cannot be inferred (the case that established this was R v Ewanchuk 1999; for a quick read: Canadian law decisive on what constitutes sexual consent: there’s nothing ‘implied’ or ‘implicit’ about it | National Post). This means that a defendant can't use the argument "well, the victim never actually told me to stop raping him/her" as a defence. This puts sexual assault on a par with other crimes - if I steal arabian's car, I can't argue "well, she never told me not to steal her car, so it wasn't really a theft".

                  In practice it's more complex, as people who are having sex typically don't stop every five minutes to express explicit consent to whatever they are doing, yet the vast majority of sexual encounters are not assaults. So proving sexual assault shifts away from "did the victim tell the defendant to stop?" to "did the defendant know, or ought reasonably to have known, that the victim did not consent to his action?".

                  The affirmative consent standard doesn't necessarily mean more convictions, because so many sexual assaults happen in private and come down to he said/she said and the credibility of the witnesses. But it puts the focus on the actions of the defendant rather than the actions of the victim, which is where it belongs in a criminal trial.

                  (R v Ewanchuk was the case of an Alberta man charged with sexually assaulting a young woman he was interviewing for a job. The assaults took place over a period of time in his trailer. He argued that it wasn't assault because the victim could have left his trailer (door was unlocked) but she didn't, therefore she was consenting to what happened. The Crown said no, in the absence of explicit consent, nothing can be inferred).

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    I recall that case. Was the accused not the young girl's boss?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by stripes View Post
                      In theory, Canada has an "affirmative consent" standard for sexual assault, according to which consent has to be "active and ongoing". In the absence of explicit consent, implicit consent cannot be inferred (the case that established this was R v Ewanchuk 1999; for a quick read: Canadian law decisive on what constitutes sexual consent: there’s nothing ‘implied’ or ‘implicit’ about it | National Post). This means that a defendant can't use the argument "well, the victim never actually told me to stop raping him/her" as a defence. This puts sexual assault on a par with other crimes - if I steal arabian's car, I can't argue "well, she never told me not to steal her car, so it wasn't really a theft".

                      In practice it's more complex, as people who are having sex typically don't stop every five minutes to express explicit consent to whatever they are doing, yet the vast majority of sexual encounters are not assaults. So proving sexual assault shifts away from "did the victim tell the defendant to stop?" to "did the defendant know, or ought reasonably to have known, that the victim did not consent to his action?".

                      The affirmative consent standard doesn't necessarily mean more convictions, because so many sexual assaults happen in private and come down to he said/she said and the credibility of the witnesses. But it puts the focus on the actions of the defendant rather than the actions of the victim, which is where it belongs in a criminal trial.

                      (R v Ewanchuk was the case of an Alberta man charged with sexually assaulting a young woman he was interviewing for a job. The assaults took place over a period of time in his trailer. He argued that it wasn't assault because the victim could have left his trailer (door was unlocked) but she didn't, therefore she was consenting to what happened. The Crown said no, in the absence of explicit consent, nothing can be inferred).
                      I don't think that "stealing Arabian's car" is a good example. Arabian isn't even present to say "No, don't steal my car". And there are no "S&M, kinky variations of car theft" .. it's a crime to steal, point blank.
                      Originally posted by stripes View Post
                      He argued that it wasn't assault because the victim could have left his trailer (door was unlocked) but she didn't, therefore she was consenting to what happened.
                      I didn't read why the crown felt this way .. but I'm taken aback by the fact that she chose not to leave the trailer. How bad is it really if you choose to stay and participate?
                      In practice it's more complex, as people who are having sex typically don't stop every five minutes to express explicit consent to whatever they are doing, yet the vast majority of sexual encounters are not assaults.
                      But why would you have to stop having sex to verbalize the word "No", or "Stop"? Even with S&M stuff I think they have keywords when one partner is going to far.

                      If I'm in an uncomfortable position and something is hurting, or my g/f is getting uncomfortably rough I don't need to wait for some kind break, I'm going to let her know right then and there.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        If I agree beforehand to some "rough sex" does that mean I agree to any kind of violence at all during sex? I certainly wouldn't expect to be punched in the face or violently choked. Having said that, does it make it illegal? I don't know, but if not, where is the line drawn? Is it ok for me to be stabbed or cut because I said ok to "rough sex" ? Does that mean I gave consent? Who defines what rough is?

                        I think that once the violence dramatically exceeds one's expectations, that changes the response. The person may not feel ok saying no at that point as they may now be afraid of what might happen and feel somewhat in a state of shock. Later they may feel confused themselves, not sure if this was an assault in a legal sense or not.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          PeacefulMoments: Erotic asphyxiation is something that people apparently quite commonly participate in. I personally don't know, during this sort of intercourse, when or how one would express their demand that the other party has gone too far. Participation in this sort of sex game can be lethal.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by PeacefulMoments View Post
                            If I agree beforehand to some "rough sex" does that mean I agree to any kind of violence at all during sex? I certainly wouldn't expect to be punched in the face or violently choked. Having said that, does it make it illegal? I don't know, but if not, where is the line drawn? Is it ok for me to be stabbed or cut because I said ok to "rough sex" ? Does that mean I gave consent? Who defines what rough is?

                            I think that once the violence dramatically exceeds one's expectations, that changes the response. The person may not feel ok saying no at that point as they may now be afraid of what might happen and feel somewhat in a state of shock. Later they may feel confused themselves, not sure if this was an assault in a legal sense or not.

                            In Canada, one cannot consent to assault that results in bodily harm. "Consent can be negated or vitiated where the force causes bodily harm and was intended to be caused" (https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadi...al_Law/Consent). This is why if two people get in a bar fight and one breaks the other one's neck, the assailant can't use the defense "he agreed to the fight so he agreed to the consequences", because no one can legally consent to having their neck broken. Once intentional bodily harm enters the picture, consent goes out the door. This means that some forms of BDSM are technically illegal, but are never prosecuted because neither of the parties complains. However, if a person's sexual practices involve injuring a partner, that person is always at risk of prosecution, so if that's your bag, proceed with caution.

                            PM is also right that consent has to be ongoing and can't be given in advance or in hindsight. In other words, if someone agrees to go back to someone's apartment for a drink after flirting all night, that doesn't mean the person has consented in advance to anything that might happen in the apartment. Similarly (and very relevant to the Ghomeshi case), behavior which occurs after an alleged assault doesn't retroactively imply consent to the alleged assault at the moment that it occurred. In other words, the fact that witnesses in the Ghomeshi case maintained contact with him, burned his house down, or ran away to Vegas with him and got married by an Elvis impersonator does not meant that they consented to being punched and choked by him at the time of the incident in question. And all that matters is what happened at the time of the incident in question.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by LovingFather32 View Post
                              I don't think that "stealing Arabian's car" is a good example. Arabian isn't even present to say "No, don't steal my car". And there are no "S&M, kinky variations of car theft" .. it's a crime to steal, point blank.

                              I didn't read why the crown felt this way .. but I'm taken aback by the fact that she chose not to leave the trailer. How bad is it really if you choose to stay and participate?
                              Here's the summary of the events in the Ewanchuk case. You can read the whole thing at Case Comment: R. v. Ewanchuk, Defining Consent in Sexual Assault Cases (and I have no idea why it's linked under "aboriginal law", because it isn't):

                              The complainant, a 17-year-old woman, met Mr. Ewanchuk in the parking lot of an Edmonton mall while she was with a friend. The three had a brief conversation, in the course of which he indicated that he might be interested in hiring them with respect to his woodworking business.

                              The following day, the complainant met with Mr. Ewanchuk to discuss the possibility of working for him. This "interview" took place in his van, to which a trailer was attached. He eventually invited her to enter his trailer to see some of his work (he was a woodworker). She did so, purposely leaving the door open behind her. Ewanchuk closed the door. The complainant believed he had locked it.

                              Almost immediately, Ewanchuk began touching the complainant. There was a series of distinct "touchings" which escalated in their levels of intimacy. In each case, the complainant asked him to stop, which he did, but he continued to touch her in different and more sexual ways each time. Eventually, the touching of the complainant by Ewanchuk escalated to his placing his penis on her pelvis, which the complainant again asked him to stop.

                              She left the trailer shortly after this and, upon returning home, called the police who charged Ewanchuk with sexual assault.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by stripes View Post
                                In Canada, one cannot consent to assault that results in bodily harm. "Consent can be negated or vitiated where the force causes bodily harm and was intended to be caused" (https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadi...al_Law/Consent). This is why if two people get in a bar fight and one breaks the other one's neck, the assailant can't use the defense "he agreed to the fight so he agreed to the consequences", because no one can legally consent to having their neck broken. Once intentional bodily harm enters the picture, consent goes out the door. This means that some forms of BDSM are technically illegal, but are never prosecuted because neither of the parties complains. However, if a person's sexual practices involve injuring a partner, that person is always at risk of prosecution, so if that's your bag, proceed with caution.

                                PM is also right that consent has to be ongoing and can't be given in advance or in hindsight. In other words, if someone agrees to go back to someone's apartment for a drink after flirting all night, that doesn't mean the person has consented in advance to anything that might happen in the apartment. Similarly (and very relevant to the Ghomeshi case), behavior which occurs after an alleged assault doesn't retroactively imply consent to the alleged assault at the moment that it occurred. In other words, the fact that witnesses in the Ghomeshi case maintained contact with him, burned his house down, or ran away to Vegas with him and got married by an Elvis impersonator does not meant that they consented to being punched and choked by him at the time of the incident in question. And all that matters is what happened at the time of the incident in question.
                                I think this is why interest has been expressed about the emails. Also, nowadays, through social media, it is fairly easy to find out if someone is into different sexual interests. Ghomeshi was fairly well-known and it wouldn't come as a surprise if he somewhere indicated on social media that he was into BDSM (or whatever it is called).

                                Once the case is published on CanLii it will certainly make for an interesting read. We only have the media's take on things.

                                Comment

                                Our Divorce Forums
                                Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                                Working...
                                X