The mob is angry after Jian Ghomeshi was found not guilty of sexual assault. I’m not a fan of the guy, I find him creepy, likely a bad date, but what did the evidence say or don’t we care anymore? Are we giving up on innocent until proven guilty in favour of a mob mentality?
Plus Ezra Levant on all things Trudeau, John Robson on Britain’s union more than 300 years ago on this day and Christian Elia on what nurses may be forced to do in Ontario.
The Truth About Jian Ghomeshi’s Sexual Assault Trial
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmfBl5uz5co
regarding the guilty until proven guilty womyn’s issues crowd; way back in the day I went to the local womyn’s shelter to make a donation.
went kinda like this:
hello anybody there?
-(stern voice) HOW CAN I HELP YOU.
not at all. I’m here to help you.
the dialog quickly slid into an unreceptive hostile tone.
who do I make out the cheque? and, where do I put the cheque?
all addressed to some disembodied ‘thing’ which I surmised assumed I was
doing this out of ‘guilty conscience’ or some such crapola.
I never went back. screw that. you cannot *make* people let you help them.
Brian, it seems to me pretty obvious that things like “innocent until proven guilty” are to be reserved for friends of the elite, everyone else gets whatever is convenient for the elite.
Also academics and other useful SJW idiots always think the crocodile will eat them last. I’ll wager Gomeshi was surprised when the CBC crowd turned on him.
A year ago I believed the women, mostly because, well, Jian Ghomeshi comes across as a jerk at best. Now after all three ‘victims’ stories imploded so spectacularly….I’m wondering if this wasn’t a vendetta of some kind.
Innocent until proven guilty! I have no problem with that! But we also have the right to express our opinion on a court case.
I also believe that a lot of sexual abuse accusations was there.
you find this an interesting read, I read part of the court document, it was a gong show and likely the Crown watched their case melt like ice cream in the summer sun. http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/03/24/opinion/ghomeshi-gong-show
When this case first blew up I said at the time that the published accounts were way too similar in small details to be independent accounts.
A lot of conservative men don’t want to accept that a lot – a lot – of women like rough sex, the rougher the better, and so can’t accept the notion that Jian was giving them exactly what they wanted (seriously, just read the emails Jian’s defense lawyer read into the record) in a consensual sexual encounter.
Now as Molyneaux points out, Ghomeshi is technically guilty because there’s no legal defense for hitting someone to injure or choking to subdue in Canada. But in the broader sense, it’s hard to avoid the obvious conclusion: DeCoutere is a bunny boiler who used the system to get back at a guy who dumped her.
“Courage in journalism is always rare and it always counts.”
But enough about rough sex – let’s talk about rough text…
I look at this as one of those pray for an asteriod moments.
Gomeshi is representative of the urban downtown Toronto CBC loving crowd, on the other side is the perpetually offended.
Theres another court case in June, let them go at each other like a pack of rabid weasels.
the same protesters were mad at Harper for trying to change the laws to make them TOUGHER.
It would be the proper verdict for an oppressed little brown Muslim fella who was just striking out in pain like a Muslim child in Iraq who has been bombed by white men. Besides, it was part of Justins Muslim block vote deal.
This wouldn’t have happened if lezzie feminists were not so under-represented on the bench.
Having an opinion on a court case is not the same as having an opinion on a verdict without knowledge of the court case…
Phht.. Just another case of Brown Privilege. If his name had been the Reverend John Smith, his carcass will still be swinging from a lamppost at Queen and Bay…. /s
I would further add that this is what feminists wanted, this is what society wanted. Let’s all agree rape is one of the worst crime. Society says so, by the sentences it hands out to rapists. Fine. “Sexual assault” however, has become a catch-all for things that are close to rape, right down to rather harmless stuff like pinching somebody’s rear, and down to the ridiculous, like a 6 year old giving a kiss to their female crush in school.
Well, 40 years of feminism has pushed some rather inoffensive sexual behavior into the realm of very serious crime. All those who scream “rape apologist!!!!!” refer to the paragraph above.
It’s not what I’m saying, it is what society and the law is saying now. SO guess what that means legally? If you are accusing somebody of a crime that will land him (because it is always him) 20 years in jail, and ruin his life, then the burden of proof has to be pretty frikking high. And so it is. It has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. It must withstand the vagarities and randomness of female thoughts and feelings. Or anybody else for that matter.
This is what society wants. This is what it got.
This case isn’t about the reaction of conservative men, more like a reaction by the morally obtuse Liberal men – the one’s who will seek out rough sex with females while they mouth platitudes about bullying females and the “war on women”. Conservative men are not specifically prudes, by definition…
It’s hard to apply justice at an orgy.
// we also have the right to express our opinion on a court case //
+
That’s right.
// The presumption of innocence is not a presumption but an assumption or legal
fiction. It requires agents of the state to treat a suspect or defendant in the criminal process
as if he were in fact innocent. The presumption of innocence has a limited field of
application. It applies only to agents of the state, and only during the criminal process. //
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11572-013-9271-4
It doesn’t apply to the media or to the “court of public opinion”.
Well said, as was Skip’s comment at 10:54, and Brian’s comment at the top of the thread.
Opps–sorry people–the phone rang and my focus was diverged!! A day later–I’m back!
Innocent until proven guilty! I have no problem with that! But we also have the right to express our opinion on a court case.
I also believe that a lot of sexual abuse accusations are falsified! I was involved as a witness in a case, many years ago, where a hitchhiker accused one of my friends of having ”touched her privates” after he picked her up at a summer resort. Thanks to a Mountie who believed him, the case was eventually dismissed, but not before the girl confessed to one of her girlfriends that she was pissed off at my buddy because he had refused to ask her on a date. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The Canadian Justice system is a sham… The police believed 100%, (but did Justify & advise the ladies how not to testify) The prosecution like wise hid the WHOLE truth hoping the defense would not discover the truth that the ladies were stalking HIM
Jail terms for Perjury & disbarment for Lucy’s Lawyer (he or she knew Lucy was lying to the Court) The Police need to own-up & fire those involved…Prosecutor disbarred & fired. NEVER HAPPEN
It is simply to easy to seek justice when the courts are totally corrupt…The Canadian Supreme Court of Canada is an obscene joke…
“The Canadian Supreme Court of Canada is an obscene joke…”
I’m thinking that if this case hadn’t been such a complete fail on the part of the prosecution, the Supremes would be most interested in reviewing this result.
After all it was the SCC who decided First Nation defendants require certain considerations above and beyond the laws that are on the books.
// The more things change, the more they stay the same. //
Yep.
Gerald Regan case update
Stephen Kimber From the April 25, 2002 edition of The Coast, Halifax
[…]
The jury in the court of public opinion rendered its irrevocable, un-appealable verdict on those allegations on the morning of Dec. 18, 1998, just a few hours before the actual jury in his criminal trial found him Not Guilty of the rape and attempted rape of three women. It happened after the jury retired to consider his fate and newspapers were finally free to report what the jurors had not been permitted to hear in court; that nearly three dozen women – babysitters, job seekers, law clients, party workers, journalists, a legislative page, even an oil company executive – most of whom did not even know the others existed, had all told police remarkably similar stories about how Regan had attacked them.
[…]
http://stephenkimber.com/books/not-guilty/gerald-regan-case-update/
That case is not in any way related to what I wrote about! The law works for everyone when it’s applied properly!
// That case is not in any way related to what I wrote about! The law works for everyone when it’s applied properly! //
+
I offered the Gerald Regan case as another example of “how things stay the same” People have reported problems with Ghomeshi going back to 1988.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/11/13/jian-ghomeshi-tips-allegation-tracker_n_6136136.html
And the law evolves.
At one time you had to be of “previously chaste character” to have any chance.
At one time you needed corroboration i.e. witnesses etc which made most rape charges fail.
Relatively recently you needed to complain “at the time”
In any case, legal types seem to be saying that the Chomeshi case [this one; there’s another coming up] is not typical & that you can’t draw much in the way of conclusions from it.
http://thestarphoenix.com/news/national/plaxton-ghomeshi-judges-take-on-accusers-behaviour-troubling