Jian Ghomeshi trial to begin in Toronto Monday
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
It would be difficult to take issue with your points 2 or 3, whether they are objectively provable facts or opinion/speculation. Whatever the points really are, I agree with you.I have no idea whether Ghomeshi is innocent or guilty in the criminal trial but I trust the court to reach the right decision in that regard. I have no opinion on that.
What I stand by is the objective fact that:
1. Ghomeshi has publicly admitted that he enjoys violence against women, and
2. Most Canadians find violence against women repulsive, and
3. CBC isn't going to want to be associated with violence against women.
Those are facts. Objective facts.
Your post on the other hand was angry verbal diarrhea.
Point 1 is not an objective fact. It is your characterization of his public admissions. He has admitted to having rough sex with women (if you're referring to his Facebook post). He didn't admit to specific acts. He did admit that some of the sexual acts he enjoys would not be palatable to many people. He stresses over and over that everything he's engaged in has been consensual. He describes what he engaged in as mild BDSM. If you're relying on other public admissions he's made that I'm not aware of, I'd be interested in reading the source material that you're referring to.
The problem in this case is that sex itself, if it weren't for the element of consent, could easily be characterized as violence. It certainly involves the use of force. Sometimes, there can even be pain on the part of either partner (hopefully, that's accidental!). It can often involve acts of dominance, restriction of movement, and aggression. It certainly is the sort of invasive personal act that, if inflicted without consent, would be deeply distressing to anyone.
So, it's the consent that makes all the difference between sexual acts being acts of violence or not.
His claim is that all of the acts he engaged in were consented to. Is he lying? So far, there's no credible proof nor admission that he is.
There are some interesting legal issues in the case. There is a line of legal reasoning that some acts simply cannot be consented to (murder, for example). Second, there is a feminist school of thought that any power imbalance in an intimate relationship invalidates even express consent.
Will the judge find that acts of hair pulling, and let's be completely honest here, light punching (after all, no evidence that the victims were concussed, bruised, or even suffered significant pain), and light strangling (no evidence of significant struggling, no unconsciousness, no bruising), are in the category of acts which cannot be consented to? Not if mixed martial arts matches are legal!
Will the judge enshrine the feminist point of view into law? I think not. How many relationships are both parties truly equal in power within that relationship? Not many.
Where I'm totally on board with you is this: Ghomeshi is an entertainer, and an entertainer is finished when the public no longer approves of him/her, no matter what the reason. That's where he's made a serious mistake. Admitting his sexual preferences has clearly alienated a huge segment of his CBC audience.
He should just open up a chain of swinger clubs and sex toy shops, write a book (which I guarantee would be a huge seller) and call it a day.
No argument that his reputation is tarnished, and he'll never be back on the CBC.Ghomeshi is an entertainer, and an entertainer is finished when the public no longer approves of him/her, no matter what the reason. That's where he's made a serious mistake. Admitting his sexual preferences has clearly alienated a huge segment of his CBC audience.
He should just open up a chain of swinger clubs and sex toy shops, write a book (which I guarantee would be a huge seller) and call it a day.
But as far as an entertainer, he can bounce back if he gets proper PR help and perhaps find work in the US.
Stranger things have happened. Some notable celebs have come back after pretty serious crimes where they have been convicted. Chris Brown, Rob Lowe, and Mike Tyson to name a few.
His defense in court conceded point 1.It would be difficult to take issue with your points 2 or 3, whether they are objectively provable facts or opinion/speculation. Whatever the points really are, I agree with you.
Point 1 is not an objective fact. It is your characterization of his public admissions. He has admitted to having rough sex with women (if you're referring to his Facebook post). He didn't admit to specific acts. He did admit that some of the sexual acts he enjoys would not be palatable to many people. He stresses over and over that everything he's engaged in has been consensual. He describes what he engaged in as mild BDSM. If you're relying on other public admissions he's made that I'm not aware of, I'd be interested in reading the source material that you're referring to.
The problem in this case is that sex itself, if it weren't for the element of consent, could easily be characterized as violence. It certainly involves the use of force. Sometimes, there can even be pain on the part of either partner (hopefully, that's accidental!). It can often involve acts of dominance, restriction of movement, and aggression. It certainly is the sort of invasive personal act that, if inflicted without consent, would be deeply distressing to anyone.
So, it's the consent that makes all the difference between sexual acts being acts of violence or not.
His claim is that all of the acts he engaged in were consented to. Is he lying? So far, there's no credible proof nor admission that he is.
There are some interesting legal issues in the case. There is a line of legal reasoning that some acts simply cannot be consented to (murder, for example). Second, there is a feminist school of thought that any power imbalance in an intimate relationship invalidates even express consent.
Will the judge find that acts of hair pulling, and let's be completely honest here, light punching (after all, no evidence that the victims were concussed, bruised, or even suffered significant pain), and light strangling (no evidence of significant struggling, no unconsciousness, no bruising), are in the category of acts which cannot be consented to? Not if mixed martial arts matches are legal!
Will the judge enshrine the feminist point of view into law? I think not. How many relationships are both parties truly equal in power within that relationship? Not many.
Where I'm totally on board with you is this: Ghomeshi is an entertainer, and an entertainer is finished when the public no longer approves of him/her, no matter what the reason. That's where he's made a serious mistake. Admitting his sexual preferences has clearly alienated a huge segment of his CBC audience.
He should just open up a chain of swinger clubs and sex toy shops, write a book (which I guarantee would be a huge seller) and call it a day.
As for "it's the consent that makes all the difference between sexual acts being acts of violence or not", that is false. It is violence against women. Period.
Whether it was criminal or not may turn on consent but they're is no doubt that punching and choking somebody is violent. His claim is that they consented to his violence.
Where are you getting this from? Criminal defendants are not required to file statements of defence like defendants do in civil matters. They simply enter pleas of "guilty" or "not guilty". He pled not guilty.His defense in court conceded point 1.
Your position is overly semantic. Can't I assume that you are only really offended by non-consensual violence? Surely you are not concerned with body checking in hockey, or tackling in football, or MMA fights? (Technically, female MMA fighters inflict violence upon women every time they enter the ring. I don't think you would find that to be ok because they're both women. I think you would find that to be ok because there is consent.) There are women who unabashedly and unequivocally enjoy being spanked as part of sex. Clearly that is a violent act. Equally clearly that is a consensual act. Do you label men who would indulge such a woman as supporting "violence against women"? I would think not.As for "it's the consent that makes all the difference between sexual acts being acts of violence or not", that is false. It is violence against women. Period.
Whether it was criminal or not may turn on consent but they're is no doubt that punching and choking somebody is violent. His claim is that they consented to his violence.
As a result, it is unhelpful to describe all acts that involve force and some trauma to be an "acts of violence". What the public is focussed on here is on whether these were "unacceptable acts". Clearly not all acts involving force and trauma between people are unacceptable. It all comes down to consent (and whether there are legal limits on the consent that can be obtained).
Agreed. I've seen videos of men vs women rugby matches where the women are grabbed, hit, pushed, tackled to the ground, etc.As a result, it is unhelpful to describe all acts that involve force and some trauma to be an "acts of violence". What the public is focussed on here is on whether these were "unacceptable acts". Clearly not all acts involving force and trauma between people are unacceptable. It all comes down to consent (and whether there are legal limits on the consent that can be obtained).
His defense has accepted that he punched, slapped, and choked women. That hasn't been disputed. The only thing his defense disputed is consent.Where are you getting this from?
No you cannot. I'm offended by someone who gets pleasure from extremely violent acts against women. Let's stop using euphemisms. The trial turns on whether he is simulating rape or actually raping women. He clearly enjoyed violent acts designed to overcome resistance and the only question is whether he managed to toe the line of what is legal or not.Can't I assume that you are only really offended by non-consensual violence?
Absolutely I label it violence against women.Do you label men who would indulge such a woman as supporting "violence against women"? I would think not.
The acts he has admitted to are clearly acts of violence against women.As a result, it is unhelpful to describe all acts that involve force and some trauma to be an "acts of violence".
Unacceptable is the right word, and it is different than what is legal. Lots of things that are legal are unacceptable. You can legally stand on the street and yell insults at everybody who walks by, but it isn't acceptable. You can legally declare that Alan Kurdi deserved what he got but that isn't acceptable either.What the public is focussed on here is on whether these were "unacceptable acts".
Ghomeshi may have been able to legally engage in violence against women, but it isn't acceptable to most people and it isn't the sort of behavior CBC wants to be publicly associated with.
Fuji, you are just full of pure stinking crap.His defense in court conceded point 1.
As for "it's the consent that makes all the difference between sexual acts being acts of violence or not", that is false. It is violence against women. Period.
Whether it was criminal or not may turn on consent but they're is no doubt that punching and choking somebody is violent. His claim is that they consented to his violence.
Everybody knows it except for fujiFuji, you are just full of pure stinking crap
Although you are not being clear, I take it that you are relying on what the defence chose to specifically challenge in cross examination, or didn't. You don't have to challenge every detail of the testimony of a witness if your cross examination clearly puts their overall credibility at issue. While I am not in the courtroom watching this, nor do I have access to transcripts, from the news reports of the testimony it appears clear that the overall credibility of all witnesses has been challenged (and successfully undermined) and that the defence has gone so far as to accuse at least 2 of the complainants as outright lying.His defense has accepted that he punched, slapped, and choked women. That hasn't been disputed. The only thing his defense disputed is consent.
You may view the defence as focussed on asserting consent as their only defence. I guess we'll have to hear the news reports as to what the final arguments are. However, I will not be surprised if the defence asks the court to disregard the entirety of the testimony of the complainants, given the credibility issues. In essence, they will be denying that the crown has proved "the acts" as well as denying proof in relation to the consent issue. I can't see a reason why they wouldn't take this position, based on the reports of the crown's evidence.
I understand what you are saying about your point of view, and I agree that many people will disapprove of any sex play that seems "kinky" or abnormal to them, but you go too far in needing to clothe that opinion in the concept of "violence against women". Let's drop that euphemism. Many people think that others who engage in BDSM sex are "perverts" and that society should shun them. That shunning goes at least as far as ensuring they don't live wealthy and comfortable lives. I don't think there's much that Ghomeshi can do when it comes to the marketplace preferring to support other entertainers based on that assessment.No you cannot. I'm offended by someone who gets pleasure from extremely violent acts against women. Let's stop using euphemisms. The trial turns on whether he is simulating rape or actually raping women. He clearly enjoyed violent acts designed to overcome resistance and the only question is whether he managed to toe the line of what is legal or not.
Absolutely I label it violence against women.
The acts he has admitted to are clearly acts of violence against women.
Unacceptable is the right word, and it is different than what is legal. Lots of things that are legal are unacceptable. You can legally stand on the street and yell insults at everybody who walks by, but it isn't acceptable. You can legally declare that Alan Kurdi deserved what he got but that isn't acceptable either.
Ghomeshi may have been able to legally engage in violence against women, but it isn't acceptable to most people and it isn't the sort of behavior CBC wants to be publicly associated with.
However, I don't think your analysis of what "violence against women" means, for most people, has quite enough nuance. Also, your use of the descriptor "extremely violent acts" is simply unsupportable, even if the evidence of the complainants was accepted at face value. Obviously, if these acts were acts of violence, they don't even come close to the severity of other violence that occurs in society.
I think we agree that Ghomeshi is a scumbag, perhaps for different reasons. But you are trying to make a label stick to characterize his actions that just can't stick. And it isn't necessary. It would be enough for you to say that you wouldn't treat a woman like he did, even if she explicitly asked you to, and that you don't respect men who would. That's really the heart of your position.
Last edited:
Sorry but I don't buy anything you are saying. You are just wrong in saying it isn't violence. It is violence. Period.Although you are not being clear, I take it that you are relying on what the defence chose to specifically challenge in cross examination, or didn't. You don't have to challenge every detail of the testimony of a witness if your cross examination clearly puts their overall credibility at issue. While I am not in the courtroom watching this, nor do I have access to transcripts, from the news reports of the testimony it appears clear that the overall credibility of all witnesses has been challenged (and successfully undermined) and that the defence has gone so far as to accuse at least 2 of the complainants as outright lying.
You may view the defence as focussed on asserting consent as their only defence. I guess we'll have to hear the news reports as to what the final arguments are. However, I will not be surprised if the defence asks the court to disregard the entirety of the testimony of the complainants, given the credibility issues. In essence, they will be denying that the crown has proved "the acts" as well as denying proof in relation to the consent issue. I can't see a reason why they wouldn't take this position, based on the reports of the crown's evidence.
I understand what you are saying about your point of view, and I agree that many people will disapprove of any sex play that seems "kinky" or abnormal to them, but you go too far in needing to clothe that opinion in the concept of "violence against women". Let's drop that euphemism. Many people think that others who engage in BDSM sex are "perverts" and that society should shun them. That shunning goes at least as far as ensuring they don't live wealthy and comfortable lives. I don't think there's much that Ghomeshi can do when it comes to the marketplace preferring to support other entertainers based on that assessment.
However, I don't think your analysis of what "violence against women" means, for most people, has quite enough nuance. Also, your use of the descriptor "extremely violent acts" is simply unsupportable, even if the evidence of the complainants was accepted at face value. Obviously, if these acts were acts of violence, they don't even come close to the severity of other violence that occurs in society.
I think we agree that Ghomeshi is a scumbag, perhaps for different reasons. But you are trying to make a label stick to characterize his actions that just can't stick. And it isn't necessary. It would be enough for you to say that you wouldn't treat a woman like he did, even if she explicitly asked you to, and that you don't respect men who would. That's really the heart of your position.
And unlike martial arts, which IS VIOLENCE, the objective of his violence isn't to demonstrate athletic fighting skills versus an equal in competition. His objective is sexual violence against women. Period.
There is no way to sugar coat that.
Also, I'm not a moral relativist. I don't fuck around saying everybody's beliefs are right. It isn't right, it is sickening and he should seek psychological counseling to deal with his serious problem.
I'm OK with a lot of repulsive and sickening behavior not being criminal but do not confuse "not criminal" with "acceptable" or "right". We set the bar for criminal conviction very high because it is better to have a bunch of fucked up people free than innocent people in jail and criminalizing borderline cases like consensual sexual violence would lead down a pretty slippery slope.
But that doesn't stop me, and I expect CBC, and anyone else with a moral compass from expressing disgust and shunning him. Moreover, if you don't think what he did was vile then you sicken me too.
More proof that foolji is is full of shit.His objective is sexual violence against women. Period.
How the fuck do you know what his objective is?
What if his objective is to give women the sexual thrill they want?
Bullshit.More proof that foolji is is full of shit.
How the fuck do you know what his objective is?
What if his objective is to give women the sexual thrill they want?
Don't worry, I don't think you were in any danger of anyone accusing you of being a moral relativist! LOL! More like moral absolutist.Sorry but I don't buy anything you are saying. You are just wrong in saying it isn't violence. It is violence. Period.
And unlike martial arts, which IS VIOLENCE, the objective of his violence isn't to demonstrate athletic fighting skills versus an equal in competition. His objective is sexual violence against women. Period.
There is no way to sugar coat that.
Also, I'm not a moral relativist. I don't fuck around saying everybody's beliefs are right. It isn't right, it is sickening and he should seek psychological counseling to deal with his serious problem.
I'm OK with a lot of repulsive and sickening behavior not being criminal but do not confuse "not criminal" with "acceptable" or "right". We set the bar for criminal conviction very high because it is better to have a bunch of fucked up people free than innocent people in jail and criminalizing borderline cases like consensual sexual violence would lead down a pretty slippery slope.
But that doesn't stop me, and I expect CBC, and anyone else with a moral compass from expressing disgust and shunning him. Moreover, if you don't think what he did was vile then you sicken me too.
It's clear from your comments that you have a singular view of acceptable sexual behaviour ("right is right"), and that role playing that includes simulated physical dominance is not within your circle of acceptability.
Of course, everyone is entitled to their own moral code. All of us can also be as disgusted and outraged as we want about any behaviour, but that outrage will be of no consequence when a person's views are out of alignment with others, and there is no public consensus as to which views are to be preferred. Just curious though, if the women in question asked to be strangled/struck/bitten (let's make it interesting and say that actually demanded that he do it), would you:
1. View those women as vile?
2. View only Ghomeshi as vile?
3. View both as vile?
(As an aside, corporations such as the CBC (or any corporation) do not possess a "moral compass". Rather, they have legal and business operating standards to live up to, and corporate image objectives (in line with their business objectives) to maintain. But I digress.)
Further, does the acceptability of applying physical force to someone else really turn on intent? If so, I would think that the request or consent of the other person has a lot to do with characterizing that intent (and it's not just me who thinks that, it's also both the criminal and civil law where this would be relevant).
Don't you feel alone in your absolutist moral view? And if so (even if you don't care that you are alone), who does your morality serve? Aren't you protecting people who don't want your protection?
BDSM is not my thing, but I can live in a world where consenting adults engage in it. Can you?
Meanwhile...
with the crown and defence having made their final arguments today, the trial has now come to a conclusion and the verdict will be delivered on March 24.
What an amazing contrast between the original trial by media vs. the trial by law.
Even if Ghomeshi is acquitted, which now appears far more likely than ever seemed possible, his accusers were arguably still remarkably successful in their shared goal of destroying Ghomeshi, because even if he is found not guilty his career has still been ruined, his life was made a living hell, his defence must have cost a fortune, and he will likely always be a pariah even if he is not convicted of anything. No doubt many people will view this outcome as richly deserved by Ghomeshi no matter what the court rules.
Here is a great overview by Christie Blatchford of how the crown's case so spectacularly fell apart:
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...se-started-falling-apart-right-from-the-start
The Post piece includes the following opinion about how such a seemingly strong case managed to implode:
As one veteran Toronto lawyer put it this week, “the criminal justice system has been hijacked by ideology,” in this instance, the feminist chant that accusers must always be believed.
The Globe and Mail also has a great article warning of the dangers to justice when police become stenographers rather than investigators of sexual assault allegations:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/ghomeshi-trial-did-the-police-do-their-job/article28707024/
This article concludes as follows:
Women who have been victims of sexual assaults need their friends, family and support networks to say “we believe and support you.” The police are not social workers. Their job is to collect evidence and probe the truth. A professional, proper investigation benefits complainants and accused persons equally.
The trial would likely not have been such a fiasco if a more thorough investigation of the original accusations had been made, rather than simply accepting the female perspective at face value regardless of the potential long term damage, both to the accusers and accused.
It's unfortunate but in cases like this it appears that blindly following the mantra 'all accusers must be believed' not only does a terrible disservice to the people being accused, but also to genuine victims of sexual assault. It's arguable that Lucy DeCoutere and her co-accusers have done grave damage the very victims' movement they claim to embody.
with the crown and defence having made their final arguments today, the trial has now come to a conclusion and the verdict will be delivered on March 24.
What an amazing contrast between the original trial by media vs. the trial by law.
Even if Ghomeshi is acquitted, which now appears far more likely than ever seemed possible, his accusers were arguably still remarkably successful in their shared goal of destroying Ghomeshi, because even if he is found not guilty his career has still been ruined, his life was made a living hell, his defence must have cost a fortune, and he will likely always be a pariah even if he is not convicted of anything. No doubt many people will view this outcome as richly deserved by Ghomeshi no matter what the court rules.
Here is a great overview by Christie Blatchford of how the crown's case so spectacularly fell apart:
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...se-started-falling-apart-right-from-the-start
The Post piece includes the following opinion about how such a seemingly strong case managed to implode:
As one veteran Toronto lawyer put it this week, “the criminal justice system has been hijacked by ideology,” in this instance, the feminist chant that accusers must always be believed.
The Globe and Mail also has a great article warning of the dangers to justice when police become stenographers rather than investigators of sexual assault allegations:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/ghomeshi-trial-did-the-police-do-their-job/article28707024/
This article concludes as follows:
Women who have been victims of sexual assaults need their friends, family and support networks to say “we believe and support you.” The police are not social workers. Their job is to collect evidence and probe the truth. A professional, proper investigation benefits complainants and accused persons equally.
The trial would likely not have been such a fiasco if a more thorough investigation of the original accusations had been made, rather than simply accepting the female perspective at face value regardless of the potential long term damage, both to the accusers and accused.
It's unfortunate but in cases like this it appears that blindly following the mantra 'all accusers must be believed' not only does a terrible disservice to the people being accused, but also to genuine victims of sexual assault. It's arguable that Lucy DeCoutere and her co-accusers have done grave damage the very victims' movement they claim to embody.
Please tell me what is bullshit... you know his motives for a fact? Is that what you are telling me?Bullshit.
You are fucking pathetic.
No outrage towards lucky_blue’s signature in post #294, showing a guy holding a girl down by the throat while having sex with her. Might have to refresh the page as there are different animations. Or do you find that acceptable?Bullshit.
Thank you for the compliment. It's important to know right from wrong. It is one of the things that separates good people from bad people: knowing right from wrong.Don't worry, I don't think you were in any danger of anyone accusing you of being a moral relativist! LOL! More like moral absolutist.
Untrue. I have no problem with role playing. I have no problem with simulated physical dominance. I have no problem if you want to dress up in leather and have a safe word.It's clear from your comments that you have a singular view of acceptable sexual behaviour ("right is right"), and that role playing that includes simulated physical dominance is not within your circle of acceptability.
We all know that is not what was going on here: he got off on actual violence against women, not simulated violence. Actual violence. Real violence.
He has publicly stated (yes he stated it, he released statements to the media) that they consented to it, that he warned them in advance, and that they knew what they were getting into. If true, that may absolve him of criminal guilt -- but it doesn't change what he was doing.
And if your moral code is that violence against women is acceptable and should be tolerated then I'm entitled to point out what a complete low life scum you are, and urge everyone to shun you until you seek the treatment that you need.Of course, everyone is entitled to their own moral code.
I also think you are flat out wrong that there is no consensus: I think if you took a poll of Canadians you would find an overwhelming consensus that men should not punch women.
As for "no consequence" -- there sure as hell is a consequence. The consequence is that he has lost his job, quite rightly, and he will not be getting it back.
I view terb with signatures disabled so I haven't seen it.No outrage towards lucky_blue’s signature in post #294, showing a guy holding a girl down by the throat while having sex with her. Might have to refresh the page as there are different animations. Or do you find that acceptable?
