TERB In Need of a Banner

Jian Ghomeshi trial to begin in Toronto Monday

fashionboy

Member
Jun 3, 2007
487
0
16
Was the Facebook post he made admissable/and or entered into evidence? Or is that not possible because he wasn't called to the stand and face cross via the Crown? I feel as if that post was essentially an admission of guilt in terms of the "acts", only contesting the issue of consent.

Don't forget he stupidly showed CBC brass graphic pictures on his phone of badly bruised/beaten woman, which were so abhorrent as to lead to his dismissal pretty quick. That was a woman who was not a complainant however, and Ghomeshi claimed there was consent.

There seems to be a serious lack of legal evidence in the case of the crown (no photographs, evidence, hard proof) of the accusations.

Last, I had the impression that under Canadian law one one cannot actually consent to assault. Lawyers in the house would appreciate your thoughts.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Don't forget he stupidly showed CBC brass graphic pictures on his phone of badly bruised/beaten woman, which were so abhorrent as to lead to his dismissal pretty quick. That was a woman who was not a complainant however, and Ghomeshi claimed there was consent.
Exactly. Bud, Destillat, etc., want to paint this as being just a guy who liked it a little rough. This is a guy who likes to beat up women.

If they consented to being beaten up then sure he shouldn't go to jail for it -- but he's a sick fuck either way.
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,068
0
0
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.



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.

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.

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.
There have been other people who perceived themselves as uniquely qualified to determine all matters of moral right and wrong. None of them are fondly remembered in the history books. :)

You say much more with the questions you don't answer either by addressing straw men arguments or not addressing them at all. I guess I'll leave our discussion at that.

p.s. I'm not sure whether a settlement is already in place regarding his termination from the CBC. [Yes, I know he tried, unsuccessfully, to bring a civil action. However, he would clearly have had the right to bring a grievance under his collective agreement]. If not, I think your observation about consequences may have be altered. Yes, you might lose your job if your sexual mores are out of line with your employer, but the consequences of that dismissal may fall more harshly upon your employer than on you. I don't think I'll be too happy to find out that the CBC investigation was just as bad as the police investigation in this case, and that as a result, our lovely CBC had to fork over a massive settlement, financed by the ever-faithful taxpaying public (the only real victims of this entire debacle, it would seem on the available evidence to date).
 

KBear

Supporting Member
Aug 17, 2001
4,169
1
38
west end
www.gtagirls.com
Don't forget he stupidly showed CBC brass graphic pictures on his phone of badly bruised/beaten woman, which were so abhorrent as to lead to his dismissal pretty quick. That was a woman who was not a complainant however, and Ghomeshi claimed there was consent.
That seems like a much different issue from what we are dealing with now in this court case. Although before this court case began Ghomeshi was crucified by most based on similar rumors. Now, based on the court case many feel Ghomeshi is the victim and feel sorry for him.
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,068
0
0
Was the Facebook post he made admissable/and or entered into evidence? Or is that not possible because he wasn't called to the stand and face cross via the Crown? I feel as if that post was essentially an admission of guilt in terms of the "acts", only contesting the issue of consent.

Don't forget he stupidly showed CBC brass graphic pictures on his phone of badly bruised/beaten woman, which were so abhorrent as to lead to his dismissal pretty quick. That was a woman who was not a complainant however, and Ghomeshi claimed there was consent.

There seems to be a serious lack of legal evidence in the case of the crown (no photographs, evidence, hard proof) of the accusations.

Last, I had the impression that under Canadian law one one cannot actually consent to assault. Lawyers in the house would appreciate your thoughts.
Read the facebook post. It's available online. Just google it. You'll see that Ghomeshi did not admit to any specific acts in that post.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
There have been other people who perceived themselves as uniquely qualified to determine all matters of moral right and wrong. None of them are fondly remembered in the history books. :)
There you go trying to argue that moral relativist bullshit. Soon you will be telling us that maybe Al Qaeda had a valid viewpoint.

You say much more with the questions you don't answer either by addressing straw men arguments or not addressing them at all.
Here is a straight answer: beating up women is wrong.
 

james t kirk

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2001
24,051
3,930
113
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.
Excellent post.

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.
I would imagine that a great many police officers thought that the entire case was a farce, however, they were under immense political pressure from all sides to "charge the son of a bitch" I would guess that they finally just threw up their hands and played past the hot potato and let the lawyers sort it out.
 

james t kirk

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2001
24,051
3,930
113
Was the Facebook post he made admissable/and or entered into evidence? Or is that not possible because he wasn't called to the stand and face cross via the Crown? I feel as if that post was essentially an admission of guilt in terms of the "acts", only contesting the issue of consent.

Don't forget he stupidly showed CBC brass graphic pictures on his phone of badly bruised/beaten woman, which were so abhorrent as to lead to his dismissal pretty quick. That was a woman who was not a complainant however, and Ghomeshi claimed there was consent.

There seems to be a serious lack of legal evidence in the case of the crown (no photographs, evidence, hard proof) of the accusations.

Last, I had the impression that under Canadian law one one cannot actually consent to assault. Lawyers in the house would appreciate your thoughts.
Sex can be a really complicated thing some times. I've engaged in BDSM play in the past. It started probably in the early 90's and I was extremely intrigued. I did a lot of really out there stuff both as a top and a bottom. I can honestly say that easily 80 percent of women that I have known in a carnal sense over the years are very intrigued at the thought of BDSM in one form or another. I'd say that the vast majority of those women are interested in playing the submissive role. Finding a truly dominant woman is like finding a needle in a hay stack. I will say this, topping a woman well takes a massive amount of effort. Massive. I lost interest in BDSM for many reasons (boredom would be one, boredom and just the sense of it all being contrived), but the biggest reason was the shear amount of effort that goes into playing the role and living out the fantasy. It's a lot easier just to get a blow job and fall asleep frankly.

With respect to Ghomeshi, I would speculate that for him, BDSM was far more intriguing than it ever was for me. He probably can't get off any other way, or he at least needs some component of it. Based on my own experiences where a huge percentage of women of my generation (and Ghomeshi and I are very close in age) are surprisingly open to BDSM, I'm guessing that Ghomeshi started to lose perspective and started thinking that BDSM was the norm, or at least "everyone is into it" and worse still, into it on his terms. That's simply not the case and that's where he blew it.

So with respect to you statement that one cannot consent to assault, you are correct. However, that is way to simplistic of a regulation and does not take into account that a HUGE number of women are very turned on with the notion of BDSM and being "taken" by a dominant man.
 

Perry Mason

Well-known member
Aug 20, 2001
4,682
208
63
Here
I would imagine that a great many police officers thought that the entire case was a farce, however, they were under immense political pressure from all sides to "charge the son of a bitch" I would guess that they finally just threw up their hands and played past the hot potato and let the lawyers sort it out.
I suspect that you are right.

The evidence in support of that conclusion or inference is circumstantial.

But I think the conclusion is valid. It complies with a rule of evidence known in law as the Rule in Hodge's Case: when all the evidence is circumstantial, you can rely on a given conclusion only if the evidence is both consistent with that conclusion and inconsistent with any other rational explanation.

And, in a perverse kind of way, that is exactly how it should be: that is what courts are here for.

Perry
 
Last edited:

lucky_blue

New member
Nov 23, 2010
749
0
0
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?
Hey - there is clearly no violence or choking going on in the sig pics.

As has been stated earlier - many, if not most women are very turned on by sexually dominant men.

Perhaps he will be found not guilty but as far as I am concerned, I would not call him the victim. I do agree with suggestion that the TPS Sex crimes unit operates under an assumption of guilt.
 

SkyRider

Banned
Mar 31, 2009
17,572
2
0
I would imagine that a great many police officers thought that the entire case was a farce, however, they were under immense political pressure from all sides to "charge the son of a bitch" I would guess that they finally just threw up their hands and played past the hot potato and let the lawyers sort it out.
Now the judge is the one under intense political pressure. I hate to be in his shoes.
 

Perry Mason

Well-known member
Aug 20, 2001
4,682
208
63
Here
Now the judge is the one under intense political pressure. I hate to be in his shoes.
I don't think you understand...

IMHO, it is one of the (very) few things that the legal system has got right: the judge is under no political pressure whatsoever. He is totally independent and plays by totally different rules. He is bound only by the law, the evidence and his conscience. His shoes are quite comfortable... though he often has to work very hard to get it right... until some appellate court tells him he is not!

Perry
 

fashionboy

Member
Jun 3, 2007
487
0
16
Exactly. Bud, Destillat, etc., want to paint this as being just a guy who liked it a little rough. This is a guy who likes to beat up women.

If they consented to being beaten up then sure he shouldn't go to jail for it -- but he's a sick fuck either way.
I agree —*I* personally believe that he gets off on sexual violence. He admitted on Facebook that he enjoys "rough sex" — certainly that doesn't necessarily mean assault/violence — but we have to remember he was obviously toning it down.

Second we have to remember why he made the Facebook post in the first place: he knew he had mistakenly shown some shocking photographs of a woman he had beaten up to CBC brass (IIRC it was so bad she had to go to the hospital/she had a broken rib from his assault).

Also we should remember he was a golden boy for CBC, longtime friends with his boss there who had given him the opportunity & groomed him, and they did not want to fire him. Q was a major success. He was given an option of taking a leave of absence which he did, but he then fearing that damning photographs/evidence of his "handiwork" would be released to the public, decided to get out ahead of the potential story and hence the Facebook post.

The CBC had no choice but to get rid of him and in fact erase any evidence at the CBC building that he even ever existed (they removed the multistory posters of his portrait littering the interior). Extreme measures, but they feared a major shitstorm to come and wanted nothing to do with him.

Let's think about the fact that he showed absolutely shocking and brutal images of an assault he had committed to the CBC, his employer. Ghomeshi is clearly a textbook narcissist, and completely delusional.

He imagined himself both as a huge star (he was at most a minor celebrity outside of the CBC, and that is a stretch), and also had no sense of limits or excess. He consistently lured young women through his "celebrity" status into his world, systemically primed them for his dark, twisted fantasies of sexual punching, beating, choking, and then reveled in the resultant bruises and injuries he inflicted upon his victims — moreover in at least one particular insistence — recorded images on his phone as a keepsake and probably spankbank material.
 

fashionboy

Member
Jun 3, 2007
487
0
16
Read the facebook post. It's available online. Just google it. You'll see that Ghomeshi did not admit to any specific acts in that post.
I've read it many times. Of course he wasn't that stupid to admit to any specific acts in this legal case, and kept his post "general". But he happily admitted a penchant for what he called "rough sex" or unpalatable bedroom activities. The purpose was to prepare the public in the event of some damning photographs being released or victims coming forward.

I do agree that in this legal proceeding the Crown's case is an utter joke. And do keep in mind that Henein is also considered one of the best defense lawyers in the country.

The women could be lying, but I don't think they are. Was the case proven beyond a reasonable doubt? I don't think so. But these particular women, every one of them, were his casual dates — probably where he "tested the waters" to see their reaction to his proclivities, hoping they would become as excited as him.
 

fashionboy

Member
Jun 3, 2007
487
0
16
Sex can be a really complicated thing some times. I've engaged in BDSM play in the past. It started probably in the early 90's and I was extremely intrigued. I did a lot of really out there stuff both as a top and a bottom. I can honestly say that easily 80 percent of women that I have known in a carnal sense over the years are very intrigued at the thought of BDSM in one form or another. I'd say that the vast majority of those women are interested in playing the submissive role. Finding a truly dominant woman is like finding a needle in a hay stack. I will say this, topping a woman well takes a massive amount of effort. Massive. I lost interest in BDSM for many reasons (boredom would be one, boredom and just the sense of it all being contrived), but the biggest reason was the shear amount of effort that goes into playing the role and living out the fantasy. It's a lot easier just to get a blow job and fall asleep frankly.

With respect to Ghomeshi, I would speculate that for him, BDSM was far more intriguing than it ever was for me. He probably can't get off any other way, or he at least needs some component of it. Based on my own experiences where a huge percentage of women of my generation (and Ghomeshi and I are very close in age) are surprisingly open to BDSM, I'm guessing that Ghomeshi started to lose perspective and started thinking that BDSM was the norm, or at least "everyone is into it" and worse still, into it on his terms. That's simply not the case and that's where he blew it.

So with respect to you statement that one cannot consent to assault, you are correct. However, that is way to simplistic of a regulation and does not take into account that a HUGE number of women are very turned on with the notion of BDSM and being "taken" by a dominant man.
Great post and points you've raised. I totally agree with everything you wrote. One additional point is that any hardcore BDSM play involves a safe word to protect the bottom as you know.
 

james t kirk

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2001
24,051
3,930
113
If you want a laugh, read the column written by Leah McClaren in the Globe and Mail.

An intellectual light weight if ever there was one I realize, however this column is proof positive that she is completely stupid and devoid of any journalistic ability or critical thinking.

She really needs to stick to fluff pieces about makeup, dating and boyfriend problems.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life...-is-not-our-watershed-moment/article28730758/
 

twizz

Banned
Mar 8, 2014
1,974
0
0
FEBRUARY 11, 2016 by PressProgress
5 dangerous myths about sexual assault perpetuated by the Jian Ghomeshi trial


A Toronto court heard final arguments Thursday in the trial of former CBC Radio host Jian Ghomeshi.

Ghomeshi is charged with four counts of sexual assault and one count of choking to overcome resistance related to allegations brought forward by three female complainants.

While the defendent's guilt or innocence will be determined by a judge based on evidence presented in court, Ghomeshi's defence strategy has been widely criticized, with suggestions the aggressive cross-examination of witnesses in the high-profile trial is revictimizing the complainants and discourages women from reporting sexual assaults in the future.

Now, some question if Canada's criminal justice system is "structurally ill-suited" to deal with sexual assault cases?

Here's what experts and observers have to say about five of the more dangerous myths the Ghomeshi trial has pushed into the public square:

1. "Consent can be implied, retroactively"

Throughout the trial, Ghomeshi's lawyer, Marie Heinen, has sought to raise doubts about the relationship between the complainants and her client after the alleged assaults took place.

In all of this, Macleans' Anne Kingston observes, "the defence appears to be trying to establish some sort of retroactive implied consent, which, of course, is moot: at the time of the alleged assault, the future hadn’t occurred."

However, Canadian law is quite clear that this is ultimately irrelevant to the issue of 'consent'.

"If you examine this [Ghomeshi] trial," says University of Ottawa law professor Constance Backhouse, "basically because the victims gave consent to some things — before, during and after the alleged non-consensual behaviour — we're all making assessments that they are not believable about the non-consensual part."

And in the eyes of the law, none of this may matter: "the Supreme Court has said that a person cannot consent to an assault that causes bodily harm," says University of Toronto law professor Brenda Cossman. "If a sexual activity causes bodily harm, a person cannot consent to it."

Recent polling done by the Canadian Women's Foundation found that while 96% of Canadians agree sexual activity between partners must be consensual, over two-thirds of Canadians (67%) do not understand the legal definition of 'consent'.

2. "Survivors go directly to police after an assault"

Heinen also questioned why one complainant did not go directly to police after the alleged assault.

"I didn't go to the police because I wanted to go home," the woman answered. "I didn't go to police because I didn't want – this," referring to testimony before the court.

That response is consistent with statistics on sexual assaults in Canada. In 2014, Statistics Canada reported only 5% of all sexual assaults in Canada are reported to police.

"Sexual assaults perpetrated by someone other than a spouse were least likely to come to the attention of police," another report from Statistics Canada adds, with "nine in ten non-spousal sexual assaults were never reported to police."

3. "Survivors never go back to their abuser"

Heinen introduced evidence suggesting one complainant's contact with Ghomeshi after the alleged assault challenged the credibility of the allegation itself.

This isn't necessarily surprising, experts say. Survivors of abuse typically "manage the violence" through a range of responses to a traumatic experience, including "denial" and "self-blame" before they actively seek help.

"Many leave and return several times before their final separation," reads literature prepared by the BC government for victim service workers. Some reasons include emotional attachments to the abuser, emotional abuse, threats or fears of continued violence, social and cultural pressures, or financial dependence, to name only a few.

As Keetha Mercer of the Canadian Women's Foundation told Chatelaine:

"There are many reasons why a survivor would contact her abuser. These may include wanting to get closure or addressing what happened. Many survivors struggle to break off contact with their abuser because the nature of abuse includes undermining their self-esteem and confidence. They may feel controlled by their abuser, which is a hard feeling to shake even after they have left."

4. "Women lie about being sexually assaulted for fame and attention"

Ghomeshi's lawyer suggested one complainant's allegations were motivated by fame and attention, stating she was "reveling in the attention" and pointing out how her number of Twitter followers had "skyrocketed."

Except the trial process is arduous, often re-victimizing survivors. And as Toronto lawyer David Butts points out, the current system is "basically trial by war," so who would volunteer to put themselves through such a distressful process?

"That is probably the worst thing to do to complainants who are coming forward to talk about very intimate and distressing violations of their sexual integrity ... Moving away from an adversarial model, I think, is going to be necessary because look at the Ghomeshi trial — who would voluntarily put themselves through that?"

Not only that, but only 42% of sexual assault trials end in a conviction. 47% see charges stayed or withdrawn.

5. The stereotype of the "perfect" victim

Ghomeshi's defence has also attracted criticism for its "extreme focus on inconsistencies" in the complainants accounts of events, "including information that may appear to some as irrelevant," and using these to suggest complainants are stricken with "false memories."

Macleans' Anne Kingston says this strategy of asking "very personal questions" is "pretty extraneous but just poked holes in issues that should have nothing to do with the charges at hand."

"It's totally irrelevant to whether she wanted to be punched in the face," says UBC law professor Isabel Grant, who says the focus on inconsistencies is irrelevant to the issue of consent, but instead plays into stereotypes about women's sexuality.

Canadian novelist Kathryn Kuitenbrouwer observes that Heinen's cross-examination implies "that the woman has to be this hygienic, innocent, perfect bystander in these cases" – constructing an impossibly unrealistic image of what a credible victim looks and sounds like, irrelevant of the facts of the case.

"She seems to articulate that they wanted it, that they produced the violence," Kuitenbrower adds. "And then when it happened, they came back for more."

http://www.pressprogress.ca/5_dangerous_myths_about_sexual_assault_perpetuated_by_the_jian_ghomeshi_trial
 
Last edited:
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts