Jian Ghomeshi trial to begin in Toronto Monday

[fashionboy]

Excellent Twizz.

 

[twizz]

I'm predicting he will be convicted on the choking charge but be found not guilty of the sexual assault counts.

 

[Bud Plug]

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.

I only suggested that you read the Facebook post because you were asking why it wasn't used as evidence in the trial. The short answer is that the post didn't provide the Crown with any useful admissions.

Fuji has a penchant for straw men (i.e. misstating the position of other posters), so let me state again where I'm coming from. I am no fan of Ghomeshi. In fact, I loathe the guy. Before any of this happened, I had always found him to be the sort of sanctimonious prick that usually turns out to be worse than everyone they rail against (a la Jimmy Swaggert, and the list goes on and on). I've made no comment about whether the complaints brought forward by other women are valid or not. Nor it is not my position that anyone is entitled to "test drive" every woman you meet for their interest in BDSM without any sort of prior consent. On the evidence, I just don't happen to put any faith in the truthfulness of the 3 complainants the crown put forward in this case. However, it is quite possible that in the next trial the evidence of the complainant will be completely reliable. It's also possible that all the evidence that was gathered, both by the police and by his employer, is just as flawed as what we've seen in this trial.

Where I do clearly disagree with Fuji is: 1) the conclusion he seems to be reaching on the evidence that's currently available about whether these 3 complainants should be believed, and whether, therefore it's accurate to characterize these 3 as victims of "violence against women" and 2) that the term "violence against women" is a term that can be properly used in relation to conduct which is consented to and does not fall within the category of serious physical harm (which the courts have said cannot be consented to).

In many ways, Fuji is no different than those extreme feminists who undermine society's ability to address problems (that everyone would be prepared to have addressed) by overstating the issue (which happens when you're really just using an issue to drive some other agenda).

 

[destillat]

I know that you will provide a link that proves his objective WAS to impose violence against women, and NOT to provide mutual sexual pleasure.
I'm waiting.

Still waiting, fool.

 

[lucky_blue]

I only suggested that you read the Facebook post because you were asking why it wasn't used as evidence in the trial. The short answer is that the post didn't provide the Crown with any useful admissions.

Fuji has a penchant for straw men (i.e. misstating the position of other posters), so let me state again where I'm coming from. I am no fan of Ghomeshi. In fact, I loathe the guy. Before any of this happened, I had always found him to be the sort of sanctimonious prick that usually turns out to be worse than everyone they rail against (a la Jimmy Swaggert, and the list goes on and on). I've made no comment about whether the complaints brought forward by other women are valid or not. Nor it is not my position that anyone is entitled to "test drive" every woman you meet for their interest in BDSM without any sort of prior consent. On the evidence, I just don't happen to put any faith in the truthfulness of the 3 complainants the crown put forward in this case. However, it is quite possible that in the next trial the evidence of the complainant will be completely reliable. It's also possible that all the evidence that was gathered, both by the police and by his employer, is just as flawed as what we've seen in this trial.

Where I do clearly disagree with Fuji is: 1) the conclusion he seems to be reaching on the evidence that's currently available about whether these 3 complainants should be believed, and whether, therefore it's accurate to characterize these 3 as victims of "violence against women" and 2) that the term "violence against women" is a term that can be properly used in relation to conduct which is consented to and does not fall within the category of serious physical harm (which the courts have said cannot be consented to).

In many ways, Fuji is no different than those extreme feminists who undermine society's ability to address problems (that everyone would be prepared to have addressed) by overstating the issue (which happens when you're really just using an issue to drive some other agenda).

You realize he is the most prolific troll on terb - he clearly gets off on getting people worked up. I would not be surprised if he jerks off while reading your post.

 

[lucky_blue]

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

I agree with Perry - Given what we have heard so far - I think it would be very difficult for any judge to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. At least on some of the charges. While they likely see it every day, judges are not fond of perjurers.

 

[fuji]

Fuji has a penchant for straw men

This is hilarious, because

Where I do clearly disagree with Fuji is: 1) the conclusion he seems to be reaching on the evidence that's currently available about whether these 3 complainants should be believed

I never said that.

and whether, therefore it's accurate to characterize these 3 as victims of "violence against women"

It has been pointed out to you by numerous posters numerous times that there lots of examples of Ghomeshi beating up women and the ONLY thing disputed in the trial or anywhere else is whether they consented.

and 2) that the term "violence against women" is a term that can be properly used in relation to conduct which is consented to and does not fall within the category of serious physical harm (which the courts have said cannot be consented to).

Punching, choking, and slapping is violence. In another case, the one he himself presented to CBC bragging of having proof of consent (which they accepted he did have) he broke a woman's ribs and left her with serious bruises, but hey, that's OK because she consented, right?

We can all agree to let the judge decide whether his violence against women was criminal or whether they consented to it but denying that he gets off on VIOLENCE against women makes you a shrill and desperate person who can't face reality.

 

[lucky_blue]

Stupid - the judge simply needs to decide whether the crown provided enough evidence to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Given the inconsistent testimony and evidence of perjury it seems unlikely.

 

[AK-47]

Having judge only trial and no jury was probably smart move by Henein, because if you get a bunch of angry feminazis on that jury there's a really good chance they might convict Ghomeshi just because they despise him and ignoring the fact the evidence against him doesnt stack up

 

[Bud Plug]

This is hilarious, because



I never said that.



It has been pointed out to you by numerous posters numerous times that there lots of examples of Ghomeshi beating up women and the ONLY thing disputed in the trial or anywhere else is whether they consented.



Punching, choking, and slapping is violence. In another car he broke a woman's ribs and left her with serious bruises, but hey, that's OK because she consented right?

We can all agree to let the judge decide whether his violence against women was criminal or whether they consented to it but denying that he gets off on VIOLENCE against women makes you a shrill and desperate person who can't face reality.

You are either incredibly unclear in expressing yourself, incredibly confused, or both.

You have done nothing but describe the alleged acts that are the subject of the trial as examples of violence against women. You've argued strenuously against anyone who suggested that the circumstances surrounding these particular acts (including consent) might not support that characterization. Your only qualifier is that you concede that it is up to the judge to decide whether this violence against women is criminal (a strange concession, unless you would otherwise have authority over criminal trials ). What you fail to acknowledge is that the evidence might support the conclusion that all of these particular acts were consensual. However, according to you (and only you), apparently that wouldn't matter when it comes to applying your definition of "violence against women".

Then you flip flop over whether intent matters or not. You defend professional sport, because the athletes intend to display their athletic prowess. Yet you deny intent as a defence if the injury occurs during sexual activity. You cite the pictures of bruising/injury (that were not tested or qualified in this trial). Do you want to bet whether the woman/women in question will not come forward to complain, perhaps because either: a) they actually have no hard feelings towards Ghomeshi (ie. enjoyed their time with him), and/or b) they know they consented to all of the acts involved, and/or c) the injuries suffered were accidental? It was pretty noticeable that none of these women joined the complainants in this case. You must be aware that sometimes people are injured, sometimes even seriously, by accident. Happens in professional sports all the time. I guess on your analysis, that would be fine, because it's sport. What if a person making a tackle in professional football really "gets off" on tackling people, maybe even enjoys when the people they tackle are injured, but they tackle within the rules. If an injury occurs by chance/accident, is he deserving of your scorn as well?

Your rush to judgement based on the incomplete, and untested evidence that gets leaked to the public puts your analysis alongside the quality of the investigation done by the police in this trial. They, however, might at least have the saving grace that they knew the case was poor, but were under political pressure to move forward with the charges anyway.

The best advice anyone could offer you is you should make sure that you're never on a witness stand. You'd do just about as well as these complainants did.

 

[fuji]

Other than here on terb from posters who have some sort of anti feminist chip on their shoulder, no one, and I mean no one, least of all Ghomeshi, disputes that he punches, slaps, and chokes women.

The usual suspects here on terb, lead by bud, are trying to rewrite history.

Ghomeshi has admitted he hits women. He says that they consent. In the trial three of them claimed they didn't and a judge will get to the bottom of that. But no one, least of all him, disputes that he is violent.

http://m.thestar.com/#/article/news..._video_showed_womans_bruises_cracked_rib.html

 

[Bud Plug]

^ ^

^

 

[AK-47]

Other than here on terb from posters who have some sort of anti feminist chip on their shoulder, no one, and I mean no one, least of all Ghomeshi, disputes that he punches, slaps, and chokes women.

The usual suspects here on terb, lead by bud, are trying to rewrite history.

Ghomeshi has admitted he hits women. He says that they consent. In the trial three of them claimed they didn't and a judge will get to the bottom of that. But no one, least of all him, disputes that he is violent.

http://m.thestar.com/#/article/news..._video_showed_womans_bruises_cracked_rib.html

Fuji, if a man and a woman get off on rough sex and enjoy hitting each other, and its between consenting adults, then who are we to judge??

I'm personally not into this type of thing, but if others are then thats their business

 

[destillat]

Fuji, if a man and a woman get off on rough sex and enjoy hitting each other, and its between consenting adults, then who are we to judge??

I'm personally not into this type of thing, but if others are then thats their business

He's foolji... the President and CEO of an intergallactic company.
How dare you question His moral compass.

 

[Perry Mason]

The usual suspects here on terb, lead by bud, are trying to rewrite history.

I owe you an apology, fuji...

I thought you were pretending to be obdurate, foolish and condescending because you get your kicks putting off and arguing ad nauseam with other people.

I am wrong. It is not a pretense.

You are just like my wife. She really believes there are only two ways of saying or doing anything: her way and the wrong way.

Oh well.... live and learn!

Perry

 

[fuji]

Fuji, if a man and a woman get off on rough sex and enjoy hitting each other, and its between consenting adults, then who are we to judge??

I'm personally not into this type of thing, but if others are then thats their business

If a guy gets off on beating up women to the point that they are getting bruised and having their ribs broken then I absolutely judge that. If you don't, you are morally bankrupt.

I don't buy your moral relativism, it is bullshit. You know right from wrong, so do I.Beating up women is wrong. Period. Finding ways to do it without being an outright criminal may get him off the hook in criminal court but it doesn't absolve him. He is a sick fuck, and if you think beating up women is OK, so are you.

 

[AK-47]

If a guy gets off on beating up women to the point that they are getting bruised and having their ribs broken then I absolutely judge that. If you don't, you are morally bankrupt.

I don't buy your moral relativism, it is bullshit. You know right from wrong, so do I.Beating up women is wrong. Period. Finding ways to do it without being an outright criminal may get him off the hook in criminal court but it doesn't absolve him. He is a sick fuck, and if you think beating up women is OK, so are you.

No its not sick if both parties agree to it and enjoy it. Again, I'm not into this type of stuff but I have no right to judge others and whatever weird shit they're into.

Remember fuji, many people think you're a sick fuck too for paying SP'S just so you can get laid

 

[Open Wide]

Meanwhile... sorry to post the whole thing below but this is a really great overall perspective in my opinion: "The Biggest Losers in the Ghomeshi Trial" by Margaret Wente
(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-biggest-losers-in-the-ghomeshi-debacle/article28741727/)

It’s all over but the verdict – and the shouting. To many people’s outrage, Jian Ghomeshi – perhaps the most widely loathed man in Canada – is unlikely to be convicted for alleged crimes that happened in another decade. There is almost no corroborating evidence, and all the witnesses were, to put it kindly, shaky.

It’s not too soon to say that almost everybody lost. His reputation is beyond repair. All three complainants were cut to ribbons for varying degrees of misleading and incomplete testimony. The details they forgot to mention include that notorious e-mail from Lucy DeCoutere, hours after the alleged assault, in which she expressed the desire to “fuck your brains out.”

The Crown looks, at best, hapless, and appears to have failed miserably in preparing the witnesses for the rigours of trial. The police look terrible for failing to conduct a proper investigation and failing to uncover important evidence that proved devastating to the witnesses. The same can be said of their lawyers. The only winner is the razor-sharp defence lawyer Marie Henein, she of the clacking stilettos. She did her job.

But the biggest losers were not in court. They are the many victims of sexual assault who now, because of this fiasco, will be more reluctant than ever to come forward.

The problems with the case started at the very beginning. The charges against Mr. Ghomeshi were brought in an atmosphere of intense media-induced frenzy. As dozens of women came forward to accuse him in the media, he became the archetype of the predatory male. Sympathy for the alleged victims was overwhelming, and the public demanded action. In the fall of 2014, Bill Blair, Toronto’s then-police chief, responded to the pressure by urging victims to come forward and contact the police.

Ms. DeCoutere was one who did. Why didn’t she go to police at the time of the alleged assault? Because – as she told the CBC in 2014 – she didn’t think she had a case. It was just her word against his. She wasn’t physically injured. “I knew enough to know there would be so many holes in the story it would be like, we got nothing for you, honey.”

The case was so full of holes that some people are now wondering how it was ever brought to trial. But if police hadn’t charged Mr. Ghomeshi, the outcry would have been deafening.

An astonishing number of people calling for Mr. Ghomeshi’s head don’t seem to grasp the fundamental principles of our legal system. They seem baffled by the concept of innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They don’t seem to understand the difference between belief and proof. They are outraged that the defendant was not obliged to appear in the witness box, and that complainants are subject to scrutiny. Some people do grasp these things, but think there should be different rules for sex-assault cases. If so, I’d like to know what they should be.

It must also be said that the victim lobby has done itself no favours. Its tone has been both strident and absolute. The notion that we should believe the victims – no matter what – not only is unhelpful, but has been thoroughly discredited by a series of widely publicized cases (e.g., Rolling Stone, in which the victim made it all up). In fact, the public is more sophisticated than the victim lobby seems to think. People have a great deal of sympathy for sexual-assault victims. But they don’t think that means an automatic free pass.

The victim lobby also lacks a sense of proportion. Like it or not, there’s a difference between slapping, hair-pulling and brief incidents of choking (the accusations here) and rape at knifepoint. Bill Cosby is suspected of sexually violating dozens of women after he drugged them. None of this is excusable. But some of it is worse.

Nor is “trauma” a satisfying blanket explanation for every victim’s behaviour. People understand perfectly well why some women placate their abusers. But “trauma” does not necessarily explain why someone who barely knows the guy at all would write lovesick letters, or send bikini photographs, after he slapped her around on a first date. There may be other reasons. Besides, at least one of the complainants in this case wasn’t traumatized at all. She told him to get lost (after giving him a hand job).

We need to have a more honest conversation about why some women – women who, dare I say it, ought to know better – behave the way they do. This is not meant as an excuse for male behaviour. But plenty of women are attracted to men who are mad, bad and dangerous to know, as well as to men who seem quite nice at first but turn out to be predatory jerks. Most of us have encountered men such as these. Most of us have learned to run the other way. Sorry, but if a guy slaps you around on your first date, maybe you shouldn’t go on a second one.

People are not allowed to say such things these days, for fear they’ll be accused of “whacking the victim.” But that is simply what we tell our daughters: Watch out for yourself. There’s enough trouble in this world without inviting more.

 

[Titalian]

No its not sick if both parties agree to it and enjoy it. Again, I'm not into this type of stuff but I have no right to judge others and whatever weird shit they're into.

Remember fuji, many people think you're a sick fuck too for paying SP'S just so you can get laid

Well then they are both sick, in different ways. One the total aggressor and the other the total submissive, for what ever reason. DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT !
This fucker is a predator and he will search and find the submissive ones. Any ways he's fucked one way or another.

 

[Polaris]

Excellent Twizz.

What if everyone is lying in this case.