Is *that* your argument?I feel its pretty clear once you toss out the strawman arguments
You can't retroactively apply the law (or even precedents that law spawned)
Who has argued that?
What was Cosby accused of that was legal when he did it and then he was retroactively prosecuted for it?
Why do you think either of these cases are relevant to what Cosby was accused of?Bill Cosby "rape" only exists in Canada AFTER 2011
R. v. J.A. - SCC Cases
This page contains a form to search the Supreme Court of Canada case information database. You can search by the SCC 5-digit case number, by name or word in the style of cause, or by file number from the appeal court.scc-csc.lexum.com
As recently as 2017 we get cases such as the Halifax one where a taxi driver successfully argued an unconscious woman did consent before she passed out
The supreme court case is about prior consent.
I don't think the taxi case involved him arguing she gave consent, but fine - let's say he did.
What does that have to do with Cosby drugging people who didn't consent?
That you don't see the difference between people who got drunk/high and fucked and drugging someone to rape them is terrifying.I will say it again
If the act of giving a woman a drug and a drink constitutes "rape" then literally every person in highschool is a rapist
I am beginning to think most of the posters on terb are millenials because I can not imagine a school where people did not get drunk/high and fuck