You beat me to it I was just about to post this. Interesting take. Walsh contends that E.M. should be brought to trial for false accusation and given the same sentence these players would have gotten, if found guilty. I don't agree with some of the things he says here, its a bit harsh, but one thing I do agree with is this NEVER should have been brought to trial. Also the NHL should immediately allow every one of these players back into the league.
Report: Five members of Canada’s 2018 WJC team told to surrender to London Police
- Thread starter bazokajoe
- Start date
In that case, I'll assume you're a rapist, yet to be charged and convicted in court.
This statement is false and misleading. You can't say no after the sexual act has been completed. Sex with regret after the fact was not a sexual assault.
While the number of women who reply in anonymous polls that they have been sexually assaulted far exceeds the number of sexual assault claims reported to police, it is also true that many in the former group personally define sexual assault differently from the Criminal code. The meanings of words are not meant to be subjectively defined in accordance with the feelings and whims of an individual.
Political Correctness Is...
Arbitrarily redefining words, then using them in statistics.
Has absolutely no bearing on the definition of consent that I was trying to explain.
So, I guess you don't agree with the information in the link which you provided to support your earlier pontification. Thanks for clearing that up.
The link supports my definition of consent, so not sure what you are going on about here.
Your link provides a biased definition of consent which is inconsistent with the definition as described in the Criminal Code of Canada. Enthusiastic consent is not a legal prerequisite, and the absence of enthusiasm does not presuppose that a sexual act in involuntary. If a guy says "So, do you want to fuck?", and the woman says "Whatever.", she has not said "No.".
When a feminist lawyer says something in a CBC broadcast, it isn't necessarily 100% objectively true. Objective truths are the only things that are supposed to matter in a Criminal Court proceeding.
I am not talking about the criminal code.
I am talking about what common sense consent should mean.
Laws often define these things too inadequately due to needing to be concise, formal and objective.
As I mentioned, this is also why rape is so hard to convict.
But just because there was no conviction doesn't mean there was no rape.
As defined by organizations like RAINN who deal with this subject.
The law is not a crutch.
