Well…points for being honest and straightforward, I guess.
Rather than if-ing, read the judgment.
I wasn’t asking, I was supposing. I was inviting other opinions. I suppose that is allowed even when evidence one way or the other is available.
So now he’s been vindicated, he’s going to get his job back, right?
Thought not. Despite being found not guilty, he’s lost his job, a lot of money, and his reputation. Doesn’t seem right, does it?
By numerous accounts, he was a terrible boss to work for, irrespective of what he did outside of office hours. CBC has claimed that’s why they fired him, not because of his sex life.
And even if they explicitly fired him over the allegations, proof beyond reasonable doubt of a criminal offense is not and should not be the standard used in employment decisions.
Are you sure he has been “vindicated”?
Not by a long shot. There are many people, myself included, who think the verdict is a result of a fucked up system, not that Ghomeshi was innocent.
You have clearly not read the verdict: the testimonies of the alleged victims were deeply flawed. And, if you’re unwilling to respect the verdict of a court of law, why have law?
The purpose of the criminal legal process is to determine whether there is sufficient proof to impose criminal punishments.
A “not guilty” verdict by itself doesn’t “vindicate” anyone beyond that narrow purpose.
You may not like the law, but you need to respect it. After all, it may be you some day.
Who is not respecting the law and how?
I don’t have to respect jack shit. I do, however, have to be willing to face the consequences.
I hate that this slimebag got away. No doubt in my mind that he is a sleeze.
I guess the takehome lesson is for victims to get their facts straight before talking to the police. Perhaps visit a really good criminal trial lawyer beforehand. When you talk with the police, the DA or are examined by the defense, don’t embellish anything and if you are unsure of any facts presented don’t agree to them if you are unsure. Apart from the facts that make up the elements of the crime, don’t go into any more detail than is absolutely necessary - “we went on a date, I went back to his place, while we were there he choked me but I managed to escape.” I am absolutely sure of these things.
If by “respect” you mean “follow the law when you might get caught,” sure. But why the fuck would I respect a legal system that I think totally fucked up and let a rapist get away? Why would the fact that I might have to use them because there’s no better option make me respect them in any way?
This was an ongoing problem tons of people knew about. The idea that it’s false makes absolutely no sense. It makes far more sense that a judge fucked up. He actually believed the bullshit that people say about rapists, that going back to them proves you were never raped. Bull. Fucking. Shit.
Or you could read what actually happened and learn why the judge ruled as they did.