That you, ‘can’t imagine’, is the very root of the problem.
What do you think gropers look like? Do for a living?
What do the women they grope look like? Do for a living?
If YOU get groped in an elevator, how long till YOU stop being, ‘on your guard’ every time you step into one?
No it’s not. My imagination and morals have fuck all to do with what others do.
I will admit that as a young man, many decades ago even with 5 sisters I had very little understanding of women. If I went on a date and the first or second date didn’t pan out to sex, I just assumed this relationship was going nowhere and give up. It wasn’t the sex I was going after, it was the relationship and the sex would validate her love. Too much playboy and penthouse
Of all the sexual relationships I’ve had, I was the one who pursued. I wasn’t the most attractive guy on the block.
There were times I would meet mild resistance to my sexual advances even to the point of verbally saying no but in many cases body language would contradict and the evening would conclude “successfully” with a satisfied partner.’
On top of that although its not my style I understand that there are those who are into bondage and discipline including choking .
I just don’t understand how you can ask for permission to choke someone and expect a satisfactory outcome for the chokee or spankee. In Jian’s case I’m sure he believed he satisfied all three women when they wanted more of him even though he clearly didn’t.
Verbal consent prior to any sexual act seems to be what the majority of women want in general. It is the safest way. Rather than destroy men’s lives like Jian’s why can’t we as a society blitz our young men with education stressing the importance of PRIOR VERBAL consent and the irrelevance of any other cues
In your world is quite certainly is heard of. It’s just that you haven’t heard of it. The primary reason for that is that you’re a man, so it’s not within your realm of experience; the second reason is that this sort of aggressiveness and harassment is so common and accepted that women are usually embarrassed to complain about it. If they do they’re often painted as whiners or, worse, as being deserving of it because they had the poor sense to wear something revealing, or go to a club, or whatever.
Coincidentally, this thread popped up today. Read the OP:
That stuff is absolutely commonplace. All girls and women go through it. Or watch the famous video of the woman walking through NYC and being harassed over and over and over again. This isn’t some kind of neo-feminist bullshit. It’s absolute reality.
It sucks, but our daughters are 11 and 10 and we’re already trying to teach them how to safely deal with boys and men (without frightening them) because boys and men are dangerous to girls and women.
This is a case in which actually knowing the facts, at least as they appeared in court, completely undermines the rationale for the activist frenzy.
Sure, sexual harassment is a big social problem. However, this wasn’t a case about sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is where someone pursues another with unwanted attentions.
This was a case of alleged sexual assaults, in relationships that were, as it turned out, pursued by the complainants - to a much greater degree than they had initially alleged. The allegation was that the relationships were consensual, but the violence by Gomeshi was not.
The concerning thing about the activist reaction, at least to me, is things like the call in an opinion piece in the Globe a couple of days ago that the justice system be completely revamped so that complaints like this can succeed. It seems that, from right and left, there are constant calls to water down protections for those accused of crimes (the left prefers weakening protections for those accused of sexual offences, the right prefers weakening protections for those accused of terrorism) – a position fraught with unintended consequences.
Yet this was almost a poster-child for a case in which the complainants were not credible - at least, assuming that the judges’ summary of the evidence can be relied on. One gets the impression, from listening to activist editorializing, that the actual facts don’t matter, guilt or innocence doesn’t matter - all that matters is their anger.
It reminds me, uncomfortably, of the Trump followers who care nothing for the guilt or innocence of individual Muslims - what matters is that they fear terrorism.
I completely agree that watering down protections for those accused of crimes is a terrible idea and not at all a solution to any problem.
I am not agreeing with someone who says “the judge was wrong” or “the way trials work should be changed.” I’m saying that the angry reaction is one that shuld have been expected. If you frustrate people long enough they are going to burst, sooner or later; the time or manner of the explosion will not necessarily be wholly rational and factually correct, but it is both inevitable and understandable.
Not sure how much of a spontaneous “explosion” this is. Seems to me more a media frenzy, deliberately whipped up.
Seems people are simply adopting the media version of events - that Gomeshi, who was ‘clearly an abuser’, ‘got off’ because of a bunch of incomprehensible legal gobbeltygook cooked up by his fancy-pants high-priced lawyer (ironically enough, a woman, in a career that tends to be male-dominated). This, after literally months of press about what an asshole Gomeshi is, in all his dealings with women (much of which may be true, who knows).
Of course, based on that narrative, people would be pissed. Who wouldn’t be? One doesn’t have to be a feminist theorizer to find a rich asshole getting off on a technicality after beating up a bunch of women totally outrageous.
In the Globe at least, the press had a field day after the verdict. The Globe had a split-page op-ed pieces, one supporting the trial result, one opposing (the latter from a legal expert). The message loud and clear - that there is a genuine controversy over the justice of the judgment. If the legal experts appear ‘evenly split’, even in a small-c conservative paper like the Globe, how could outrage not follow?
Thing is, the actual issues in the case aren’t all that complex: an unbiased read of the judgment demonstrates why the case turned out as it did.
Sorry but no, I completely disagree. I think the media’s being pulled along here more than they are pushing it.
The issue of violence against women is one of the issues of the day and there is, I assure you, a strong grassroots element to this.
I agree that the issue of violence against women is topical. I disagree that the media has merely been pulled, and about the “grassroots” response.
The vast majority of the “response” has been about the alleged unfairness of the court system, and it appears most of the demonstrations are by the usual suspects.
Thing is that the mainstream media is buying in to the notion that there is something to it - that this trial may really have been ‘unfair’ in some way.
Sure the media reports on those events. But have there been counter-protests in favour of the decision that the media has not reported on?
I read the judge’s decision. The Crown’s witnesses were revealed in a calm, methodical and detailed manner to be liars. More than enough reasonable doubt to require an acquittal. If you were charged with a crime based on the same evidence, you would deserve no less.
Thank you, Elendil’s Heir. That was my read of the case too.
Thanks also to Malthus, who has been trying to make sense of the case here; and I think he has succeeded.
No. Why would there be?
That’s the problem with rights created by centuries of tedious lawmaking: they are boring and taken for granted; plus, for some strange reason, it is always people who appear (on the surface at least) to be deeply unpleasant bad people who keep trying to invoke them - rapists, murderers, muggers, terrorists, whathaveyou.
Why, the press exclaims, do we keep coddling people like these? Why must ordinary Canadians live in fear, while the legal system seems to bend over backwards to protect these nasty, evil people? It isn’t the facts of any one case, we are told, that are important - but the sensation that every Canadian has that life is actively unsafe, because of these bad people, and the system that just lets them get away with it, over and over again. A message must be sent!
This used to be more of a conservative mantra, but lately progressives are joining in the chorus too - as we can see loud and clear in this case. Many are angered by “rich asshole gets off on a technicality”. Few are aroused to protest in the name of “the integrity of criminal procedure”. 
Unless, of course, one happens to be accused of a crime. Naturally, that can never happen to good people, so it is probably not worth worrying about too much.
Except I read the three articles you linked to. It wasn’t the press challenging those principles of the criminal justice system. It was the press reporting on people who were challenging them. That doesn’t strike me as the press “buying in” to the critiques.
The articles weren’t offered to support that particular proposition, but rather that the “demonstrations” aren’t about harassment of women generally as much as they are about the court system, and that they are led, organized and largely attended by the usual groups.
My support for the position of the press, and I don’t think it is easy to dispute, is the actual press articles I mentioned - for example, the op-eds in the Globe, where after the verdict the Globe literally split the page of the relevant section in half and had one op-ed supporting the verdict and one op-ed opposing the verdict and slamming the court system.
Seems fair and open-minded - except that only a very extreme person would possibly think that this particular verdict in this particular case literally proves the justice system is wrong. Yet here, in a small-c conservative, possibly at times small-l liberal paper like the Globe, the paper is visually demonstrating that this is a POV worthy of equal weight to “the justice system got it right”.
Here’s the article I remember seeing:
It’s a false balance.
I do not think, reading the verdict (and assuming of course that the verdict accurately reflects the evidence), that the POV of ‘this demonstrates the justice system was broken, and some other system, which would have treated the evidence differently, would have come to a better conclusion’ was reasonable. Although not stated (here), the underlying attitude is "of course, in our better system, he’d have been found guilty despite the fact that his accusers were not credible’.
Or worse, ‘if only the cops and prosecutor had properly instructed these accusers, they would not have lied on the stand - and, of course, it is totally understandable that accusers would otherwise lie’. It is utterly incredible to me that some people would infantilize these accusers to such a degree as to suggest that they literally did not know lying on the stand would be a problem, unless repeatedly drilled by the cops, but there it is:
It is as if the press (or at least, these editorialists) cannot get their collective heads around the fact that not all accusers are legitimate, that some may have questionable motives, or in fact be lying; that the fault may not lie in “the system”.
First of all, I completely agree with the judge’s decision - with the facts as presented, the decision was correct.
My issue is with the comments that “not all sexual assault victims should be assumed to be telling the truth” or something like that - I don’t feel like looking it up, day five of a migraine and I am not in the mood. This is a dangerous comment because currently, victims are not assumed to be telling the truth. Currently, only about 6 of every 100 victims even tells what happened. Of those, 4% are later recanted/shown to be false (this is important since recanting doesn’t mean it was a lie. Many children recant because they feel it’s “their fault” that so-and-so got arrested).
It’s is incredibly difficult, even if you are “the perfect victim” to report. I know, because I was one. The incredibly feeling of shame and humiliation is really kind of indescribable. There were more than enough “screw-ups” along the way with my case (seriously, it was ridiculous), I can’t imagine how much worse it would have been if there was any serious question that I was telling the truth. The single biggest indication if a victim/survivor will recover is how those first people respond to the initial disclosures.
“I believe you” should be the first thing you say and “You are not alone” should be the second. Being a victim of a sex crime is a lonely, cold and shitty role. The system doesn’t need to make it any harder.
I’m a big fan of decisions being based on evidence rather than emotion, and in criminal matters I’m a big fan of a presumption of innocence and the Crown’s the burden of proof being beyond a reasonable doubt. Horkins J. reasons met this to the letter, so no matter what I think of Gomeshi, I am satisfied with the decision. Reverse onus on serious matters? No thanks. I’m not into autocratic rule and I’m not into mob rule.
IMHO, Blackstone got it right when he commented: “FOURTHLY, all presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously: for the law holds, that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.”
I’m glad we’re all in agreement here that presumption of innocence is a good thing. I quite think it’s missing the point of why people are angry.
I made the comparison to Michael Brown and Ferguson quite deliberately. The Michael Brown incident is not even within a day’s drive of surpassing the barrier of reasonable doubt to convict the cop who shot Brown. It was, however, the flashpoint for major public anger and a movement sufficiently popular to get its own name. Nobody in Black Lives Matters is seriously saying that the presumption of innocence should be tossed aside when a white police officer shoots a black person, either in general or in the case of Michael Brown. Sure, some people will let their emotions get away with them and not rationally discuss that particular case, I get that. But BLM isn’t about the Brown case in particular, it’s about the widespread problem of police officers brutalizing black people and the fact they quite often DO get away with malfeasance.
If anyone thinks this anger just popped up overnight over the legalities of the Ghomeshi case, they’re not paying attention. The anger over this is the same anger as over the Rehtaeh Parsons case, and it’s a first cousin of the (in my opinion, far too limited) anger over the Catholic Church’s crimes against children. Sexual assault, bullying, and harassment, and the casual acceptance of those things, is pissing people off, and rightly so.
If you tell me no-one in BLM is seriously considering tossing criminal law protections, I’ll believe you.
However, that’s exactly what makes this case non-analogous. Read the links I posted upthread. People are, in point of fact, making exactly this case here. They do want massive change.
People being pissed off in general about a whole bunch of things isn’t a good basis for making law or policy. Sure, there are cases in which holes in the law ought to be fixed: the Rehtaeh Parsons case (and in fact somewhat similar “revenge porn” cases) have, in point of fact, lead to legal change - I even wrote an article on “revenge porn” a couple of months ago, and how the legal system is developing the tools to grapple with it, which (I hope) makes interesting reading.
To my mind, incremental change, taken deliberately within the legal process, is the way to go.
I distrust ‘people are angry, so we must do something right now’. The reason: unintended consequences.
I continue to agree that the justice system worked correctly in this case and usually does work correctly, and am not sure, exactly, who you’re arguing with on that point.