Ghomeshi Trial Begins

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Assault is illegal period. No exceptions, not even with a contract.

How can I enter a Karate tournament then, for example, and permit someone to kick me in the face?

It's probably got a lot to do with the definition of 'assault' Magoo. The example of boxing or martial arts seems intereesting though. Maybe a 'madam' can be asked by a masochist male to be punched, kicked, etc., etc., and that would be legal. Surely one of our professionals in the field will tell us sooner or later.

But unfortunately, as most of us know who are over the age of -- will know that it goes a lot further than that when the knives and the other instruments of torture come out. 

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Its okay Monty I have destroyed many mangers on the stand because I have an ear for inconsistencies in people's stories. Your story about being a lifelong NDP supporter who is gaga over Trudeau the Lesser I find quite hard to swallow however one of the etiquette things at babble is I have to accept things like that at face value. I was merely using your own words to determine your age because I mistakenly believed your posts about your life story. I will try not to make that mistake again.

kropotkin, I have news on this, good or bad depending on your perspective. I kept thinking that I had voted CCF for some reason. And maybe it was because I should have remembered if it was my first chance to vote. Almost everybody votes when it's their first chance. Did you? So I went into the election records and discovered that there was a B.C. election in 1960 and a federal election in 1958 and I could have very well voted in both of them!

So I wondered, who would know and I thought of my brother in Manitoba who may know. So I decided to email him to find out whether he voted in those two elections and if he recalled if I had accompanied him. But I haven't heard back from him yet but I should quite soon.

And so I was wondering if you would like to know what I find out? And if so then would you prefer to hear by private message so we don't interrupt this thread anymore with this kind of back and forth. Let me know o.k., if you want to know.

p.s. just one question for you. how old would a person have to be to vote in 1958 and 1960. 18 or 21? Not that it matters all that much. 

Northern PoV wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Northern PoV wrote:

Folks seem to be conflating long-term domestic situations with this interaction between two new acquaintances: a flame & a moth.

Conflating what, exactly?

Maybe you can explain how the "interaction" - a punch to the head and choking, if we want to say it plainly - is different in each case.

That is the accusation we are talking about. If you think there is something in either case that makes the assault any less of an assault, or any less serious, I am curious to hear.

My point is that this woman (unlike a trapped housewife for ex)  had 'agency'. ie was quite capable of avoiding the jerk after the first bizarre hair pulling incident...  She was a bad case to bring to court. If the rest of the case is this weak then JG walks... and probably should  ... his career is shot so its not like he is unscathed.

Yes, she had agency, that didn't give him leave to punch her in the head. Even if he had done so before, and she saw him again, it still wouldn't give him leave to punch her in the head again.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

<SNIP>

You see, making bad decisions is not a crime, and she's not on trial here, though plenty are talking like she is, while curiously saying nothing about Ghomeshi's actions, and acting like he has no agency or responsibility here at all.

And fortunately there is only one person who needs to be convinced here - the judge.

The witness is not on trial but our trial process does test her as a valid witness.  She failled that process (imo) and yes the judge will decide.

btw, I have yet to see a single post that is supportive of JG and see lots of critism of his actions.  He is a creepy rat who deserves the sh*t storm he brought on himself.

I do question the whole 'legal' route, based on the trial so far. (The crown's case may yet improve, who knows?)  It really distracts from the resposibility of his employer (CBC) and the ugly celebrity culture we've all come to worship.  Lots of enablers over the years (from the CBC and beyond) protected JG.  Other folks should be losing their jobs over this too. 

If we outed those folks (a public inquiry vs a trial perhaps) then the cause for abuse-free workplaces would be more likely to move forward than from this focus on the ugly little abuser. 

The judge will sort out the details in the case at hand.  Don't get your hopes up.

What about the bigger issues? JG proclivities were apparently well know in his industry.

We need to fully identify and punish the enablers in a public forum rather than chase this case down the legal rabbit hole. It ain't just one scummy guy.  Focussing on him (after he has already been tossed into the public dustbin) distracts from the bigger problems.  And if this trial continues the way its gone so far, it will actually harm the social movement to prevent abuse whatever the outcome.

They will say:

'see - just one weird guy ... and he is not guilty' or

'see - one weird guy - and the system worked' 

monty1 wrote:

kropotkin, I have news on this, good or bad depending on your perspective. I kept thinking that I had voted CCF for some reason. And maybe it was because I should have remembered if it was my first chance to vote. Almost everybody votes when it's their first chance. Did you? So I went into the election records and discovered that there was a B.C. election in 1960 and a federal election in 1958 and I could have very well voted in both of them!

So I wondered, who would know and I thought of my brother in Manitoba who may know. So I decided to email him to find out whether he voted in those two elections and if he recalled if I had accompanied him. But I haven't heard back from him yet but I should quite soon.

And so I was wondering if you would like to know what I find out? And if so then would you prefer to hear by private message so we don't interrupt this thread anymore with this kind of back and forth. Let me know o.k., if you want to know.

p.s. just one question for you. how old would a person have to be to vote in 1958 and 1960. 18 or 21? Not that it matters all that much. 

So you are saying that you are not in your 80's but are instead are 78 or 79. So why not say that at first? I expected that as a reply if you had voted on the last two elections that the CCF contested in BC one federal and one provincial. However instead you just denied being in your 80's.

The CCF was disbanded in 1960 so neither you nor your brother voted for the CCF in the 1962 federal election. The last federal election that the CCF ran in was in 1958. The one before that was in 1957. If you had voted in those two elections you would have had to have been born prior to June 1936 and thus at the youngest turning 80 sometime in the next three months.

I remember when they changed the legal age for voting from 21 to 18 and that was in 1970. It made no difference for me because I turned 21 before the 1972 election and would still have been 17 for the 1968 election.

What I find so very interesting is that you didn't vote for Pierre in 1968 when he was running as a progressive and had just done great work as Justice Minister prior to his coronation as leader. He was even an anti-conscription activist and that should have meant something to an anti-war activist like yourselve  I have a hard time reconciling that with your fawning behaviour over Trudeau the Lesser.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

monty1 wrote:

kropotkin, I have news on this, good or bad depending on your perspective. I kept thinking that I had voted CCF for some reason. And maybe it was because I should have remembered if it was my first chance to vote. Almost everybody votes when it's their first chance. Did you? So I went into the election records and discovered that there was a B.C. election in 1960 and a federal election in 1958 and I could have very well voted in both of them!

So I wondered, who would know and I thought of my brother in Manitoba who may know. So I decided to email him to find out whether he voted in those two elections and if he recalled if I had accompanied him. But I haven't heard back from him yet but I should quite soon.

And so I was wondering if you would like to know what I find out? And if so then would you prefer to hear by private message so we don't interrupt this thread anymore with this kind of back and forth. Let me know o.k., if you want to know.

p.s. just one question for you. how old would a person have to be to vote in 1958 and 1960. 18 or 21? Not that it matters all that much. 

So you are saying that you are not in your 80's but are instead are 78 or 79. So why not say that at first? I expected that as a reply if you had voted on the last two elections that the CCF contested in BC one federal and one provincial. However instead you just denied being in your 80's.

The CCF was disbanded in 1960 so neither you nor your brother voted for the CCF in the 1962 federal election. The last federal election that the CCF ran in was in 1958. The one before that was in 1957. If you had voted in those two elections you would have had to have been born prior to June 1936 and thus at the youngest turning 80 sometime in the next three months.

I remember when they changed the legal age for voting from 21 to 18 and that was in 1970. It made no difference for me because I turned 21 before the 1972 election and would still have been 17 for the 1968 election.

What I find so very interesting is that you didn't vote for Pierre in 1968 when he was running as a progressive and had just done great work as Justice Minister prior to his coronation as leader. He was even an anti-conscription activist and that should have meant something to an anti-war activist like yourselve  I have a hard time reconciling that with your fawning behaviour over Trudeau the Lesser.

 

Yeah that. 

No, I don't remember voting for peeair. And you answer to my questions are? If you have lost track of the questions then go back.

I now know whether or not I voted in either of the two elections I mentioned.

If I denied being in my eighties as you said, then what do you think would be a reason for doing that. Multiple choice:

1. I am not in my eighties.

2. I'm in my eighties

3. I voted in 1960.

4. I didn't vote in 1960.

5. I voted in 1958.

6. I didn't vote in 1958.

7. None of the above.

8. Why don't we just decide to be nice to each other becasue I don't think there's much air between our positions?

monty1 wrote:

8. Why don't we just decide to be nice to each other becasue (sic) I don't think there's much air between our positions?

I don't believe we share many positions on issues. I think you are a sycophant for the imperial order and a fawning cheerleader for Canada's new pretty facade for the 1%.

I would have been nicer if you had not arrived on this board with disparaging comments for everyone who disagreed with your positions. You started fights with numerous long time progressive posters in your first couple of days. But of course that is not your fault is it?

Northern PoV wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I don't care what kind of 20/20 hindsight you think you might have in a situation like that; I can tell you though that many of us are not always as good at reading the future as you think you are.

But it doesn't matter, because nothing she did gave him permission to do what she alleges - punching her in the head.

What you are doing is blaming the victim. It is no different in a relationship than it is between acquaintances or strangers. You know... the version where it somes down to what she shouldn't have been wearing, or where she shouldn't have been walking, or why she decided to meet him again.

From today's proceedings... an email from 'victim' to JG one year after

Email: "if you want to keep in touch, this is my email!!!! (Phone number), Her name"

Some victim!

The relevance to this trial isn't that she apparently e-mailed him, it's that she apparently gave contradictory testimony about it.  Perhaps that's even understandable, but from the trial point of view, a shark like Henein is going to have a field day with that. 

I suppose I could sit idly by and tick off the number of posts complaining about what a bad witness she is, how she is blowing it for the prosecution and leading on poor Jian at the same time,  and how much trouble she is making for everyone, and how really, this is all her fault.

But really I think you boys aren't even fucking aware of the pattern of your comments here, even after some of us have waved it under your noses.

(edit)

I have to say I think it is admirable that she can still say this:

Quote:

"I want to encourage other victims of abuse to ... not be afraid," woman says in a statement after two difficult days under cross-examination.

“I didn’t go to the police (in 2003),” said the first complainant testifying in Jian Ghomeshi’s sexual assault trial, “because I didn’t want to deal with this.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2016/02/02/ghomeshi-accuser-says-she-h...

For your information, the "shark" appellation comes from hockey agent David Frost, who she represented. It was a compliment.

http://torontolife.com/city/crime/marie-henein-jian-ghomeshi-lawyer/

As the article I posted upthread pointed out, one thing the defense did not do is challenge her in any way on the accusation of assault.

As much as people want to make hay with the rest of it, I'd say that's a bit more relevant to the actual charge. We'll see f the judge has anything to say about how bad she was.

"Complainant went on a walk in the park AND took pictures cuddling with ghomeshi after the incident" via twitter.

ooops

Next!

UPDATE: Do you want to tell his honour the truth?  

NDPP wrote:

Jane Doe: The Jian Ghomeshi Trial: Who Has Accuser's Back In This

Set-Up?      

http://nowtoronto.com/news/jian-ghomeshi-trial-who-has-accusers-back-in-...

"...The crown did not object, the judge did not suggest a break. No one has her back in this trial, her trial against the high-powered legal team that is advising Ghomeshi.

If the crimes committed against them are so easily challenged, why do we send them defenceless into the jeopardy of a trial? Who benefits from that set-up?"

 international media celebrity and barracuda lawyer, kangaroo crown/court, a stacked deck. Just another demonstration of the Canadian 'Just-Us' system in action...

A very one-sided view ... but dead-on in respect to how bad this crown case is .,,,,

"If the crimes committed against them are so easily challenged" then maybe they are not crimes?  I think that is the whole point of a 'fair' trial.

JG has been fired for disgusting behavior and his career is dead-ended.  Some of his enablers have been sanctioned as well: "The CBC has fired the executive director of radio and the head of human resources for the way in which they handled events around Jian Ghomeshi. " (just found that out!)  So it is not like Canadian society and it various institutions have failed.  (Or if they did, the failure is being addressed in appropriate ways.) These are real consequences. (All you chicken-littles: the sky is not falling.)

The decision to prosecute (based on what we have seen at trial of the two stories so far) was emotional and political not based on good legal work. So yes the crown failed these women ...

Hmm.  This whole thing is kind of disturbing.  I used to be a great believer in the justice system.  But this case, along with some things I've seen in my own experience recently, has me thinking the law is an ass.

He may not even take the stand and give testimony though. 

mark_alfred wrote:

He may not even take the stand and give testimony though. 

If he doesn't then the testimony that he did not obtain consent will stand unchallenged and it goes right back to whether in law you can give consent to an assault after the fact.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I suppose I could sit idly by and tick off the number of posts complaining about what a bad witness she is, how she is blowing it for the prosecution and leading on poor Jian at the same time,  and how much trouble she is making for everyone, and how really, this is all her fault.

But really I think you boys aren't even fucking aware of the pattern of your comments here, even after some of us have waved it under your noses.

(edit)

I have to say I think it is admirable that she can still say this:

Quote:

"I want to encourage other victims of abuse to ... not be afraid," woman says in a statement after two difficult days under cross-examination.

“I didn’t go to the police (in 2003),” said the first complainant testifying in Jian Ghomeshi’s sexual assault trial, “because I didn’t want to deal with this.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2016/02/02/ghomeshi-accuser-says-she-h...

In that link, both sexual assault and physical abuse are mentioned. Is this to mean that they are one and the same crime or can the two crimes be considered separately? I personally don't know but when one begins to imagine what happened, the question arises. Does violent rape fit the description? 

After following  this trial I can't help but worry that in the name of humanity more jail cells are required.

Aggresive akward male sexual behavior needs to be controlled!!

Wow  ...

based on the crown's comments when requesting a recess ... my bet is that the charges are all dropped on Monday.  Let's hope angry crowns don't lay perjury charges.  

Perhaps the separate trial/charge (scheduled for June, I think)  will do better?

Gustave wrote:

Thanks for the answer. Would you say the prosecuter has the same lattitude in preparing the witnesses as his counterpart? The client of the first is the State. The attorney is paid to help his client. The prosecutor is not there to serve the witness/victim. I'm just curious to know how it works.

I've never done criminal law but one of the big advantages for defence is that you can ask leading questions. With one's own witness like the Crown's witnesses here you can only ask questions that do not hint at the answer that is expected. If a witness is well prepared they know what answers and what in depth answers are required for their lawyer to make the points they want. In cross examination a witness should be trained to say as little as possible while still answering the questions. Never add any more information than absolutely necessary.  From what little I have heard of the actual evidence it appears that the witnesses may not have been prepared for the kinds of questions that they were asked about.

This case will likely turn on a fine point of law and thus may be the subject of appeal no matter which side wins.

X

Thats not what i asked.

What is it here that you think is not a crime?