Ghomeshi Trial Begins

I don't disagree with most of what you are saying I just disagree that the Judge allowed her greater leeway based on gender. The public laps it up because she is a woman but that has nothing to do with the proceeding in the courtroom.

Unfortunately satire seems to be close to reality in this case.

Quote:

In a widely anticipated verdict, the women who accused former CBC personality Jian Ghomeshi of assault have been found guilty of not behaving as assaulted women should.

“The public is an expert on how abused women should behave,” said frequent Tim Horton’s customer Bob Reynolds, 52, in a statement outside the court of public opinion. “These women, unfortunately, failed to behave in that manner.”

http://syruptrap.ca/2016/02/witnesses-convicted-in-ghomeshi-trial/

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I don't disagree with most of what you are saying I just disagree that the Judge allowed her greater leeway based on gender. The public laps it up because she is a woman but that has nothing to do with the proceeding in the courtroom.

I never said the judge allowed her greater leeway. With a trial by jury the jury would be told to disregard that which breached courtroom rules and if it happened too often the lawyer might even be sanctioned.

In a trial before a judge alone the judge doesn't have to tell the jury anything. He can just disregard it. In the article it says Henein said "he hears it anyway" because even if the judge dismisses it as a legal point it can still impact his thinking, make him less disposed to believe the women even though he is trying not to let it. This is a case that hinges entirely on credibility. Because it was before a judge there were no expert witnesses called to explain the women's behavior after the fact.

The court of public opinion matters a great deal in a case like this even if it doesn't impact the judge's decision or sentencing. It didn't even seem as if he was on trial.

As far as I can tell Henein never denied that Ghomeshi had done what they said he did and never outright claimed they had consented. The women are on trial.

She is certainly very bright and skilled, and a brilliant lawyer, but she is most definitely NOT a feminist. Yes, even the creep who cut up the Chinese student here deserved counsel, but her lines of defence shore up patriarchy and the dictatorship of the car. Filth. No, not because she is a woman. Because she supports the most reactionary tropes in our society.

Back when I was an activist organising workers in a mostly female job-sector about 40 years ago, all those corporate lawyer scum were men. I guess this is progress of a sort, but not the kind of progress we were fighting for. I'd love to see that piece of shit meet a very bad end, but doubt it will happen.

I have frankly never been a Ghomeshi fan, but I didn't "hate": him either. I didn't watch >play, and when Q came on the air I found what I thought was his unctuous style offputting.  Nevertheless, after the  excreta hit the rotating air circulation device, I did think there was far too much smoke not to indicate a blaze somewhere, smothered or not, and hoped this trial would deal with some of the real issues. Especially obvious (to me) was the spectacle of a man of power, prestige and influence using that to take advantage of the much younger,, more vulnerable, and (physically) weaker. In the investigation done by the fifth estate, they found he used very classic abuser techniques on staff of both genders, but he seemed to single out young women as particular  targets. I remember some commenting later on how they left the show, even the CBC, because it was such a toxic environment.

I didn't follow the trial closely -- what I did hear in the daily summaries was disconcerting ,to say the least. Practically no attention to the alleged assaults, and all sorts of sanctimonious and stereotype-ridden invectives about the complainants' post-assault behaviour as if that mattered a bleep bleep! Haven't we learned anything from the long and sorry tales of child abuse by Scout leaders, priests and doctors?  Their victims keep on being "nice" to them precisely because they are powerful people who can cause their victims even more harm in their everyday lives, or prevent them achieving other goals. No wonder these women tried to be firendly with Ghomeshi afterwards (it could even be a way of trying to make the assaults less real to them; people cna try to fool themselves, by treating something as if it didn't happen). Considering how much influence Ghomeshi wielded why on earth would any of them have confronted him or given him the cold shoulder?

I see Christie Blatchford has gone on a rant again but I refuse to read her tripe. I'm very disappointed in the Crown for not confronting this double assault head on. First the women are assaulted by Ghomeshi, then by the court process going on a long and minimally relevant tear of character assassination.  He should have responded to all that by laying out studies on how abused women work even harder to please their abusers, etc. (lots of material there).  Did he even do his homework? 

The upshot is, I fear, that in the future even fewer victims will come forward.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

What gets me is that the way the legal system is set up, ghomeshi never even has to answer a single question or get cross examined, no one went through his emails for inconsistencies in his story and frankly the crown did a horrible job with this, like they couldn't be bothered to do any work.

It's set up such that the Crown must prove that an accused is guilty.  The accused cannot be held down and forced to help with that.  If I'm not mistaken, they're not even obligated to sit in on the proceedings and watch.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, the Crown could have subpoenaed his e-mails or other evidence, and could have used it to point out inconsistencies in his story, exept that he's not even obligated to tell "his" story.  The trial isn't about "his" story.  The Crown has to present the story and then show reasonably that it's the real one.

Is this really something we'd want to change, because we're so mad at Jian Ghomeshi?

+10000

Wow.  Just. Wow.

I'm still unclear as to why strangling is sexual assault and not just plain old assault. 

isnt it always in criminal case where its the job of the persecutor to prove the defendent's guilt beyond the reasonable doubt, and not the other way around. we cant make the system easier to put people in jail. everyone derseves a really good lawyer. 

So where does the sexy part fit in here?

Because they were kissing?! Yikes..that's it?!

Here's Charlie Angus, MP, today:
"I have known Jian Ghomeshi casually for 25 plus years. What did I learn from the trial? 1) That a woman who remembers being beaten is not considered credible because she didn't know the make of his car. 2) That famous people can afford lawyers known as "Hannibal Lecter" for their ability to take sexual assault witnesses apart. 3) That Jian won't bother to refute any of the charges because as some law expert says: "There are many reasons why an accused elects not to call evidence. One of them is that the complainants have been destroyed in cross-examination.'' 4) That Jian flourished as a predator in what should have been the safest organization in the country and that the legal system continues to fail women and 5) that nobody close to Jian even pretends he is innocent, and somehow this isn't an issue -- the women are."

Reading this, I became furious - not at the justice system but at an MP old enough and experienced enough to know better. Here's why - in response to Angus' five points:
1) The credibility of the three complainants was at issue, not because one didn't know the make of the car, but because their individual stories were inconsistent with statements to the police; because they each did not tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"; because at least two of them colluded during thousands of emails as to their testimony - including on the day of the trial when one of them said, "it's time to get this prick"; because each of them sought further intimate contact with Ghomeshi despite statements to the contrary.
2) "That famous people can afford . . . " blah, blah, blah. Ignoring the loaded language used by Angus, does anyone seriously think that the resources of the state, especially in such a high-profile trial, are not up to the task?
3) "That Jian won't bother to refute any of the charges . . . " because he can rely on destroying witness credibility. Firstly, this trial is based on 'he said, she said' and that's why credibility is important. There is no other evidence. And, contrary to statements by Angus, the credibility attacked by defense counsel applied to statements, their veracity, and to subsequent behavior by the complainants which was manifestly at odds with what they said. The complainants' previous sexual history was never at issue.
4) "That Jian flourished as a predator . . . " at the CBC, etc. On this part of the point, I could probably agree with Angus. The difference between the CBC, pre and post-Ghomeshi, was that they operated a star-system in which conditions prevailed which may well have led to capricious behaviour. It's probably fair to say that administration did not exercise adequate supervision and maintenance of a safe and harassment-free workplace. However, that's entirely separate from the conduct of Defense - which Angus lumps into an overall indictment of the Justice System.
5) "that nobody close to Jian even pretends he is innocent". Really? Really? This statement is too laughable to even critique. However, here goes anyway! What about his defense? They must think he's innocent. Or is this simply a circuitous argument in which one says that his defense chooses to attack witness-credibility, therefore he must be guilty? What about our criminal/judicial system in which we presume someone is innocent until proven guilty? Or, are we now in a post-due-process era in which the predominance of opinion in social media decides guilt or innocence?

I said earlier that I was furious with Angus' comments. However, I am just as furious with the quality of complaints made by these specific complainants. I am furious because I believe that they, and not the "system", will be responsible for a chilling effect on the ability/readiness/willingness of legitimate complaints to be made by women to the police. I believe, furthermore, that complaints are legitimate if they are "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Complainants are credible if they don't collude with each other and make statements like: "it's time to get this prick."

I'm also sad because I suspect that men and women may view this case quite differently. Obviously, there are different lenses based on gender and personal experiences. However, what I'm talking about is the challenge which we approach differently, as men and women, in dealing with this most important issue - in every area of society - of sexual harassment and gender-based violence. We need to have faith in our criminal/judicial system. Not because it's perfect, because it, manifestly, is not. That's why we have, in 2016, a 'Black Lives Matter' movement. But you don't improve that system or find the truth in matters of sexual violence by trying them in social media, by polling, or by lynching someone in the public square.

Ward wrote:

Head smashing and choking  is natural extention of kissing!?

For Ghomeshi it is. That is what makes it sexual assault.

milo204 wrote:

i just think it's strange if you get accused of a crime, actually charged with the crime and go on to a court trial that they can't call you as a witness and ask you questions to see if they contain inconsistencies with statements given to police etc or force you to testify...maybe i've been watching too much judge judy or something, i thought they could do that!

The rationale is that accused persons should be protected from incriminating themselves. It's what they call "pleading the fifth" in the U.S. It's also the reason you don't, under any circumstances, have to talk to the police.

It's actually an important legal right that protects us from (some) abuse from the legal system. It's why police will pull such underhanded, dishonest, and manipulative tactics to extract confessions.

This trial is a pretty good demonstration of the extreme problems with our "justice" system. Pay to win. Though I guess we'll still have to wait and see on the verdict.

Hopefully whatever the end result, the albatross will weigh heavier on the neck of Ghomeshi than on the women he assaulted.

I wish the media wasn't so biased for the defence in this case. If the media wasn't so inherently mysogynistic, they would have interviewed experts on violence against women consistently throughout the trial to counteract the barrage of myths and stereotypes that was flung around about the female witnesses who testified. Instead they relied for the most part on defence lawyers who were biased in favour of the defence team. The media failed us and reduced a high profile sexual assault trial into a women hating three ring circus. If the majority of the people on the street cannot identify with the women who testified, then maybe the media handling of this case needs to be carefully examined. Women are 52% of the population and many have been personally exposed to violence in their own lives. They have a right to a fair and balanced discussion of events as they unfold in high profile trials like this. When your average news coverage loses focus on the violence in a trial about violence against women, then we have a problem. The media could have handled this much better.

Ward wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Ward wrote:

Head smashing and choking  is natural extention of kissing!?

For Ghomeshi it is. That is what makes it sexual assault.

 

But wouldn't the victim have to feel sexually violated?

No.  The victim would have to feel that she was not consenting to whatever the accused did to her.  The overall circumstances would then have to be judged to be sexual.  Whether the complainant felt "sexually violated" is irrelevant.

That is how we define sexual assault in this country.

pookie wrote:

 

No.  The victim would have to feel that she was not consenting to whatever the accused did to her.  The overall circumstances would then have to be judged to be sexual.  Whether the complainant felt "sexually violated" is irrelevant.

That is how we define sexual assault in this country.

 

Oh..ok so it is the cops or the crown that determines the sexuality of a situation.

Rough sex is criminal?

I agree..

However had the experience of the victims in this case turned out to be a more positive one...would the state still have some say in the matter?

Ward wrote:

I agree..

However had the experience of the victims in this case turned out to be a more positive one...would the state still have some say in the matter?

I don't understand this question. 

The law doesn't care whether the experience was "a positive one".  The law cares about whether she consented.

If the complainant felt the experience was positive, it is unlikely she would go to the authorities.

If, during the trial, the judge or jury formed a reasonable doubt that she might have experienced the touching as "positive", that would still have to be evaluated in the context of whether she was, in fact, consenting.

If there was evidence to show that, at the time of the touching, she regarded it as "positive",  the judge or jury could weigh that as part of their process in determing whether they believed her testimony that the touching was not consensual.

The Crown doesn't have to show that the complainant "hated" the contact.  The Crown has to prove she did not consent to it.

And all violence is in a grey area, even with explicit or implied consent. Because you can't legally consent to assault.

Todd Bertuzzi.

And the article by the BDSM educator who rightly points out that this doesn't add up, even if there was consent, which there wasn't. This has nothing to do with consensual power play.

We went over this (for the second or third time) just a few pages back.

In statutory rape situations, the minor may have experienced pleasure from the encounter, but this does not make the experience less a crime. Some women feel guilty because they experienced some pleasure from a horrific experience. This does not make the violence directed against them less a crime. The fact that these women came foreword to testify means that something happened to them in a very negative way. I hate it how people are trivializing violence.

I can't help but believe that the dumb blunt hammer of the justice system has, in this case made everything worse for everyone involved.

Well not just that. There were bad mistakes made.

Ward wrote:

I can't help but believe that the dumb blunt hammer of the justice system has, in this case made everything worse for everyone involved.

who is the "everyone involved"?