Ghomeshi?
- Thread starter notthemama
- Start date
Well yes. We have regular elections. No wars on our soil. A stable(within the obvious limits of the world) economic system.
Basically pretty much the entire population to have a roof over their head, food, warmth, access to medical care, the opportunity to pursue goals of fulfilment to better their own lives as well as their families. And do so in safety and security.
And a stable justice system based on an enduring constitution and more recent Charter is a part of that. It certainly isn't perfect and there is room for improvement but I think the basic premise is sound. Some think the adversarial system we have isn't working. I believe that the system of plea bargaining now in place needs to be improved.
And I'm a firm believer that disclosure of evidence should include ALL evidence, including defense. The system should be about getting to the truth.
But compared to what existed before, and still does? Works well for me.
Fair enough, how would you like to find yourself in a criminal court defending yourself against a rape/sexual assault charge from a complainant that has been thoroughly shown to untrustworthy? The logical extension of the poll is that because you were accused and charged, you are scum, regardless of the evidence and you must be found guilty. Welcome to the Star Chamber.
Agreed, but no system that seeks to get at the 'truth' would require that only one side (i.e. complainant) be made to tell their story in open court.
That could erode the principal of innocent until proven guilty. If I am a defendant, lets say truly innocent, why do I have to take the stand? I could even choose to not mount a defense, except to plead not guilty and, in summation, respond to the prosecution's case with "Really?". If you feel that this is reasonable, then it must be granted to a guilty defendant. After all, we only know they are guilty when proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sure, it is a great system if you consider only one side of the coin...
But what about the other side of that same coin? Do I need to catalogue for you the violence, crime, abuse, etc. all around the world?
And this legal system we are talking about... How many innocents does it convict? How many guilty go free?
Perry
Well put CMan...this is exactly the principle of the matter.
I think the majority on here agree that Gomeshi is the scum of the earth, but we are not defending him, we are defending this principle of being innocent until proven guilty, depsity that some don't feel he is innocent even though compelling facts have been presented. Feeling and facts are on the separate sides of the spectrum. I would hate to be in a court defence battle where feelings and spirituality and religion prevailed over facts.
This majority they speak of reminds me of the medevil times!
Um. Well I was refering to Canada specifically. As to the world hopefully we can be an example to those in other places to fight for their right to self determination.
And as for our system in Canada I can't say how many innocent are found guilty. Do I think some guilty get off easy yes but that is a price that has to be paid to prevent innocents from going to prison.
Where it fails in the main is in the human beings that run it (as in all things) and when political expediency interferes in my opinion.
But that is exactly the point. Under our system, hundreds of innocents get convicted and many thousands of criminals go free!
As to around the world... well, we have tried as hard as we can to teach many others how to build systems like ours... and, unfortunately, they have learned!
Perry
Exactly the Atheist are no different that all these other groups such as the feminists, BLMs etc...all with their own agendas, ulterior motives trying to control, limit and manipulate their own members like religion for ulterior gain. Atheism is BS just like any other cult or the PC term religion and/or movement out there. All BS, all intended to limit individualism, create inequality and limit personal growth. Bunch of brainwashing BS even that guy thundefoot is no different they way he tries to plant ideas into our head. They are all the same. Everyone is the same we are all just the hollow men with inability to act and the collective moral stagnation leading us towards the ultimate the inevitable.... , the horror, the horror!
FYI: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canada-s-wrongful-convictions-1.783998 and many others...
And you may want to contact The Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted...
Butler: this is a very important issue to discuss and debate. Unfortunately, this is not the right place to do it: much too complex for a forum such as this... where all we can do is talk but can't do anything.
But one point worth making: ask organized crime what they think of the right to remain silent... which is one of the most fundamental concepts of our system. The innocent don't need it... except to protect themselves against corruption and the abuse of power by government, etc.
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is." :Eek:
Perry
Met Ghomeshi at an event maybe a decade ago, introduced by a mutual friend. Spent about 10mins chatting over drinks but had about 10sec of eye contact. He was directing his attention to my ex-GF at the time, and scouring the room (for next victim?). Once a douchebag, always a douche...
Later on my ex says, I think he was trying to hit on me. I responded "ah he's harmless. What good is celebrity if you don't use it to get sex?" Boy was I wrong.
Usually in a "he said, she said" case, one/some of his ex-lovers comes out and says "he's actually a nice guy, a bit kinky in bed but he's respectful", or something to that effect. Or at least a character witness, one of his close long term friends, who comes forth saying he's a nice guy or something. It's remarkable from maybe 100+ exes or 1000's of people he has met as a celebrity over the years, not a single one came forth with any support!
His mother must be proud.
Later on my ex says, I think he was trying to hit on me. I responded "ah he's harmless. What good is celebrity if you don't use it to get sex?" Boy was I wrong.
Usually in a "he said, she said" case, one/some of his ex-lovers comes out and says "he's actually a nice guy, a bit kinky in bed but he's respectful", or something to that effect. Or at least a character witness, one of his close long term friends, who comes forth saying he's a nice guy or something. It's remarkable from maybe 100+ exes or 1000's of people he has met as a celebrity over the years, not a single one came forth with any support!
His mother must be proud.
I'm not religious,...but don't call me an atheist
I do agree that atheist "clubs" have sprung up around the world, and are just as bad as a lot of religions,... control and manipulate.
FAST
Exactly why atheist is NOT the correct term to describe some on who does not practice religion,...as I have said over and over again,...our government does not even use that term any more.Exactly the Atheist are no different that all these other groups such as the feminists, BLMs etc...all with their own agendas, ulterior motives trying to control, limit and manipulate their own members like religion for ulterior gain. Atheism is BS just like any other cult or the PC term religion and/or movement out there. All BS, all intended to limit individualism, create inequality and limit personal growth. Bunch of brainwashing BS even that guy thundefoot is no different they way he tries to plant ideas into our head. They are all the same. Everyone is the same we are all just the hollow men with inability to act and the collective moral stagnation leading us towards the ultimate the inevitable.... , the horror, the horror!
I do agree that atheist "clubs" have sprung up around the world, and are just as bad as a lot of religions,... control and manipulate.
FAST
The phrase "rule is law" and the origin of "courts" is interesting to reflect on here. Once upon a time if you had a grievance you went to court: the hall your King or local Lord sat in. You pleaded your case and maybe so did the other guy and then he either ordered your head chopped off, or he rewarded you with land, or some other outcome. It was all pretty arbitrary and if you were related to somebody he had a grievance with you were pretty much fucked.
Over time we evolved that into a justice system. We made it fairer in some ways, and less arbitrary in others. We replaced the whim of the King with a consistent set of laws, and replaced the King himself with professional judges and with juries, to introduce a measure of impartiality.
Not all of the improvements are about getting to the truth. Making sure you didn't get fucked over by the King just because your second cousin Harry was caught in bed with his wife's sister is also pretty important.
The goal of the rule of law is to introduce order and stability without requiring a tyrant, and to make it somewhat predictable, and reasonably fair.
A perfect measure of the truth is first of all impossible and secondly not the main goal. The main goal is to replace rule by a king with rule by a set of standardized principles.
Maybe you know a better way, but our way is much better than the way you find in most countries, where who you know matters more than what you did.
To a man on this Board we all agree that any man who rapes a woman should be punished to the full extent of the law.
Question: If a woman is raped in your neighborhood, would you be willing to volunteer a sample of your DNA to narrow down the suspect pool or would you say that is the police's job and not yours?
Question: If a woman is raped in your neighborhood, would you be willing to volunteer a sample of your DNA to narrow down the suspect pool or would you say that is the police's job and not yours?
Also, this is why we have a jury of your peers and not the King and/or the Lords deciding whether you should be hanged, drawn and quartered.
