I have been following the Ghomeshi trail and I don't know what sickens me the most, that he could possibly get away with this hideous crime against women or how this is will effect women coming forward in the future and reporting rape. Now everyone is entitled to the best defense possible but is it just me or is there a some sort of irony about him having a female lawyer defending him against a rape allegation and doing a good job apparently. I mean does she have a daughter, a mother, how would she feel if the tables where turned and these people in her family were raped, or for that matter, her. How would she feel if she was treated to the same cross examination as she is giving? I guess her pillow is nice and comfortable to lay her head on considering it must be fill all those dollar bills.
Ghomeshi trail
- Thread starter 2canchew
- Start date
I guess for her its just a job and apparently she is damn good at it. I don't see much irony in her role. Its defense lawyers day job to defend accused. Rapist or murderess etc etc. We don't need to be harsh on her. However, the way complainants presented their case before and after....that is ironic too. Would you accept easy convictions if tables were turned? Of course not. There is a group of women saying there should be a separate set of rules for women testifying..really!!
Having female lawyer should not be an issues...equality after all, right!
I am lost in this case. Too many variables, and arguments. Guys is a douche bag, no doubt. So are complainants to an extent. Why there is no group of men standing up for their rights and doing something about false allegations where lives are ruined. Not that in this allegations are 100% false, but not credible.
Having female lawyer should not be an issues...equality after all, right!
I am lost in this case. Too many variables, and arguments. Guys is a douche bag, no doubt. So are complainants to an extent. Why there is no group of men standing up for their rights and doing something about false allegations where lives are ruined. Not that in this allegations are 100% false, but not credible.I agree with some of your statements, however, my comments about a female trying a rape case wasn't about equality but more about the psychologicala mind set of a female defending a man accused of rape. You would think that a woman wouldn't touch a rape case because it hits to close to home, as it were, but , your right, it's part of there job. I ask my lawyer one time about defending a person of rape when he knew that his client, indeed, did it. His response was ." It's part of the job, you just put blinders on and give the client the best defense possible....and it's obvious she is doing just that.I guess for her its just a job and apparently she is damn good at it. I don't see much irony in her role. Its defense lawyers day job to defend accused. Rapist or murderess etc etc. We don't need to be harsh on her. However, the way complainants presented their case before and after....that is ironic too. Would you accept easy convictions if tables were turned? Of course not. There is a group of women saying there should be a separate set of rules for women testifying..really!!
Having female lawyer should not be an issues...equality after all, right!
You can never be certain how things look to the judge.
Based on the media reports, though, it sure looks like he's going to walk.
Based on the media reports, though, it sure looks like he's going to walk.
I certainly hope he walks. When witnesses lie to the court and come up with last minute details, it would be an injustice to arrive at the conviction. Besides, even if convicted, there are already grounds for appeal. The alleged victims made sure of that.
The only way he is COMPLETELY cleared of all charges is if some sort of collusion is found out, that the police or the DA with held information. If the judge rules that the DA didn't present a prima facie case. If that isn't present and the judge declares him simply not guilty he will still have that dark ominous cloud hanging over him until the day he dies.
No, your right, just four counts of sexual assault and one count of overcoming resistance by choking that's all.
Still heinous and disturbing and it will still have a lasting effect on women coming forward to report ANY SEXUAL CRIME
Well, if they did consent, it isn't a crime.No, your right, just four counts of sexual assault and one count of overcoming resistance by choking that's all.
Still heinous and disturbing and it will still have a lasting effect on women coming forward to report ANY SEXUAL CRIME
It is sick and fucked up and he should be shunned and reviled, but if you want to send somebody to jail they need to be guilty of violating the law as it is written.
It is worth remembering that lots of revolting people aren't actually criminal. Neo Nazis, white supremacists, Islamic extremists, lots of people do and say absolutely reprehensible things while toeing the line of what is legal.
The right thing to do is denounce these sick fucks like Ghomeshi, but the law is the law.
A lot of what is being complained about actually was made much better in 1982 when Parliament amended the Criminal Code abolishing rape, and replacing it with sexual assault. Including eliminating the frankly prurient necessity of proving vaginal penetration by the penis.
Parliament also in 1992 again passed a rape shield law which restricted in court questioning of the victim as to their past sexual conduct, the previous law having been struck down by the SCC under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in R v Seaboyer, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577.
The SCC weakened the new rape-shield law in 1995 by holding that an accused can in certain circumstances, obtain access to records kept by counselors assisting victims in of sexual assaults in attempting to lessen the accused's criminal liability.
So matters are better than they once were, and if you want to point a finger point it at the SCC and their interpretation of the Charter.
Parliament also in 1992 again passed a rape shield law which restricted in court questioning of the victim as to their past sexual conduct, the previous law having been struck down by the SCC under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in R v Seaboyer, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577.
The SCC weakened the new rape-shield law in 1995 by holding that an accused can in certain circumstances, obtain access to records kept by counselors assisting victims in of sexual assaults in attempting to lessen the accused's criminal liability.
So matters are better than they once were, and if you want to point a finger point it at the SCC and their interpretation of the Charter.
Last edited:
Neo Nazis, white supremacists, Islamic extremists toe the line of what is legal? SERIOUSLY? I think you should brush up on your history.
We also have every form of social media available which means we get to SEE some pretty offensive things.
