Report: Five members of Canada’s 2018 WJC team told to surrender to London Police

[Valcazar]

Common sense.
Are you one of those people who argues that if it not determined in a court of law, rape hasn't occurred?

I thinking he is taking issue with your use of "enthusiastic", which is not a legal term under law.
It's confusing and open to interpretation.
As I am sure you know, even some of those who originally promoted it have questioned whether it is the best term to describe the concept.
Even RAINN, while they still use the term, point out it isn't a legal standard and also use "positive consent". (Something I prefer these days.)

 

[Valcazar]

Thats an absurd statement since many sexual assaults go unreported.

But a lot of people will tell you, quite openly, that no one can possibly be called a rapist unless they have been convicted of rape (specifically named as such) in a court of law.
You are correct that this is absurd.

 

[canada-man]

 

[K Douglas]

You beat me to it I was just about to post this. Interesting take. Walsh contends that E.M. should be brought to trial for false accusation and given the same sentence these players would have gotten, if found guilty. I don't agree with some of the things he says here, its a bit harsh, but one thing I do agree with is this NEVER should have been brought to trial. Also the NHL should immediately allow every one of these players back into the league.

 

[mellowjello]

But a lot of people will tell you, quite openly, that no one can possibly be called a rapist unless they have been convicted of rape (specifically named as such) in a court of law.
You are correct that this is absurd.

In that case, I'll assume you're a rapist, yet to be charged and convicted in court.

 

[Valcazar]

In that case, I'll assume you're a rapist, yet to be charged and convicted in court.

You are, of course, free to.
People assume all kinds of silly things.

 

[onomatopoeia]

This statement is false and misleading. You can't say no after the sexual act has been completed. Sex with regret after the fact was not a sexual assault.

While the number of women who reply in anonymous polls that they have been sexually assaulted far exceeds the number of sexual assault claims reported to police, it is also true that many in the former group personally define sexual assault differently from the Criminal code. The meanings of words are not meant to be subjectively defined in accordance with the feelings and whims of an individual.

Political Correctness Is...

Arbitrarily redefining words, then using them in statistics.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

RAINN is an American non-profit organization, with no legal status in the Canadian criminal justice system.

Good man.
Thanks for the leg work.

Has absolutely no bearing on the definition of consent that I was trying to explain.

 

[onomatopoeia]

Has absolutely no bearing on the definition of consent that I was trying to explain.

So, I guess you don't agree with the information in the link which you provided to support your earlier pontification. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

View attachment 469570

So, I guess you don't agree with the information in the link which you provided to support your earlier pontification. Thanks for clearing that up.

The link supports my definition of consent, so not sure what you are going on about here.

 

[onomatopoeia]

The link supports my definition of consent, so not sure what you are going on about here.

Your link provides a biased definition of consent which is inconsistent with the definition as described in the Criminal Code of Canada. Enthusiastic consent is not a legal prerequisite, and the absence of enthusiasm does not presuppose that a sexual act in involuntary. If a guy says "So, do you want to fuck?", and the woman says "Whatever.", she has not said "No.".

When a feminist lawyer says something in a CBC broadcast, it isn't necessarily 100% objectively true. Objective truths are the only things that are supposed to matter in a Criminal Court proceeding.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

Your link provides a biased definition of consent which is inconsistent with the definition as described in the Criminal Code of Canada.

I am not talking about the criminal code.
I am talking about what common sense consent should mean.
Laws often define these things too inadequately due to needing to be concise, formal and objective.
As I mentioned, this is also why rape is so hard to convict.
But just because there was no conviction doesn't mean there was no rape.

 

[mellowjello]

Has absolutely no bearing on the definition of consent that I was trying to explain.

I know, it's all about you.

 

[onomatopoeia]

I am not talking about the criminal code.
I am talking about what common sense consent should mean.
Laws often define these things too inadequately due to needing to be concise, formal and objective.
As I mentioned, this is also why rape is so hard to convict.
But just because there was no conviction doesn't mean there was no rape.

Rape, as defined by Shaquille Oatmeal.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

Rape, as defined by Shaquille Oatmeal.

As defined by organizations like RAINN who deal with this subject.
The law is not a crutch.