More Metoo fallout in Canada not being discussed enough.

[MikeMcMann]

This is fallout from both the infamous Ghomeshi case and the MeToo movement where the gov't is now seeking to change the laws so it will be harder for defendants to rebut accusations of Sexual Assault or impropriety.

Summary is the Liberals are trying to turn the rules of evidence on their head. Ghomeshi was acquitted against his three Sexual Assault accusers when a judge could not reconcile that each of the accusers was chasing him for a relationship and repeat visits with him up to 6 months after the alleged assaults. Ghomeshi as part of his defense was able to provide reams of emails and other materials where he was being pursued and courted and the judge threw out the cases based on those massive inconsistencies with a sharp rebuke for the accusing ladies.

What the Liberals want to do is make sure that evidence such as email exchanges, letters, taped phone conversations are not used to discredit a woman's claim by making them prohibitively harder to introduce into the courts and if the defense has them they must produce them for the Prosecution and Accuser to review prior to the case so that the Prosecutor and Accuser can know what they face and ensure they amend their case accordingly to avoid stating things that could hurt their credibility.

This turns a fundamental precept of law on its head that an accuser must present first and then the defender gets to rebut. they are trying to wrap this in Rape Shield reasoning saying just as a person past (girl being slutty prior) should not be held against her in a rape trial (and it should not) therefore what a person says prior or post sexual assault should not be held against her.

..."This would be contrary to the current rule which is that the defence is under no obligation to co-operate or assist the Crown by providing any documentary evidence to the Crown or the complainant in advance of the trial,"...​

..."In the Ghomeshi trial, these rules would have required the defence to disclose the text messages and photographs to the Crown and the complainants in advance of the trial, which would have enabled them to adjust their testimony to make it more consistent with its contents."...​

Liberals initiate changes to sexual-assault laws to protect complainants

"Women who work with us were very discouraged after what we saw in the Ghomeshi case," Hilla Kerner, a spokeswoman for the Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter, said in an interview.

The provisions in the new bill send a message that "your past, the things you did before the attack and after the attack, will not deter the criminal justice system from actually dealing with the attack and holding men accountable....


...legislation would spell out for the first time that a complainant's text messages, e-mails and video recordings with sexual content or a sexual purpose can be kept out of trials. A new provision would subject these messages, including those sent after an alleged assault, to the same rules as evidence of a complainant's past sexual activity: requiring a judge's advance approval after a closed hearing for them to be used in a trial.

A second change would prevent personal records of the complainant that are in the accused's possession, such as journals or diaries, or medical records, or perhaps personal letters, as in the Ghomeshi sex-assault trial, from being used as evidence...

..."This would be contrary to the current rule which is that the defence is under no obligation to co-operate or assist the Crown by providing any documentary evidence to the Crown or the complainant in advance of the trial,"...
..."In the Ghomeshi trial, these rules would have required the defence to disclose the text messages and photographs to the Crown and the complainants in advance of the trial, which would have enabled them to adjust their testimony to make it more consistent with its contents."...

 

[MikeMcMann]

I was listening to a radio show debating this change this morning and the advocate supporting this change stated something along the lines of:

'there are lots of reasons a woman might, such as in the Ghomeshi case, pursue a man for a relationship or repeat visits posts a serious Assault. Things like Stockholm Syndrome could be in play amongst other reasons and that is why no man should be able to hide behind... and no court should assume credibility issues of the accuser, based on what she might say or do in the following days, weeks or months or even years after an assault'.


And while I get that, i do not see why that should not all be decided in open court under the current rules as they exist as nothing prevents them making that case now.

 

[Teppodama]

Guess that means men should either just start being celebate or consider marriage earlier. Dating or hookups in this day and age are simply too dangerous regardless of your intentions or actual actions.

 

[Teppodama]

I was listening to a radio show debating this change this morning and the advocate supporting this change stated something along the lines of:

'there are lots of reasons a woman might, such as in the Ghomeshi case, pursue a man for a relationship or repeat visits posts a serious Assault. Things like Stockholm Syndrome could be in play amongst other reasons and that is why no man should be able to hide behind... and no court should assume credibility issues of the accuser, based on what she might say or do in the following days, weeks or months or even years after an assault'.


And while I get that, i do not see why that should not all be decided in open court under the current rules as they exist as nothing prevents them making that case now.

Somehow, I have a problem believing that Stockholm Syndrome is acquired after one such instance. Unless my understanding is faulty, Stockholm Syndrome happens after repeated systematic abuse and breaking down of the individual over time. It's building up sympathy with and identifying with ones abuser.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

shouldn't that have been in Discovery anyway?

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

Somehow, I have a problem believing that Stockholm Syndrome is acquired after one such instance. Unless my understanding is faulty, Stockholm Syndrome happens after repeated systematic abuse and breaking down of the individual over time. It's building up sympathy with and identifying with ones abuser.

They're willing to change the definition to fit their narrative.

 

[SammyPops]

Assuming this passes, this law will be in the courts for years. No idea how it affects common law and rules of order.

I'm glad I'm not a 16-30 year old dude nowadays. Touch times for them, trying to figure things out.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I was listening to a radio show debating this change this morning and the advocate supporting this change stated something along the lines of:

'there are lots of reasons a woman might, such as in the Ghomeshi case, pursue a man for a relationship or repeat visits posts a serious Assault. Things like Stockholm Syndrome could be in play amongst other reasons and that is why no man should be able to hide behind... and no court should assume credibility issues of the accuser, based on what she might say or do in the following days, weeks or months or even years after an assault'.


And while I get that, i do not see why that should not all be decided in open court under the current rules as they exist as nothing prevents them making that case now.

I agree with you. This person has a point but I don't see why that should lead to the accused having to show their cards to the prosecution before the trial itself.

Instead, the prosecution should use expert witnesses to testify before the jury that some behavior after a sexual assault/rape may seem counter intuitive but is nonetheless not proof that an assault/rape did not happen.

 

[trident]

 

[MikeMcMann]

Somehow, I have a problem believing that Stockholm Syndrome is acquired after one such instance. Unless my understanding is faulty, Stockholm Syndrome happens after repeated systematic abuse and breaking down of the individual over time. It's building up sympathy with and identifying with ones abuser.

ya her entire position was specious at best.

the radio host asked 'why would these women, after suffering a serious assault be emailing him and asking for weeks and months when they could get back together again and have a repeat of that night' and this lady was stretching for reply.

She suggested intimidation in the form of threats (physical or verbal) or in the form of being basically awestruck because he was seen as an important celebrity could tainted the way these victims saw the relationship and the abuse only became clear once they had some distance from him. and that is when she threw out that there are things like Stockholm Syndrome that could also be relevant in understanding the behavior.

 

[MikeMcMann]

shouldn't that have been in Discovery anyway?

Not a lawyer but my understanding is that Discovery only pertains to civil actions and when being Prosecuted by the State only the Prosecution has to present their evidence.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

The provisions in the new bill send a message that "your past, the things you did before the attack and after the attack, will not deter the criminal justice system from actually dealing with the attack and holding men accountable."

i mean she could've said holding accused accountable - but the blatant bias is also a way to go

Sexual Victimization by Women Is More Common Than Previously Known

 

[Gregolian]

Not a lawyer but my understanding is that Discovery only pertains to civil actions and when being Prosecuted by the State only the Prosecution has to present their evidence.

In the US the defense has to present anything they have too

 

[Teppodama]

ya her entire position was specious at best.

the radio host asked 'why would these women, after suffering a serious assault be emailing him and asking for weeks and months when they could get back together again and have a repeat of that night' and this lady was stretching for reply.

She suggested intimidation in the form of threats (physical or verbal) or in the form of being basically awestruck because he was seen as an important celebrity could tainted the way these victims saw the relationship and the abuse only became clear once they had some distance from him. and that is when she threw out that there are things like Stockholm Syndrome that could also be relevant in understanding the behavior.

Even using that argument, why would there be the assumption that Gomeshi would understand or believe there was anything wrong with what occurred? As far as his understanding it could simply be rough roleplay given that she continued to pursue and made specific remarks to that night and what occurred.

Based on the celebrity comment that opens up the argument that any celebrity potentially could be accused of assault based on the fact of their celebrity alone. "no your honor, she wasn't drunk but she was awestruck by celebrity A and incapable of making a rational decision on whether or not to have sexual contact....".

 

[MikeMcMann]

The provisions in the new bill send a message that "your past, the things you did before the attack and after the attack, will not deter the criminal justice system from actually dealing with the attack and holding men accountable."

i mean she could've said holding accused accountable - but the blatant bias is also a way to go

Sexual Victimization by Women Is More Common Than Previously Known

I doubt you will see Trudeau correcting her ala 'we prefer you to say humankind and not mankind'.

 

[Hearse Lightning]

Listen lady, it's for our own safety.

Spoiler

 

[HunterSdVa29]

In the US the defense has to present anything they have too

Not a lawyer but my understanding is that Discovery only pertains to civil actions and when being Prosecuted by the State only the Prosecution has to present their evidence.

normally yes, except for if the Defense requests Discovery, then the Prosecution can then supplementary request it also

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

I doubt you will see Trudeau correcting her ala 'we prefer you to say humankind and not mankind'.

Of course not

 

[sangreporsangre]

A victim's sexual history shouldn't come into play in a sexual assault case and that's why rape shield laws are a good thing. But how the hell can anyone say with a straight face that the history between the accused and the alleged victim shouldn't be admissable? How can anyone say that Ghomesi style evidence shouldn't be allowed unless they are pushing for a paradigm where accusation = guilt? Ghomesi seems like a total prick but if he were convicted of sexual assault it would have been a miscarriage of justice. Lmao at calling that "Stockholm syndrome". They're essentially reducing women to children whose brains haven't developed enough to properly give consent.

 

[JonesBones]

This is against science. As Hitchens said, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.