More Metoo fallout in Canada not being discussed enough.

[Gregolian]

This feels like the opening of the door where "accusation=guilt" is the end goal

 

[Law Talkin’ Guy]

Time to invest in the sex robot industry.

 

[MikeMcMann]

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.

This part I find very disconcerting because it seems to be gaining traction...

"...the abuse only became clear once they had some distance from him."

There seems to be this growing idea pushed that if, after the fact the woman reconsiders and see it as abuse or rape then it is even if at the time she was into it and even maybe pursuing it.

Would it not make sense that if her perception of it only changed after the fact then what she might have signaled during the actual encounter might have been tacit consent?

I do know that those pushing this agenda however do not want to accept tacit consent and want a standard where every single advancement within a sexual encounter requires the male to seek and hear verbal consent. "Now that I have kissed you may I touch your boob? May I now remove some clothes? ..." which is where California went.

California 'Yes Means Yes' Law Worries Skeptics

California’s new “Yes Means Yes” law, designed to address sexual assault on college campuses, will produce unintended consequences that could technically make many couples guilty of mutual sexual assault, several legal experts say.

The law, SB967, was signed over the weekend by Gov. Jerry Brown, D-Calif. It requiresstate-supported colleges to mandate continuous "affirmative consent" from all parties engaged in sexual activity.

Neither silence nor a lack of protest constitute consent, the law says, and heavy drinking - often a contributing factor in sexual assault - makes consent impossible. Under the law, consent is defined as "affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity" that "must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity."

 

[Teppodama]

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.

We're only equal till it's inconvenient.

 

[Teppodama]

I do know that those pushing this agenda however do not want to accept tacit consent and want a standard where every single advancement within a sexual encounter requires the male to seek and hear verbal consent. "Now that I have kissed you may I touch your boob? May I now remove some clothes? ..." which is where California went.

No, what we are moving toward is that even with tacit consent it would still be up to the woman to decide after the fact if it was consensual or not. Even a written statement to the fact wouldn't matter if they were under the undue influence of a celebrity aura or some shit.

 

[Andy Capp]

This part I find very disconcerting because it seems to be gaining traction...

"...the abuse only became clear once they had some distance from him."

There seems to be this growing idea pushed that if, after the fact the woman reconsiders and see it as abuse or rape then it is even if at the time she was into it and even maybe pursuing it.

Would it not make sense that if her perception of it only changed after the fact then what she might have signaled during the actual encounter might have been tacit consent?

I do know that those pushing this agenda however do not want to accept tacit consent and want a standard where every single advancement within a sexual encounter requires the male to seek and hear verbal consent. "Now that I have kissed you may I touch your boob? May I now remove some clothes? ..." which is where California went.

I don't know who is responsible for putting forth the propose changes, but I don't disagree with you at all on this. At least on the surface, it sounds contrary to common sense. It seems quite misguided.

 

[MikeMcMann]

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

Well there is a concerted effort to ensure 'evidence' is removed so only allegation remains because we have seen allegation without countering evidence is enough.

 

[lifelessheap]

So a woman can decide years later that she wants to be a "rape victim" and ruin a man's life?

This male privilege just keeps getting better.

And the accused might have to help the prosecution and help the accuser with evidence before charges? lmao. That is horrendous. Should the accuser and the state be making the case and bringing the charges? Why would they be asking help from a potential defendant?

 

[Chesten_Hesten]

Time to invest in the sex robot industry.

At some point AI could work against them I fear.

 

[MikeMcMann]

So a woman can decide years later that she wants to be a "rape victim" and ruin a man's life?

This male privilege just keeps getting better.

And the accused might have to help the prosecution and help the accuser with evidence before charges? lmao. That is horrendous. Should the accuser and the state be making the case and bringing the charges? Why would they be asking help from a potential defendant?

They make the argument that it is unfair to pull up subsequent conversations/emails/ texts to show the context of what transpired after the alleged Sexual Assault and that basically it is only the way the woman feels about it now that matters.

Sure she may have asked him out time and again after. Sure she may have complimented him on a hot night and said she could not wait to see him again... but NOW she feels differently and feels she was Sexually assaulted prior and that is what should matter. They claim it is akin to dragging up someones sexual history in a rape case when you drag in the woman's statements and actions after the fact to judge her participation and consent level.

 

[lifelessheap]

They make the argument that it is unfair to pull up subsequent conversations/emails/ texts to show the context of what transpired after the alleged Sexual Assault and that basically it is only the way the woman feels about it now that matters.

Sure she may have asked him out time and again after. Sure she may have complimented him on a hot night and said she could not wait to see him again... but NOW she feels differently and feels she was Sexually assaulted prior and that is what should matter. They claim it is akin to dragging up someones sexual history in a rape case when you drag in the woman's statements and actions after the fact to judge her participation and consent level.

The most horrifying part of this is forcing the defendant to produce evidence to the Accuser/Prosecutor before a case is brought about. The Prosecutor requiring the defendant to help make a case against himself if the height of absurdity.

If there is a case to be made the accuser and the prosecutor shouldn't need help from the accused!

 

[MikeMcMann]

The most horrifying part of this is forcing the defendant to produce evidence to the Accuser/Prosecutor before a case is brought about. The Prosecutor requiring the defendant to help make a case against himself if the height of absurdity.

If there is a case to be made the accuser and the prosecutor shouldn't need help from the accused!

ya pretty much the entire reason that Ghomeshi was able to avoid going to jail versus his 3 accusers was that the 3 of them suffered a huge credibility hit with the judge when they testified to their side of events and then he was able to present the email evidence that was so disparate from what they were saying.

had they had access to his defense prior they would have tailored their accusations around what he had and ensured everything fit.

i get that the defense should make the prosecution of stuff like witnesses, etc but not info like this.

Imagine I want to accuse you of being at the scene of a crime on a certain day but I don't know what days yo might have an alibi and therefore there is risk to me if I choose the wrong day? If I could make you tell me in advance what days you can defend your presence then I can work around that.

There is a very willful attempt here to make sure women's accusations succeed even when they have zero credibility in their stories and that INTENT to figure out a way to do that is scary.

 

[splendica]

Y'all should watch Feminist Kek "Diana Davison" on YouTube. She's got some great vids.



Here's an older one called "Canada is Screwed"

 

[S-dot]

So consent doesn’t even matter anymore? I’m not really surprised.

I try to dig into the echo chambers of weird sub cultures on the internet. I joined an anti-rape forum and read a story about a girl who agrees to have sex, never once expressed any desire not too, but felt bad afterwards and regretted it. She asked if she was raped and should she report it. Every response said she’d been raped and encouraged her to report it. I offered a different reply about learning from the experience and making different choices in the future. They deleted my post and banned me within seconds.

 

[panamaican]

Frankly, I'm surprised this isn't already the rule of evidence there.

The first change:

...proposed 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.

That's consistent with most evidentiary rules aimed at preventing a biasing of the jury based on information that isn't always related to the incident being litigated. It makes no sense to have the rules in place for past sexual activity but not include these modern elements that are related to the sexual activity. Sounds like the law catching up to the tech.

The second change:

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 unless a judge agrees in a private hearing. The same process is currently used when an accused seeks access to records held by third parties, such as psychologists or rape-crisis centres.

Just seems like it's closing a legal loophole. The accuser's personal documents aren't admissible without judicial oversight...there's no reason that the admissibility requirements should be different based on who has the documents.

But that's just my impression from south of the border. I have no idea what Canada's general approach to evidence has been. I barely understand the U.S.

 

[MikeMcMann]

So consent doesn’t even matter anymore? I’m not really surprised.

I try to dig into the echo chambers of weird sub cultures on the internet. I joined an anti-rape forum and read a story about a girl who agrees to have sex, never once expressed any desire not too, but felt bad afterwards and regretted it. She asked if she was raped and should she report it. Every response said she’d been raped and encouraged her to report it. I offered a different reply about learning from the experience and making different choices in the future. They deleted my post and banned me within seconds.

There was a video posted on this site some time ago that had a bunch of women talking about the metoo movement and male aggression and rape. the one woman who stood up and gave her story said "I did not even realize I was raped until months after when I had time to step away from the situation and re-examine it I realized at no point had i given my verbal consent to the acts that were done to me".

Again that sounds very frightening to me as it sounds like she went along with everything, but now has regrets later.

I've known women interested in a guy where it is not reciprocal. The guy knows but is not that interested himself but since she is chasing he uses that to get sex. He knows she is not likely to say no as she is eager to try and win him over. After the fact the women can have hard feelings and regret submitting when they realize he really had no interest.

This is the stuff of bad 70's drama's with the gals bitching about being used, once again by a dog.

Today that man would be facing potential jail time if the women get to fashion their regret into a assault charge.

That is basically what happened in this case where the young man from USC was at a bar at last call. A gal he was not really into was trying to take him home. She literally had to drag him out of the bar to get him to go with her and she was signalling to her girlfriends she was going to fuck him that night. she did, he moved on with little interest in her after, and she decided after the fact he raped her, almost certainly because she felt used.

Without this video this guy was going to jail.

 

[S-dot]

There was a video posted on this site some time ago that had a bunch of women talking about the metoo movement and male aggression and rape. the one woman who stood up and gave her story said "I did not even realize I was raped until months after when I had time to step away from the situation and re-examine it I realized at no point had i given my verbal consent to the acts that were done to me".

Again that sounds very frightening to me as it sounds like she went along with everything, but now has regrets later.

I've known women interested in a guy where it is not reciprocal. The guy knows but is not that interested himself but since she is chasing he uses that to get sex. He knows she is not likely to say no as she is eager to try and win him over. After the fact the women can have hard feelings and regret submitting when they realize he really had no interest.

This is the stuff of bad 70's drama's with the gals bitching about being used, once again by a dog.

Today that man would be facing potential jail time if the women get to fashion their regret into a assault charge.

That is basically what happened in this case where the young man from USC was at a bar at last call. A gal he was not really into was trying to take him home. She literally had to drag him out of the bar to get him to go with her and she was signalling to her girlfriends she was going to fuck him that night. she did, he moved on with little interest in her after, and she decided after the fact he raped her, almost certainly because she felt used.

Without this video this guy was going to jail.

Ya I think it’s a huge disgrace, not only to the men, but the women as well, and as a result to society as a whole. It’s propagating this idea that if you aren’t good at navigating through life, any time you make a mistake, you are a victim and someone needs to pay to emotionally indemnify you for your own sense of regret.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Frankly, I'm surprised this isn't already the rule of evidence there.

The first change:


That's consistent with most evidentiary rules aimed at preventing a biasing of the jury based on information that isn't always related to the incident being litigated. It makes no sense to have the rules in place for past sexual activity but not include these modern elements that are related to the sexual activity. Sounds like the law catching up to the tech.

The second change:


Just seems like it's closing a legal loophole. The accuser's personal documents aren't admissible without judicial oversight...there's no reason that the admissibility requirements should be different based on who has the documents.

But that's just my impression from south of the border. I have no idea what Canada's general approach to evidence has been. I barely understand the U.S.

I would never agree with that.

I agree with limited disclosure from the defense in areas where the Prosecution may need prep time to respond such as bringing in an expert witness but just general disclosure of this nature allows the Accuser to tailor their complaint around whatever defense and information they see he has.

If you are putting forth an affirmative defense, introducing new facts and information other than what is in the Accusers file then, yes, that should be shared. But if your defense it merely to provide factual information that will counter what is being asserted that should be your leveler to all the power the State and Accuser have.


Imagine you and I are feuding and I intend to fabricate and accuse you of assaulting me on my property despite the fact you never did. One of the problems I might have is that you may have an alibi on certain dates and times that proves you could not have done that. If I get to see your alibi list then of course I will tailor my complaint around when I know you have a defense. If the 3 ladies in the Ghomeshi case had all his email evidence to read prior you can bet their accusations would have been rehearsed around getting trapped by those.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

It's funny how the Ghomeshi case was cited, his accusers were caught lying.

 

[Ol'Ironhead]

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.

Sorry but that is a bunch of bullshit. I’ve followed the case closely and those women were just sluts that wanted his dick at the time. He was 100 percent innocent. Period.