Ghomeshi Trial Begins

968 posts / 0 new
Last post
monty1

Pondering wrote:

monty1 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

monty1 wrote:
With one note for you to consider: You don't seem to be acknowledging a person, male or female, who desires to be hurt in a sexual relationship. I'm sure you must be aware of same. If not then I can eleaborate.

Because, your example is flawed and I can elaborate on that too later if you like. In the meantime you may want to try to imagine what 'would' be within bounds for S and M behaviour?

Practices and boundries are very clear within the BDSM community by necessity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BDSM

It's not a community I understand or can relate to but I respect their right to choose as long as they aren't paying people to submit and I place no judgement on them regardless of the role they choose to play within the community.

I had a look at your link and then went to "Canada", expecting to find limits defined on S and M Behaviour. I found next to nothing so now I'm going to ask you to direct me to your reference. Or if you choose, tell me what you have found to say that some acts are not within the law. I'm specifically referring to a closed fist punch to the side of the head. Legal or illegal?

I don't think there are any laws specific to BDSM. Assault is illegal period. No exceptions, not even with a contract. Because of that practitioners of BDSM have had to be extremely careful to make absolutely sure everything is consentual and doesn't require medical attention.

All I got out of that is that they have to be sure everything is consensual. I hope not. 

Well, maybe we're getting closer because we know that murder, suicide and manslaughter aren't legal.

monty1

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Assault is illegal period. No exceptions, not even with a contract.

How can I enter a Karate tournament then, for example, and permit someone to kick me in the face?

It's probably got a lot to do with the definition of 'assault' Magoo. The example of boxing or martial arts seems intereesting though. Maybe a 'madam' can be asked by a masochist male to be punched, kicked, etc., etc., and that would be legal. Surely one of our professionals in the field will tell us sooner or later.

But unfortunately, as most of us know who are over the age of -- will know that it goes a lot further than that when the knives and the other instruments of torture come out. 

6079_Smith_W

Actually,being a professional generally means you get paid for your work and experience.

You have fingers like the rest of us. If there is something you honestly want to find out you don't need to be sending the rest of us off on errands like we are research assistants.

Especially if it means going down some rabbit hole that has nothing to do with the Ghomeshi trial.

 

 

monty1

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Its okay Monty I have destroyed many mangers on the stand because I have an ear for inconsistencies in people's stories. Your story about being a lifelong NDP supporter who is gaga over Trudeau the Lesser I find quite hard to swallow however one of the etiquette things at babble is I have to accept things like that at face value. I was merely using your own words to determine your age because I mistakenly believed your posts about your life story. I will try not to make that mistake again.

kropotkin, I have news on this, good or bad depending on your perspective. I kept thinking that I had voted CCF for some reason. And maybe it was because I should have remembered if it was my first chance to vote. Almost everybody votes when it's their first chance. Did you? So I went into the election records and discovered that there was a B.C. election in 1960 and a federal election in 1958 and I could have very well voted in both of them!

So I wondered, who would know and I thought of my brother in Manitoba who may know. So I decided to email him to find out whether he voted in those two elections and if he recalled if I had accompanied him. But I haven't heard back from him yet but I should quite soon.

And so I was wondering if you would like to know what I find out? And if so then would you prefer to hear by private message so we don't interrupt this thread anymore with this kind of back and forth. Let me know o.k., if you want to know.

p.s. just one question for you. how old would a person have to be to vote in 1958 and 1960. 18 or 21? Not that it matters all that much. 

Northern PoV

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Northern PoV wrote:

Folks seem to be conflating long-term domestic situations with this interaction between two new acquaintances: a flame & a moth.

Conflating what, exactly?

Maybe you can explain how the "interaction" - a punch to the head and choking, if we want to say it plainly - is different in each case.

That is the accusation we are talking about. If you think there is something in either case that makes the assault any less of an assault, or any less serious, I am curious to hear.

My point is that this woman (unlike a trapped housewife for ex)  had 'agency'. ie was quite capable of avoiding the jerk after the first bizarre hair pulling incident...  She was a bad case to bring to court. If the rest of the case is this weak then JG walks... and probably should  ... his career is shot so its not like he is unscathed.

 

Pondering

Northern PoV wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Northern PoV wrote:

Folks seem to be conflating long-term domestic situations with this interaction between two new acquaintances: a flame & a moth.

Conflating what, exactly?

Maybe you can explain how the "interaction" - a punch to the head and choking, if we want to say it plainly - is different in each case.

That is the accusation we are talking about. If you think there is something in either case that makes the assault any less of an assault, or any less serious, I am curious to hear.

My point is that this woman (unlike a trapped housewife for ex)  had 'agency'. ie was quite capable of avoiding the jerk after the first bizarre hair pulling incident...  She was a bad case to bring to court. If the rest of the case is this weak then JG walks... and probably should  ... his career is shot so its not like he is unscathed.

Yes, she had agency, that didn't give him leave to punch her in the head. Even if he had done so before, and she saw him again, it still wouldn't give him leave to punch her in the head again.

6079_Smith_W

Northern PoV wrote:

My point is that this woman (unlike a trapped housewife for ex)  had 'agency'. ie was quite capable of avoiding the jerk after the first bizarre hair pulling incident...

What are you saying, exactly - that she is to blame for him punching her because she didn't stay out of his way?

That her coming to see him again made his alleged actions not a crime? That somewhere in there she said "please punch me in the head?"

It is interesting to contrast the articles on her testimony, because while a number of them spin this as her testimony being shredded, The Star points out that the cross examination didn't go anywhere near the only thing that matters: the accusation that he punched her three times. It was left unchallenged.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2016/02/02/ghomeshi-accuser-back-on-th...

You see, making bad decisions is not a crime, and she's not on trial here, though plenty are talking like she is, while curiously saying nothing about Ghomeshi's actions, and acting like he has no agency or responsibility here at all.

And fortunately there is only one person who needs to be convinced here - the judge.

 

 

 

Northern PoV

6079_Smith_W wrote:

<SNIP>

You see, making bad decisions is not a crime, and she's not on trial here, though plenty are talking like she is, while curiously saying nothing about Ghomeshi's actions, and acting like he has no agency or responsibility here at all.

And fortunately there is only one person who needs to be convinced here - the judge.

The witness is not on trial but our trial process does test her as a valid witness.  She failled that process (imo) and yes the judge will decide.

btw, I have yet to see a single post that is supportive of JG and see lots of critism of his actions.  He is a creepy rat who deserves the sh*t storm he brought on himself.

I do question the whole 'legal' route, based on the trial so far. (The crown's case may yet improve, who knows?)  It really distracts from the resposibility of his employer (CBC) and the ugly celebrity culture we've all come to worship.  Lots of enablers over the years (from the CBC and beyond) protected JG.  Other folks should be losing their jobs over this too. 

If we outed those folks (a public inquiry vs a trial perhaps) then the cause for abuse-free workplaces would be more likely to move forward than from this focus on the ugly little abuser. 

6079_Smith_W

Northern PoV wrote:

I have yet to see a single post that is supportive of JG and see lots of critism of his actions.

Really?

How much concern is being raised over his actions and the choices he made that resulted in this alleged assault, even though they are pretty simple:

Don't assault people.

http://canyourelate.org/2011/05/24/rape-prevention-tips/

From what I can see that second-guessing is all being directed at the victim and her actions and what she should have done differently to not get hit by him.

Sadly, it is the way the public always sees cases like this.

And even more bizarre, all this hand-wringing and rationalizing how much you should be able to punch someone in the head and get away with it.

God forbid some poor man should get convicted of sexual assault over a punch to the head that someone just misunderstood because she doesn't take responsibility for her actions.

 

 

Northern PoV

The judge will sort out the details in the case at hand.  Don't get your hopes up.

What about the bigger issues? JG proclivities were apparently well know in his industry.

We need to fully identify and punish the enablers in a public forum rather than chase this case down the legal rabbit hole. It ain't just one scummy guy.  Focussing on him (after he has already been tossed into the public dustbin) distracts from the bigger problems.  And if this trial continues the way its gone so far, it will actually harm the social movement to prevent abuse whatever the outcome.

They will say:

'see - just one weird guy ... and he is not guilty' or

'see - one weird guy - and the system worked' 

6079_Smith_W

Northern PoV wrote:

It ain't just one scummy guy.  Focussing on him (after he has already been tossed into the public dustbin) distracts from the bigger problems.

Sure. The bigger problem.

Let's do everything we can to not look at abusers' responsibility for their actions. Their victims make foolish decisions. Their employers are neglgent for letting them get away with it.

We all know the perpetrator is a monster, so that's decided, and there's no need to talk about it. It isn't as if regular guys like us assault and rape. And next time some other fellow is in the stands we'll do the same thing - accusing the victims, blaming his environment and doing everything we can to point blame in every direction except the guy who committed the assault, and ask for responsibility and liability from everyone except him..

We can't be talking about why men do things like this, can we.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

monty1 wrote:

kropotkin, I have news on this, good or bad depending on your perspective. I kept thinking that I had voted CCF for some reason. And maybe it was because I should have remembered if it was my first chance to vote. Almost everybody votes when it's their first chance. Did you? So I went into the election records and discovered that there was a B.C. election in 1960 and a federal election in 1958 and I could have very well voted in both of them!

So I wondered, who would know and I thought of my brother in Manitoba who may know. So I decided to email him to find out whether he voted in those two elections and if he recalled if I had accompanied him. But I haven't heard back from him yet but I should quite soon.

And so I was wondering if you would like to know what I find out? And if so then would you prefer to hear by private message so we don't interrupt this thread anymore with this kind of back and forth. Let me know o.k., if you want to know.

p.s. just one question for you. how old would a person have to be to vote in 1958 and 1960. 18 or 21? Not that it matters all that much. 

So you are saying that you are not in your 80's but are instead are 78 or 79. So why not say that at first? I expected that as a reply if you had voted on the last two elections that the CCF contested in BC one federal and one provincial. However instead you just denied being in your 80's.

The CCF was disbanded in 1960 so neither you nor your brother voted for the CCF in the 1962 federal election. The last federal election that the CCF ran in was in 1958. The one before that was in 1957. If you had voted in those two elections you would have had to have been born prior to June 1936 and thus at the youngest turning 80 sometime in the next three months.

I remember when they changed the legal age for voting from 21 to 18 and that was in 1970. It made no difference for me because I turned 21 before the 1972 election and would still have been 17 for the 1968 election.

What I find so very interesting is that you didn't vote for Pierre in 1968 when he was running as a progressive and had just done great work as Justice Minister prior to his coronation as leader. He was even an anti-conscription activist and that should have meant something to an anti-war activist like yourselve  I have a hard time reconciling that with your fawning behaviour over Trudeau the Lesser.

 

Northern PoV

6079_Smith_W wrote:

<SNIP>

We can't be talking about why men do things like this, can we.

So you are saying ... it's just this one bad apple ... move on, move on nothing to see.

monty1

kropotkin1951 wrote:

monty1 wrote:

kropotkin, I have news on this, good or bad depending on your perspective. I kept thinking that I had voted CCF for some reason. And maybe it was because I should have remembered if it was my first chance to vote. Almost everybody votes when it's their first chance. Did you? So I went into the election records and discovered that there was a B.C. election in 1960 and a federal election in 1958 and I could have very well voted in both of them!

So I wondered, who would know and I thought of my brother in Manitoba who may know. So I decided to email him to find out whether he voted in those two elections and if he recalled if I had accompanied him. But I haven't heard back from him yet but I should quite soon.

And so I was wondering if you would like to know what I find out? And if so then would you prefer to hear by private message so we don't interrupt this thread anymore with this kind of back and forth. Let me know o.k., if you want to know.

p.s. just one question for you. how old would a person have to be to vote in 1958 and 1960. 18 or 21? Not that it matters all that much. 

So you are saying that you are not in your 80's but are instead are 78 or 79. So why not say that at first? I expected that as a reply if you had voted on the last two elections that the CCF contested in BC one federal and one provincial. However instead you just denied being in your 80's.

The CCF was disbanded in 1960 so neither you nor your brother voted for the CCF in the 1962 federal election. The last federal election that the CCF ran in was in 1958. The one before that was in 1957. If you had voted in those two elections you would have had to have been born prior to June 1936 and thus at the youngest turning 80 sometime in the next three months.

I remember when they changed the legal age for voting from 21 to 18 and that was in 1970. It made no difference for me because I turned 21 before the 1972 election and would still have been 17 for the 1968 election.

What I find so very interesting is that you didn't vote for Pierre in 1968 when he was running as a progressive and had just done great work as Justice Minister prior to his coronation as leader. He was even an anti-conscription activist and that should have meant something to an anti-war activist like yourselve  I have a hard time reconciling that with your fawning behaviour over Trudeau the Lesser.

 

Yeah that. 

No, I don't remember voting for peeair. And you answer to my questions are? If you have lost track of the questions then go back.

I now know whether or not I voted in either of the two elections I mentioned.

If I denied being in my eighties as you said, then what do you think would be a reason for doing that. Multiple choice:

1. I am not in my eighties.

2. I'm in my eighties

3. I voted in 1960.

4. I didn't vote in 1960.

5. I voted in 1958.

6. I didn't vote in 1958.

7. None of the above.

8. Why don't we just decide to be nice to each other becasue I don't think there's much air between our positions?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

We can't be talking about why men do things like this, can we.

Misogyny is a fact of life so some people think we should just accept it. That is like accepting that Canada's First Nations communities often look like villages in third world countries. You know whose fault those things are, right?

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

monty1 wrote:

8. Why don't we just decide to be nice to each other becasue (sic) I don't think there's much air between our positions?

I don't believe we share many positions on issues. I think you are a sycophant for the imperial order and a fawning cheerleader for Canada's new pretty facade for the 1%.

I would have been nicer if you had not arrived on this board with disparaging comments for everyone who disagreed with your positions. You started fights with numerous long time progressive posters in your first couple of days. But of course that is not your fault is it?

monty1

kropotkin1951 wrote:

monty1 wrote:

8. Why don't we just decide to be nice to each other becasue (sic) I don't think there's much air between our positions?

I don't believe we share many positions on issues. I think you are a sycophant for the imperial order and a fawning cheerleader for Canada's new pretty facade for the 1%.

I would have been nicer if you had not arrived on this board with disparaging comments for everyone who disagreed with your positions. You started fights with numerous long time progressive posters in your first couple of days. But of course that is not your fault is it?

No.

MegB

Northern PoV wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I don't care what kind of 20/20 hindsight you think you might have in a situation like that; I can tell you though that many of us are not always as good at reading the future as you think you are.

But it doesn't matter, because nothing she did gave him permission to do what she alleges - punching her in the head.

What you are doing is blaming the victim. It is no different in a relationship than it is between acquaintances or strangers. You know... the version where it somes down to what she shouldn't have been wearing, or where she shouldn't have been walking, or why she decided to meet him again.

From today's proceedings... an email from 'victim' to JG one year after

Email: "if you want to keep in touch, this is my email!!!! (Phone number), Her name"

Some victim!

This is victim blaming and shaming and is unacceptible.

Northern PoV

MegB wrote:

This is victim blaming and shaming and is unacceptible.

Alleged victim ... at this point only a witness.  (A witness who was very damaging to the crowns case.)

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

The relevance to this trial isn't that she apparently e-mailed him, it's that she apparently gave contradictory testimony about it.  Perhaps that's even understandable, but from the trial point of view, a shark like Henein is going to have a field day with that. 

Paladin1

Mr. Magoo wrote:

The relevance to this trial isn't that she apparently e-mailed him, it's that she apparently gave contradictory testimony about it.  Perhaps that's even understandable, but from the trial point of view, a shark like Henein is going to have a field day with that. 

 

I was going to say the same.  Her credibility in the eyes of the court will take a significant hit. I'm not sure why she would leave something like that out, she had to know it would be brought up.

6079_Smith_W

I suppose I could sit idly by and tick off the number of posts complaining about what a bad witness she is, how she is blowing it for the prosecution and leading on poor Jian at the same time,  and how much trouble she is making for everyone, and how really, this is all her fault.

But really I think you boys aren't even fucking aware of the pattern of your comments here, even after some of us have waved it under your noses.

(edit)

I have to say I think it is admirable that she can still say this:

Quote:

"I want to encourage other victims of abuse to ... not be afraid," woman says in a statement after two difficult days under cross-examination.

“I didn’t go to the police (in 2003),” said the first complainant testifying in Jian Ghomeshi’s sexual assault trial, “because I didn’t want to deal with this.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2016/02/02/ghomeshi-accuser-says-she-h...

 

 

 

Northern PoV

Mr. Magoo wrote:

 contradictory testimony

a very charitable description indeed

Mr. Magoo wrote:

 a shark like Henein 

a rather uncharitable description

Do you think Henein considers herself a feminist?  Do we?

Paladin1 wrote:

<snip>

she had to know it would be brought up.

ya think?

6079_Smith_W

For your information, the "shark" appellation comes from hockey agent David Frost, who she represented. It was a compliment.

http://torontolife.com/city/crime/marie-henein-jian-ghomeshi-lawyer/

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I suppose I could sit idly by and tick off the number of posts complaining about what a bad witness she is, how she is blowing it for the prosecution and leading on poor Jian at the same time,  and how much trouble she is making for everyone, and how really, this is all her fault.

How many "ticks" do you think you'd get.  Just go with ticks for those who've said it's "all her fault".

If it's anyone's "fault" then it's the Crown's, for putting her on the stand when she claimed she'd never contacted him and couldn't even watch him on television, then said "Oh, well, I guess I did contact him, and I guess I did watch him on television". 

Is there any room to say "that's not going to help the prosecution", or is such an analysis just us being "boys"?

6079_Smith_W

As the article I posted upthread pointed out, one thing the defense did not do is challenge her in any way on the accusation of assault.

As much as people want to make hay with the rest of it, I'd say that's a bit more relevant to the actual charge. We'll see f the judge has anything to say about how bad she was.

 

 

pookie

6079_Smith_W wrote:

As the article I posted upthread pointed out, one thing the defense did not do is challenge her in any way on the accusation of assault.

As much as people want to make hay with the rest of it, I'd say that's a bit more relevant to the actual charge. We'll see f the judge has anything to say about how bad she was.

 

 

They don't have to if they can find other ways to impugn her credibility (that don't allow the Crown a chance to redirect).  Which, sad to say, they most likely did.

ETA: Plus, the judge is in no way obliged to accept those parts of her testimony that went unchallenged on cross.

Northern PoV

"Complainant went on a walk in the park AND took pictures cuddling with ghomeshi after the incident" via twitter.

ooops

Next!

UPDATE: Do you want to tell his honour the truth?  

NDPP

Jane Doe: The Jian Ghomeshi Trial: Who Has Accuser's Back In This

Set-Up?      

http://nowtoronto.com/news/jian-ghomeshi-trial-who-has-accusers-back-in-...

"...The crown did not object, the judge did not suggest a break. No one has her back in this trial, her trial against the high-powered legal team that is advising Ghomeshi.

If the crimes committed against them are so easily challenged, why do we send them defenceless into the jeopardy of a trial? Who benefits from that set-up?"

 international media celebrity and barracuda lawyer, kangaroo crown/court, a stacked deck. Just another demonstration of the Canadian 'Just-Us' system in action...

 

Northern PoV

NDPP wrote:

Jane Doe: The Jian Ghomeshi Trial: Who Has Accuser's Back In This

Set-Up?      

http://nowtoronto.com/news/jian-ghomeshi-trial-who-has-accusers-back-in-...

"...The crown did not object, the judge did not suggest a break. No one has her back in this trial, her trial against the high-powered legal team that is advising Ghomeshi.

If the crimes committed against them are so easily challenged, why do we send them defenceless into the jeopardy of a trial? Who benefits from that set-up?"

 international media celebrity and barracuda lawyer, kangaroo crown/court, a stacked deck. Just another demonstration of the Canadian 'Just-Us' system in action...

A very one-sided view ... but dead-on in respect to how bad this crown case is .,,,,

"If the crimes committed against them are so easily challenged" then maybe they are not crimes?  I think that is the whole point of a 'fair' trial.

JG has been fired for disgusting behavior and his career is dead-ended.  Some of his enablers have been sanctioned as well: "The CBC has fired the executive director of radio and the head of human resources for the way in which they handled events around Jian Ghomeshi. " (just found that out!)  So it is not like Canadian society and it various institutions have failed.  (Or if they did, the failure is being addressed in appropriate ways.) These are real consequences. (All you chicken-littles: the sky is not falling.)

The decision to prosecute (based on what we have seen at trial of the two stories so far) was emotional and political not based on good legal work. So yes the crown failed these women ...

Gustave

When she says the Crown did not inform the witnesses on what they are legally obliged to transmit to the defense, is this factually true? Did the witnesses complain about it?

 

mark_alfred

Hmm.  This whole thing is kind of disturbing.  I used to be a great believer in the justice system.  But this case, along with some things I've seen in my own experience recently, has me thinking the law is an ass.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

In any litigation preparation of your witnesses is the key to winning a case. I don't know what happened but it sure looks like these witnesses where not prepped very well by the junior council that the Crown has assigned to the case. It seems that the case will turn on whether one can give post incident consent to an assault. In spousal abuse cases that is not allowed so it will be interesting to see what happens here. Since JG's lawyer has not disputed the incidents themselves as much as bringing out the post incident e-mails etc I think JG's testimony will also be a major factor. If he agrees it happened but pleads consent and then is ripped apart on the stand because of the lack of safe words etc he will likely still be convicted.

mark_alfred

He may not even take the stand and give testimony though. 

monty1

As kropotkin says, he'll likely still be convicted of something. But there are still outstanding issues that arnen't being discussed here and will be discussed in the defence's final submissions. Although I'm wondering now if it will be public.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

He may not even take the stand and give testimony though. 

If he doesn't then the testimony that he did not obtain consent will stand unchallenged and it goes right back to whether in law you can give consent to an assault after the fact.

mark_alfred

kropotkin1951 wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

He may not even take the stand and give testimony though. 

If he doesn't then the testimony that he did not obtain consent will stand unchallenged and it goes right back to whether in law you can give consent to an assault after the fact.

Yes, makes sense, unless, I assume, the assertion of lack of consent by the witnesses was, in the defence's opinion, sufficiently undermined by the cross (I haven't been following too closely, so I dunno).  If the defence feels they need Ghomeshi to testify to counter the assertion of the witnesses of lack of consent, then you're right, they'll risk putting him up on the stand.

 

monty1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I suppose I could sit idly by and tick off the number of posts complaining about what a bad witness she is, how she is blowing it for the prosecution and leading on poor Jian at the same time,  and how much trouble she is making for everyone, and how really, this is all her fault.

But really I think you boys aren't even fucking aware of the pattern of your comments here, even after some of us have waved it under your noses.

(edit)

I have to say I think it is admirable that she can still say this:

Quote:

"I want to encourage other victims of abuse to ... not be afraid," woman says in a statement after two difficult days under cross-examination.

“I didn’t go to the police (in 2003),” said the first complainant testifying in Jian Ghomeshi’s sexual assault trial, “because I didn’t want to deal with this.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2016/02/02/ghomeshi-accuser-says-she-h...

In that link, both sexual assault and physical abuse are mentioned. Is this to mean that they are one and the same crime or can the two crimes be considered separately? I personally don't know but when one begins to imagine what happened, the question arises. Does violent rape fit the description? 

Ward

After following  this trial I can't help but worry that in the name of humanity more jail cells are required.

Ward

After following  this trial I can't help but worry that in the name of humanity more jail cells are required.

monty1

Ward wrote:

After following  this trial I can't help but worry that in the name of humanity more jail cells are required.

What do you mean? Can you expand on that? The only thing I gather from that comment is that you wish to see more people locked up and that would start to resemble the US system. If so then it's not that I would object to you saying that, even though I am totally opposed to the idea.

Ward

Aggresive akward male sexual behavior needs to be controlled!!

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

monty1 wrote:

In that link, both sexual assault and physical abuse are mentioned. Is this to mean that they are one and the same crime or can the two crimes be considered separately? I personally don't know but when one begins to imagine what happened, the question arises. Does violent rape fit the description? 

They are different crimes. Sexual assault has been changed to include any assault of a sexual nature. The term rape is no longer part of our Criminal Code.

Quote:

Assault

265 (1) A person commits an assault when

(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or

(c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.

(2) This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault.

Consent

(3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of

(a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

(b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

(c) fraud; or

(d) the exercise of authority.

Accused’s belief as to consent

(4) Where an accused alleges that he believed that the complainant consented to the conduct that is the subject-matter of the charge, a judge, if satisfied that there is sufficient evidence and that, if believed by the jury, the evidence would constitute a defence, shall instruct the jury, when reviewing all the evidence relating to the determination of the honesty of the accused’s belief, to consider the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for that belief. R.S., c. C-34, s. 244; 1974-75-76, c. 93, s. 21; 1980-81-82-83, c. 125, s. 19.

Sexual assault 271

Everyone who commits a sexual assault is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years or, if the complainant is under the age of 16 years, to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months or, if the complainant is under the age of 16 years, to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months. R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 271; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 10; 1994, c. 44, s. 19; 2012, c. 1, s. 25; 2015, c. 23, s. 14.

Sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm 272

(1) Every person commits an offence who, in committing a sexual assault,

(a) carries, uses or threatens to use a weapon or an imitation of a weapon; (b) threatens to cause bodily harm to a person other than the complainant; (c) causes bodily harm to the complainant; or

(d) is a party to the offence with any other person.

Northern PoV

Wow  ...

based on the crown's comments when requesting a recess ... my bet is that the charges are all dropped on Monday.  Let's hope angry crowns don't lay perjury charges.  

Perhaps the separate trial/charge (scheduled for June, I think)  will do better?

Gustave

kropotkin1951 wrote:

In any litigation preparation of your witnesses is the key to winning a case. I don't know what happened but it sure looks like these witnesses where not prepped very well by the junior council that the Crown has assigned to the case. It seems that the case will turn on whether one can give post incident consent to an assault. In spousal abuse cases that is not allowed so it will be interesting to see what happens here. Since JG's lawyer has not disputed the incidents themselves as much as bringing out the post incident e-mails etc I think JG's testimony will also be a major factor. If he agrees it happened but pleads consent and then is ripped apart on the stand because of the lack of safe words etc he will likely still be convicted.

Thanks for the answer. Would you say the prosecuter has the same lattitude in preparing the witnesses as his counterpart? The client of the first is the State. The attorney is paid to help his client. The prosecutor is not there to serve the witness/victim. I'm just curious to know how it works.

monty1 wrote:

In that link, both sexual assault and physical abuse are mentioned. Is this to mean that they are one and the same crime or can the two crimes be considered separately? I personally don't know but when one begins to imagine what happened, the question arises. Does violent rape fit the description?

He faces 4 counts of sexual assault and one of overcoming resistance by choking. They are different crimes. Both are physical abuses but the sexual one is a specific crime.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Gustave wrote:

Thanks for the answer. Would you say the prosecuter has the same lattitude in preparing the witnesses as his counterpart? The client of the first is the State. The attorney is paid to help his client. The prosecutor is not there to serve the witness/victim. I'm just curious to know how it works.

I've never done criminal law but one of the big advantages for defence is that you can ask leading questions. With one's own witness like the Crown's witnesses here you can only ask questions that do not hint at the answer that is expected. If a witness is well prepared they know what answers and what in depth answers are required for their lawyer to make the points they want. In cross examination a witness should be trained to say as little as possible while still answering the questions. Never add any more information than absolutely necessary.  From what little I have heard of the actual evidence it appears that the witnesses may not have been prepared for the kinds of questions that they were asked about.

This case will likely turn on a fine point of law and thus may be the subject of appeal no matter which side wins.

6079_Smith_W

Northern PoV wrote:

"If the crimes committed against them are so easily challenged" then maybe they are not crimes?  

I'm curious what you are referring to. What ddo you think might not be a crime?

6079_Smith_W

X

Northern PoV

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Northern PoV wrote:

"If the crimes committed against them are so easily challenged" then maybe they are not crimes?  

I'm curious what you are referring to. What ddo you think might not be a crime?

Well if we consider the new information...

"I love your hands" "I want to f**k your brains out tonight"

coming the morning after ... then the whole accusation of assault falls apart.... and there is so much more.

Watch the crown drop the charges ... and keep your fingers crossed Lucy hasn't pissed them off enought to generate perjury charges.

6079_Smith_W

Thats not what i asked.

What is it here that you think is not a crime?

Pages

Topic locked