Ghomeshigate

FullMotoJacket said:
Maybe you and -D- can get a 2 for 1 on comprehension lessons. Read what I wrote again. Slowly and out loud if you need to. Nowhere did I refer to the Ghomshi case directly. Consent is fluid and dynamic. It doesn't mean "now that I have your consent it's no holes barred". It can be revoked at any time, and is null and void if a person is incapable of doing so (eg: choked into a state of semi consciousness or unconsciousness).
Click to expand...

This is a thread about Jian Gomeshi, so what's your point if it isn't related to what we're talking about.
 
I just want to say, I have 0 idea what this thread about and I only read the last page (I totally understand my ignorance, but meh), and I have to say this.

ashkan said:
Read up Griff2. I clearly said you can be charged and there should be an investigation. But if the investigation turns up with no reason to convict you, then it is wrong for people to assume you guilty even with no evidence.


And what im arguing is that some were using accusations as final verdict here. Saying he was accused many times therefore he must be guilty.
So investigate but judge based on facts not accusations alone.
Click to expand...

Last post. BANHAMMER!
 
griff2 said:
Back in the mid-80s, things went rather crazy at the university I was attending at the time. It started with a case of a female student drunk almost to the point of unconsciousness being taken advantage of in the campus dorms.

The university and student union rolled out an awareness campaign. Men and women at my university were being told that No Means No and that men were obligated to respect a woman's choice to consent or not to whatever the guy had in mind. They were also being told that a drunken woman could not give consent. That is certainly fair enough and is simply courtesy, never mind a legal obligation.

After a few weeks of this, things started to get a bit ridiculous as various formal and ad hoc campus student groups started to throw in their two cents on the issue. Men were being told that any sexual contact was forbidden unless you had explicit and detailed consent beforehand. The gist was that in the midst of kissing/hugging/canoodling/whatever, if it appeared that things would develop into a sexual act the guy was effectively being told that he had to stop, clarify where he thought things were going, and then obtain that explicit consent before going further.

The predictable result of that was the informal distribution of written consent forms on campus outlining the various kinds of sexual activity that the woman was consenting to, along with places for initials (to each consented act), date, time, and signature.

Things got much worse after that. The No Means No, and get consent before you act campaign morphed into something entirely different. Some women's groups on campus started promoting the opinion that consent the night of could be considered invalid if the woman had even just one alcoholic drink, or if she was emotionally vulnerable due to being on relationship rebound, parental breakdown, having failed an exam or other form of course load stress, feeling ill, or otherwise vulnerable. Of course that meant that about half the female population on campus was potentially "off-limits" at any given time.

That was kind of bad but it got worse when the theory evolved that if on the morning after you woke up and regretted anything you may have done the previous night for any reason at all, that you should consider yourself to have been sexually violated regardless of whether you provided fully-informed and conscious consent.

Needless to say, for almost two years the campus dating scene was incredibly chilled as the student and administrative bodies tried to navigate the new landscape. The sad thing was that the actual policies and education campaign promoted by the university and the student union throughout this time were quite reasonable. The students were just unable to isolate them from all the noise generated by some of the more radical (no other way to put it) women's and feminist groups on campus.
Click to expand...


wow! however did we survive before all these "rules"
they should have said you need witness signatures too :)
I say the 24 hour rule, if you felt that you were raped or violated then the onus is on you to go file a police report
there are only 2 ppl in the room, she gives consent then the next day finds out the guy is seeing another girl...all of a sudden it's rape and how do you prove she gave consent the night before.

We all know the difference between flat out rape (which is wrong on every level).
Where is personal responsibility? If I drink to the point of no return and smash my car into a tree, can I then turn around and sue the car maker for not putting some ignition breathalyzer device in the car.

Funny thing is, like car alarms when they were new everyone went and looked when the alarm went off, eventually everyone just ignores it.
 
SONIC said:
This is a thread about Jian Gomeshi, so what's your point if it isn't related to what we're talking about.
Click to expand...

So you're saying a post about consent in a thread about a trial that the outcome of hinges on consent aren't related.........I'm at a loss. Other than reiterating that you go get some additional schooling, I don't know what to say to you.

I'll wait while you look up reiterate.
 
Last edited:
FullMotoJacket said:
So you're saying a post about consent in a thread about a trial that the outcome of hinges on consent aren't related.........I'm at a loss. Other than reiterating that you go get some additional schooling, I don't know what to say to you.

I'll wait while you look up reiterate.
Click to expand...

ok, makes sense now
carry now
 
Could the prosecutor not have gone with a straight assault charge?

Or would it have run into the same issues with the witnesses' recollection of events?
 
Baggsy said:
Could the prosecutor not have gone with a straight assault charge?

Or would it have run into the same issues with the witnesses' recollection of events?
Click to expand...

Same issue. You have three witnesses,who provided the only evidence (no physical evidence in any of the cases), who were less than truthful in their presentations. As I suspected, that killed the whole thing.
 
Or there never was a "thing" to kill.....
 
Time to remove the gate.
 
Let's see if women stand up and say those 3 liars should be prosecuted for wasting the police and court's time.
What about the real victims? The ones that were truly raped as opposed to these 3 that supposedly engaged in rough sex and kept going back.

Hell, one was in a serious relationship years later and sent Ghomeshi bikini pics in an email wanting to essentially meet up with him again.

It boggles my mind how women don't see these 3 liars setting back their cause and belittling the real victims.

#accountability
 
On another note,
Guys should start asking women to give video consent right before sex and site this case to say I just want to ensure that both of us are protected legally...by both mostly him...lol

Oh the reactions would be funny to hear.
When she says no, then guys say well if you have nothing to hide then there should be no problem in giving a video consent.
...and right after sex make another video with her stating there was no abuse.:D:D:lmao:

Or guys will just start making secret videos to provide as proof for any possible allegations.
 
So the guy is innocent of all charges. The law has spoken with all the evidence & witnesses. I wonder if that guy gets his life & job back?
Shame on you CBC!
 
RockerGuy said:
So the guy is innocent of all charges. The law has spoken with all the evidence & witnesses. I wonder if that guy gets his life & job back?
Shame on you CBC!
Click to expand...

New Rules!

guilty first
after trial not found guilty by Judge
oh well still guilty

guilty in, innocent, guilty out
 
ZX600 said:
Or there never was a "thing" to kill.....
Click to expand...

The "thing" that I was referring to, was The Crown's case.

-D- said:
New Rules!

guilty first
after trial not found guilty by Judge
oh well still guilty

guilty in, innocent, guilty out
Click to expand...


Not new. Ask O.J. Simpson.
 
The fact that he was found innocent doesn't mean the CBC didn't do the right thing regardless of the outcome of the investigation. If he had internal complaints and was let go due to those allegations then it's fine, but if he was let go because of the false allegations by these 3 woman then they will have to pay for it.
 
CBC didn't terminate his employment because of the allegations of these 3 women. He was terminated for being an utter Prima Donna to other colleagues. Anyways, his dirty little secret is out, he's a sadistic prick.
 
ZX600 said:
The fact that he was found innocent doesn't mean the CBC didn't do the right thing regardless of the outcome of the investigation. If he had internal complaints and was let go due to those allegations then it's fine, but if he was let go because of the false allegations by these 3 woman then they will have to pay for it.
Click to expand...

If CBC had had such allegations then one would presume the Crown would have gotten them to demonstrate his history.
I think we can rule out CBC having complaints because it was not mentioned during the trial.

No doubt CBC and everyone else will be paying him $$$
Works out in the end, found innocent and you get a nice large settlement.
I hope this sets public precedence, have facts not fiction.
 
ZX600 said:
The fact that he was found innocent doesn't mean the CBC didn't do the right thing regardless of the outcome of the investigation. If he had internal complaints and was let go due to those allegations then it's fine, but if he was let go because of the false allegations by these 3 woman then they will have to pay for it.
Click to expand...

He was not let go due to internal allegations. They let him go because an investigation was taking place alleging that he assaulted women. If he decides to go after CBC, they'r screwed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom