Jian Ghomeishi alleged sexual assault.

ashkan said:
Bill Burr says why is it ok for women to hit men but men cant do the same. Its not about endorsing violence on women, its questioning the double standards that exists in a society where we preach equality. We say we are all equal but women are more equal. On whatever issues quality helps women, we carry the torch and make waves but on issues that inequality actually benefit women, like domestic violence for example, we are all too gracefully quite and let inequality go on because it benefits women.

Also, Krishan's understanding of your comment was how i understood it as well. Eitehr you meant it that way or it was a confusing comment, Either ways, that's what Bill Burr says and i agree.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...e-sexism-long-benefits-scientists-reveal.html
Click to expand...

End Violence Against Women = 4 words

End Violence = half the words, twice the effect.
 
nobbie48 said:
End Violence Against Women = 4 words

End Violence = half the words, twice the effect.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Too bad the western media cant understand it. Well im sure they understand it but it doesnt fit their agenda. For now, men are disposable and women get preferential treatment (in North America)
 
Riceburner said:
in "Western" culture....not just NA. Thought not sure about status in Mexico.
Click to expand...

Haha well i said NA because wester culture covers a wide range of countries that have a different approach to male/female relationship vis a vis legal system.

For example in Scandinavian it is much more fair (50/50) when it comes to divorce while in NA men are slaughtered.

But generally speaking, youre right. For the most part, western cultures live in the post feminist era (although femeNazis in Canada,US wont admit it).
 
Did he actually testify at the trial?
 
Riceburner said:
in "Western" culture....not just NA. Thought not sure about status in Mexico.
Click to expand...

When speaking with a couple people in Mexico, they say that they have more issues with women abusing men because of the fact that men are basically thrown under the bus if they retaliate in any way.
 
griff2 said:
No. What would he have said other than it was consensual? His lawyers made that case for him.
Click to expand...

Just like the complainants would only say that it wasn't. Why even get them on the stand?
I don't even think the question was asked. Don't be so Naive.
 
The thing that bothers me the most about this case is that some of the women went back to him. We all have bad days and say things we later regret but there are lines one doesn't cross, like hitting people.

What is the allure of someone who assaults you? Charges should have been laid on the first smack.

If the return visit was to derive some financial benefit or job in return for participating in repulsive behavior how is that different in principle from prostitution?

What is missing in our society / education system / culture that makes women go down this path?

50% of the population is female and a large portion of the male population is against mistreating females so why, with this massive political clout, does this continue?
 
nobbie48 said:
The thing that bothers me the most about this case is that some of the women went back to him. We all have bad days and say things we later regret but there are lines one doesn't cross, like hitting people.

What is the allure of someone who assaults you? Charges should have been laid on the first smack.

If the return visit was to derive some financial benefit or job in return for participating in repulsive behavior how is that different in principle from prostitution?

What is missing in our society / education system / culture that makes women go down this path?

50% of the population is female and a large portion of the male population is against mistreating females so why, with this massive political clout, does this continue?
Click to expand...

Maybe they thought that they could change him, or were baiting him as one claimed.

Men who are beaten go back as well, therefore:

What is missing in our society / education system / culture that makes men go down this path?
 
Baggsy said:
Just like the complainants would only say that it wasn't. Why even get them on the stand?
I don't even think the question was asked. Don't be so Naive.
Click to expand...

The complainants were in the stand to give evidence to their accusations against Ghomeishi. Without that evidence, there would be no case at all.

Ghomeishi had no need to go on the stand to claim his innocence of the charges, for his innocence is presumed and the burden is on the Crown to prove otherwise.

Given that his layers managed to draw out so many inconsistencies and even lies from his accusers. In doing so, his lawyers managed to raise what many consider serious doubts about the reliability of any other evidence his accusers may have provided. Once the complainants' evidentiary reliability was sufficiently compromised, there was no real added value in having Ghomeishi take the stand.

If anything, Ghomeishi going on the stand in his defence to say "Did not!" would have opened him up to cross-examination by the Crown where Ghomeishi would have been compelled to answer potentially incriminating questions. His lawyers were smart.

There was no need for him to testify once the complainants's evidence and credibility was shredded, and so he didn't. He did what so many here advise people accused of traffic offences to do, and that is to say nothing and not go on the stand in their own defence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom