Sex assault complainants turning to human rights tribunals, instead of justice system

[Mehrunes]

HRT's can't find people guilty, they just give victims a financial reward that our courts don't do for criminal cases. Hence why people are so quick to be critical of rape cases when the victims, rather than going to the police and allowing due process to see justice done, are instead going to HRT's in order to make a quick buck off their rapists. It's pretty criminal in it's own right actually, and is why people are starting to look down their noses at rape victims in a lot of cases. Due process and criminal courts are required for a proper verdict of guilt.

What a bunch of victim blaming /s

The issue is the judicial process where (only in rape cases) do we doubt and put the victim on trial.

So the issue is a hyperbole (and abject falsehood)? Fascinating. I completely missed that from the article.

How dare the victim try to avoid that.

They can, like, choose to not pursue justice if that is their perception of the legal system. That is their right. Choosing a perversion of justice instead because it coddles their feels or whatever is rather misguided though.

You're also making the assumption that a tribunal wouldn't be able to draw a conclusion that the victim is full of shit? Tribunals ALWAYS come down in favor of the victim. When in fact evidence shows the opposite because Tribunals have another thing to consider... their own reputation. A University is more likely to sweep a case under the rug, because a legitimized case of rape is publicity of the worst kind.

It's almost as if those were some of the reasons some of the posters here are against them. Whoa. Mind = blown.

[Varitok]

If you cant be bothered to go to police your story probably isnt 100% true anway.

Its like involving the management of Walmart if it happened in their parking lot.

[Mihalik]

Tamsyn Riddle alleged that after being sexually assaulted by a student on campus two years ago, she reported the incident to the university rather than to police in part because she worried she’d be further traumatized by the criminal justice system.

After finding the university’s process distressing and unhelpful, Riddle, who agreed to be identified, sought advice from other sexual assault complainants and eventually chose to approach the rights tribunal about the school’s handling of her case.

“Me filing a human rights case was more to get the sense of justice that I was seeking when I first initially reported, but also to make sure that other survivors can report to their school … and have a better experience than I did,” she said.

This is absurd.

A university is neither a law enforcement agency capable of running an investigation, nor is a justice system that could pass any sort of judgement.

[Mehrunes]

Ah here we go. When in doubt make some wild unverifiable claim. Sounds like a lawyer to me...

I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you're attempting to paint what I said about the article as some wild unverifiable claim, but sorry, it's right there, easily verifiable by being a part of the article. Including Marcy Seagal, the person who said that part, being a lawyer according to the article. If you're referring to her claims as being unverifiable, still sorry, but civil law using weaker standard of evidence than "beyond reasonable doubt" is civil law 101.

[A dot Ham]

It's almost as if those were some of the reasons some of the posters here are against them. Whoa. Mind = blown.

No the only reason I have seen anyone give here is that the victim is trying to circumvent the judicial system by finding a governing body that has a weaker set of faculties regarding what is or isn't due process.

The claim is... how have you put it? Abjectly false.

If anyone has a case to show this fictional scenario is happening and organizations are opening themselves up to significant liabilities, I'd be happy to accept these "fears".

But as I pointed out, if these cases are being mishandled its to the benefit of the accused, and NOT the victim.

[Mehrunes]

No the only reason I have seen anyone give here is that the victim is trying to circumvent the judicial system by finding a governing body that has a weaker set of faculties regarding what is or isn't due process.

The claim is... how have you put it? Abjectly false.

Given how you somehow saw that in my post, you see what you want to see. So yeah, abjectly false seems to cover it.

But as I pointed out, if these cases are being mishandled its to the benefit of the accused, and NOT the victim.

Tribunals "ALWAYS coming down in favor of the victim" are mishandling cases to the benefit of the accused? Wat?

[dextersmith]

Trollin it is then.

Your first 3 lines said nothing. It lacked a thesis statement and had random letters strung together like "breh". It was incoherent and not worth the effort to decipher. If you want to be heard, speak.

[Deleted]

If someone is a victim of home invasion/burglary do we ask if the victim had an alarm? Locked their doors? Had a dog? Lived alone? No, because none of that is relevant.

We do actually. Especially if we work for an insurance company and handle monetary compensation. You know, like these tribunals are apparently meant to.

If someone is murdered do we ask if they deserved it? Provoked it? Did anything to prevent it? Owned a gun? No, because it is irrelevant.

Yes we do? Gangbanger gets shot? Questions line up right away. Man gets murdered in his sleep by wife? He was probably abusive! Two kids get murdered while on vacation in the US? They were in the wrong area buying weed, they fucked up!

But if someone is raped, we question what they did to provoke it? How many partners has she had? Would she say yes in other situations? What was she wearing? Was she alone? What was the nature of the relationship? on and on trying to discredit and paint the victim as some irresponsible sex crazed floozy.

By provoke you mean "indicate that they might want sex"? How many partners they've had is incredibly rare to ask in court because it is a stupid question that doesn't have any bearing on anything. It's a good way to hurt your case if you're a defender. What was she wearing is the same. It's really not asked. Were you alone is pretty standard fare for any case where a person is victimized. Nature of relationship is obviously relevant to this case as well in order to establish likelihood as there usually isn't a ton of evidence to go by.

How dare the victim try to avoid that. They must have ulterior motives.

Man we should have all insurance claims handled by a HRT so that the victims of theft don't have to go through these awful questions from insurance companies that act as if the victim should be on trial!

You're so concerned with my use of profanity. Why don't you go back and actually read (not skim) my posts. Instead of trying to hone in on one thing you can cherry pick and continue your trolling.

Don't call people trolls, you'll be infracted.

[Rennadrel]

What a bunch of victim blaming

Except no. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal exists to uphold the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Canadian Human Rights Act is a statute passed by the Parliament of Canada in 1977 with the express goal of extending the law to ensure equal opportunity to individuals who may be victims of discriminatory practices based on a set of prohibited grounds such as sex, sexual orientation, race, marital status, creed, age, colour, disability, political or religious belief.

The Human Rights Act does not entitle people to take others to a tribunal for cases that should be dealt with by a court of law.

[Powerogue]

"who must endure having their experience and trauma challenged."

Well yeah, because some people lie. It'll never be perfect, but obviously if the criminal justice system isn't accomplishing justice they need to adjust their approach or their name.

It should be remembered just because this extrajudicial approach punishes more of the accused doesn't necessarily mean it's dolling out more justice.

[Mehrunes]

Except no. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal exists to uphold the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Canadian Human Rights Act is a statute passed by the Parliament of Canada in 1977 with the express goal of extending the law to ensure equal opportunity to individuals who may be victims of discriminatory practices based on a set of prohibited grounds such as sex, sexual orientation, race, marital status, creed, age, colour, disability, political or religious belief.

The Human Rights Act does not entitle people to take others to a tribunal for cases that should be dealt with by a court of law.

There was a small /s in that paragraph :3

[Noradin]

I never said I agreed or disagreed. I'm not pleased about the issue in general. It doesn't mean I'm okay with guilty verdicts without proof.

What is you opinion on this then?

I think charitable organisations that professional assist and cousel potential victims of crime anonymously and free of charge are a good thing, but they should never work in parallel to the official justice system, nor should they have any interaction with anyone but those who come to them freely.
They certainly shouldn't pass judgement or go to the public over specific cases. Doing the latter should be punished severly.

[Deleted]

- - - Updated - - -



Gotta convict them first, and not through a university or human rights tribunal.

I agree with you on that. If there's substantial evidence for this crime I'd really love to see rapists having their balls chopped off.

On the same behalf I find it quite hilarious and illogical that a financial felony can yield you a conviction multiple levels higher than manslaughter for example. If you willingly kill another person for some lesser gain or other reasons you have given up your right to peacefully coexist in a Western society.

[A dot Ham]

Given how you somehow saw that in my post, you see what you want to see. So yeah, abjectly false seems to cover it.

I'd really appreciate it if you could keep up with your own conversation.

some of the reasons some of the posters here

So clearly we are talking about multiple people here... not just you. So when I take the sum of all the cynics here... this is the tune you're all singing.

But lets go back to your original post in this thread and see if I'm "seeing what I want to see".

What I expected: people wasting ECHR's time. What I got: kangaroo court witch hunts akin to college rape tribunals in US. No, just no. Rape is a crime. It falls under all the rules as other crimes, which includes a requirement of "beyond reasonable doubt" standard of evidence. Handling it via more lenient avenues should be illegal. Just because you want your case to be easier or want compensation doesn't give you the right to deny someone due process.

Wow sounds like my summation is pretty spot on.

Tribunals "ALWAYS coming down in favor of the victim" are mishandling cases to the benefit of the accused? Wat?

Trolls gonna troll I guess. Lets take a look at the entire paragraph there, not just the sarcastic remark taken completely out of context.

You're also making the assumption that a tribunal wouldn't be able to draw a conclusion that the victim is full of shit? [Tribunals ALWAYS come down in favor of the victim.] When in fact evidence shows the opposite because Tribunals have another thing to consider... their own reputation. A University is more likely to sweep a case under the rug, because a legitimized case of rape is publicity of the worst kind.

Are you trying to have a conversation, or are you making a spectacle and purposely trying to derail the thread?

- - - Updated - - -

We do actually. Especially if we work for an insurance company and handle monetary compensation. You know, like these tribunals are apparently meant to.

Per the Tribunal in the article. Yes the decision was a monetary one. The Tribunals that exist through a University cannot enforce a monetary judgement. The only judgement they can enforce are whether or not the accused can remain in school.

Yes we do? Gangbanger gets shot? Questions line up right away. Man gets murdered in his sleep by wife? He was probably abusive! Two kids get murdered while on vacation in the US? They were in the wrong area buying weed, they fucked up!

Sure we can ask those questions internally. But does it have an relevance to the ruling as to whether or not the accused committed murder? No. In any of your examples the accused would still receive a penalty according to the law. A victim's standing is irrelevant.

By provoke you mean "indicate that they might want sex"? How many partners they've had is incredibly rare to ask in court because it is a stupid question that doesn't have any bearing on anything. It's a good way to hurt your case if you're a defender. What was she wearing is the same. It's really not asked. Were you alone is pretty standard fare for any case where a person is victimized. Nature of relationship is obviously relevant to this case as well in order to establish likelihood as there usually isn't a ton of evidence to go by.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the term consensual sex. I can totally understand if perhaps you've been living in a bunker for the last 10 years. None of those have ANY bearing on the case. Lets assume for a second that the victim and the accused were in the most intimate of relationships. They were engaged, maybe even married. One night, they have an argument about the lack of sex in the relationship as of late... lets say the man decides "I'm gonna take it, she's my wife, I can do what I want. I deserve this!" So he has his way with her, she says no, and even fights him off for a bit. Perhaps at some point she even relegates to letting him finish, because its easier to let him have his way, than it is to fight him. I have news for you... even if she were to concede mid act... this scenario IS RAPE. So the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the sexual act are irrelevant. The only pieces that are relevant are were you conscious? did you say yes or no? If you haven't been keeping up with the times, we are reaching a point where you need a conscious and definitive YES, otherwise the default is no.

Man we should have all insurance claims handled by a HRT so that the victims of theft don't have to go through these awful questions from insurance companies that act as if the victim should be on trial!

Comparing apples and oranges I'm afraid. Because the insurance company is a 3rd party liable for the events.

If I leave my door unlocked that doesn't mean I have invited anyone to take what they want. The person that removes something from my home without my permission (locked or not) is guilty of theft. Locking your door is simply a good practice, but is by no means a fail safe deterrent for home invasion/burglary.

Likewise if a woman is dressing provocatively and going out drinking/dancing she is not inviting someone to come rape her. The person that forcefully commits a sexual act with her or upon her is guilty of rape. Dressing modestly and traveling in a group is a better/best practice but isn't a guarantee a rapist won't still try something.

Don't call people trolls, you'll be infracted.

I call it like I see it. You want to have a conversation... lets have a conversation. But if you are going to cherry pick and purposely pull things out of context and misrepresent the argument, its trolling. I suppose I could simply define "troll" rather than use it as a noun. But I'm not gonna pussy foot around these lurkers.

[Gemini Soul]

I have zero sympathy for people who report things like this to schools and other places instead of to the police.

[Dispraise]

I have zero sympathy for people who report things like this to schools and other places instead of to the police.

Eh, not quite how I would put it. I always have sympathy for people who are victims of terrible crimes. But there is no avenue for actual justice if they choose not to report it.

[Mehrunes]

I'd really appreciate it if you could keep up with your own conversation.

Likewise:

No the only reason I have seen anyone give here is that the victim is trying to circumvent the judicial system by finding a governing body that has a weaker set of faculties regarding what is or isn't due process.

Who'd have thunk. I addressed what you actually posted, by pointing out the falsehood. Frankly, this is beyond pathetic right now.

So clearly we are talking about multiple people here... not just you. So when I take the sum of all the cynics here... this is the tune you're all singing.

You're moving the goalposts. And outright lying. And still engaging in seeing what you want to see. So cry me a river I guess. And shove your lies up the dark crevice from which you pulled them from. Just the first poster from this page, had issues with the tribunals themselves and not what the victims where doing or not. Nyhmrod. Noradin as well. Whoo, multiple people.

But lets go back to your original post in this thread and see if I'm "seeing what I want to see".

Wow sounds like my summation is pretty spot on.

If "sounds like my summation is pretty spot on" means "complete dogshit I pulled out of my ass" in your language, sure ting. Let me lay it out in simple terms so that you may understand. I'll be honest and admit I'm not holding my breath, hoping for success, but I'll give it a try nonetheless.

None of that was criticism of the victims as "trying to circumvent the judicial system by finding a governing body that has a weaker set of faculties regarding what is or isn't due process." The majority of it was criticism of the body itself. Which does have weaker standard of evidence. That's basic fact of the issue, acknowledged by the article itself. Which is why they shouldn't handle rapes (or other crimes as highlighted by me).

What rape victims choose to do so is inconsequential to that. That you can't discern and conflate the two because you're too emotionally engaged in the topic and spew a hyperbole after hyperbole is not my problem. It's yours. And maybe your country's education system.

I mean, just let's look at the part you chose to underline, bold and put in italics. Do think for a moment and try to answer the question who handles the case brought before the tribunal? The victim? Or the tribunal itself. Since I'm still not holding my breath, I'll answer it for you: it's the tribunal.

The only part that was addressed at the victims was the last sentence. And would you look at that presence of "circumvent the judicial system by finding a governing body that has a weaker set of faculties regarding what is or isn't due process." Oh, wait. I only said about wanting your case to be easier. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, is not synonymous with your horseshit projection.

A case may be easier for many more reasons than procedural requirements. Including, imagine that, the case being less emotionally tasking, which is what the article actually quoted as a reason one victim gave for using them. Which I don't consider to be a valid justification for the existence of these tribunals. Whoa :O

Trolls gonna troll I guess. Lets take a look at the entire paragraph there, not just the sarcastic remark taken completely out of context.

My apologies. In retrospect, assuming you deliberately got something correct was wrong on my part, so I may have misrepresented the tone of that post. Given the change in social climate, a university brushing a case under the carpet is much worse for their reputation. Plus there are title IX limits on how they can operate there in US' case. Somehow a college tribunal wasn't able to determine that the "victim" in duke lacrosse case was full of shit. Same thing in other cases. I wonder why is that.

Are you trying to have a conversation, or are you making a spectacle and purposely trying to derail the thread?

Given your performance so far, this is pot calling the kettle black type of situation. To the tenth power.

[A dot Ham]

Likewise:


Who'd have thunk. I addressed what you actually posted, by pointing out the falsehood. Frankly, this is beyond pathetic right now.




You're moving the goalposts. And outright lying. And still engaging in seeing what you want to see. So cry me a river I guess. And shove your lies up the dark crevice from which you pulled them from. Just the first poster from this page, had issues with the tribunals themselves and not what the victims where doing or not. Nyhmrod. Noradin as well. Whoo, multiple people.




If "sounds like my summation is pretty spot on" means "complete dogshit I pulled out of my ass" in your language, sure ting. Let me lay it out in simple terms so that you may understand. I'll be honest and admit I'm not holding my breath, hoping for success, but I'll give it a try nonetheless.

None of that was criticism of the victims as "trying to circumvent the judicial system by finding a governing body that has a weaker set of faculties regarding what is or isn't due process." The majority of it was criticism of the body itself. Which does have weaker standard of evidence. That's basic fact of the issue, acknowledged by the article itself. Which is why they shouldn't handle rapes (or other crimes as highlighted by me).

What rape victims choose to do so is inconsequential to that. That you can't discern and conflate the two because you're too emotionally engaged in the topic and spew a hyperbole after hyperbole is not my problem. It's yours. And maybe your country's education system.

I mean, just let's look at the part you chose to underline, bold and put in italics. Do think for a moment and try to answer the question who handles the case brought before the tribunal? The victim? Or the tribunal itself. Since I'm still not holding my breath, I'll answer it for you: it's the tribunal.

The only part that was addressed at the victims was the last sentence. And would you look at that presence of "circumvent the judicial system by finding a governing body that has a weaker set of faculties regarding what is or isn't due process." Oh, wait. I only said about wanting your case to be easier. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, is not synonymous with your horseshit projection.

A case may be easier for many more reasons than procedural requirements. Including, imagine that, the case being less emotionally tasking, which is what the article actually quoted as a reason one victim gave for using them. Which I don't consider to be a valid justification for the existence of these tribunals. Whoa :O




My apologies. In retrospect, assuming you deliberately got something correct was wrong on my part, so I may have misrepresented the tone of that post. Given the change in social climate, a university brushing a case under the carpet is much worse for their reputation. Plus there are title IX limits on how they can operate there in US' case. Somehow a college tribunal wasn't able to determine that the "victim" in duke lacrosse case was full of shit. Same thing in other cases. I wonder why is that.




Given your performance so far, this is pot calling the kettle black type of situation. To the tenth power.

Back pedal some more why don't you. Proof is in the posts when quoted in their entirety. Call me a liar until your face turns blue. I'm good I've made my point.

I'm glad these tribunals exist. It will give me great pleasure to know that every time a rapist is kicked out of school, made to pay a fine, or at the very least socially shunned and disgraced... that you will be in your medieval rape cave seething in anger.

Your objection to their existence is irrelevant. They're here, people can use them, and they provide a service. They provide resolutions when and where the justice system falls short.

[Protean]

There's no doubt. Rape is one of the most disgusting things someone can do to another human being. The time and effort women are having to invest in seeking any sort of justice from something as emotionally traumatizing as being raped is something that's very wrong with today's society. Schools and law enforcement should be doing more.

Daily reminder that all PIV = rape

https://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013...lways-rape-ok/