Canada to change sex assault consent laws and better protect victims in court

[Mafic]

I see you've met Endus, our resident "you have a different opinion other then my virtue-signalling ultra liberal bullshit so here's an infraction" moderator......

This is another gender thread started by Tennisace (not a surprise)

Should have been locked a long time ago.

[Chinese Bootlickers]

I like how I get infracted for trolling in a tennisace thread who is one of the biggest trolls in the forums. GG mods

A certain mod hates it when someone confronts his troll account.

[Gangresnake]

I am guessing that the things mentioned in the OP (medical records, sexual history) can be seen as the same kind of thing: it is irrelevant to the case if a girl has been promiscuous in the past, bringing up that information is just an attempt to slut-shame.

And they could extend the courtesy to the defendant. I you accept that the "previous behavior" is just slut-shaming the accuser, then the same could be said for the defendant if he had any particuliar behavior before.

I think all of this is very much legally backward, rape cases have already close to no tangible information to determine who's right and wrong and Canada want to aggravate the situation even more. Personally I think a court of law job is to determine the facts, as in what happened, and since the life of breathing, living people are at stakes, no information should be off-limit, or else it simply turn into a mediatic witch-hunt

[Alexeht]

I see you've met Endus, our resident "you have a different opinion other then my virtue-signalling ultra liberal bullshit so here's an infraction" moderator......

I will put your quote in my signature. It is pure gold. I only wonder if there is any way to report him so they would take his mod privilege ...

This is another gender thread started by Tennisace (not a surprise)

Should have been locked a long time ago.

Is there anything we can really do with leaning mods?

[theostrichsays]

In 1992, Canada introduced "rape shield laws" that ban a complainant's sexual history or medical records from being used as evidence that she was likely to have consented to sex or that she was unreliable. The changes proposed on Tuesday would expand these laws to include sexual texts, emails, pictures and videos.

So my old roommate was falsely accused of rape, and one of the things that saved his backside was the fact that she had been texting him for hours prior and continued texting him after she came over and left. Even with the pretty graphic shit that was sent back and forth (and multiple witnesses having been either in the room or talked to them after they left the room) the police had a hard on about trying to hammer him (she was a local islander and he was black so the dude had an uphill battle to be honest.)

But if this took place in Canada would the texts sent surrounding them hooking up that night, not be allowed or would only previous texts not be allowed to show that they had a long standing sexual relationship?

[Deleted]

And they could extend the courtesy to the defendant. I you accept that the "previous behavior" is just slut-shaming the accuser, then the same could be said for the defendant if he had any particuliar behavior before.

I think all of this is very much legally backward, rape cases have already close to no tangible information to determine who's right and wrong and Canada want to aggravate the situation even more. Personally I think a court of law job is to determine the facts, as in what happened, and since the life of breathing, living people are at stakes, no information should be off-limit, or else it simply turn into a mediatic witch-hunt

Could you give an example of the kind of information that you feel that is being included about the defendant that shouldn't be? I kinda feel like you are missing the point here, including irrelevant information in a court case will only lead to a media circus, not reduce the chances of that happening

- - - Updated - - -

Let me back up and take it from the beginning then. OP used a BBC article, despite being a Canadian and having access to Canadian sources to inject the claim "Seems like Canada is a world leader in protecting victims of sexual assault." Go back to the OP, do you see that stated? Look at what has been bolded, is that what it says there? My elderly eyes don't see it if that's the case.

I went to see what a Canadian source would say and found a Canadian government site that went into particulars: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc...-mgnl/c51.html

What I found was that C-51 is described as: Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act. It does incorporate the changes described in the BBC article, but simply as part of a general move to amend the Criminal Code, and it is the same Act brought up as making it legal to challenge someone to a duel. So, no, nothing claiming to be a world leader in protecting victims of sexual assault.

That's when I noticed the side bar had a separate section on Anal Intercourse:



Notice, C-51 is the clean up Article, this is a separate proposal to eliminate a "Tab A only goes in Slot B" law, not even something LGBTQ specific but a law simply criminalizing "wrong hole!". In 2017. And it is merely proposed. C-51 does away with other laws that can be covered by alternate means, the site uses fraud as an example. Why then wouldn't section 159 be covered by laws protecting the other orifices of minors and their persons?

With that in mind, recall your comment on it being not that simple. My reply was that in the US, the case I cited did just that -- it struck down sodomy laws across the US. Read the Canadian government site link. It contains a section discussing: "Provisions that have been found unconstitutional, or are similar to those found unconstitutional" Do you see 159 or anal intercourse there? Again, I don't.

So, in 2017, Canada still criminalizes "wrong hole!" That still leaves me on WTF Canada? Note that sodomy laws in the US were state laws, and we began moving away from them in the 1960s.

As you state though, the precedents set by the court dictate that the actual article of law is irrelevant.
As long as people arn't being arrested/prosecuted for ''wrong hole'', what is the point you are trying to make?

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

Could you give an example of the kind of information that you feel that is being included about the defendant that shouldn't be? I kinda feel like you are missing the point here, including irrelevant information in a court case will only lead to a media circus, not reduce the chances of that happening

Maybe his sexual history shouldn't be brought to light?

I mean he might be a crude deviant but should we really judge him for it much like we won't judge the sexual appetites of the accuser? Fact is, you're ultimately defaming and hurting someone through trial regardless. It can't be avoided. All you're doing is intentionally limiting the amount of information that can be admissible out of some white-knighting sense of guilt. The accuser shouldn't be anymore protected than the accused.

The law is not intended to favor any one side - period.

[Deleted]

A lifetime of sexual deviancy does however mean something in a case concerning sexual misconduct. It needs to be considered.

I think this is where we (me+canadian state and you) have to agree to disagree, the illusion that this kind of information is relevant leads to exactly the kind of slut-shaming media circuses that we see otherwise, therefore this law (and previous court rulings) have ruled that this kind of information is irrelevant. Similarly, if the perpetrator having dominant sexual tendencies is irrelevant as well, as long as those dominant tendencies were previously shown in sexual encounters where both parties were partaking voluntarily. While this part isn't codified in the law, can you give me an example where it hasn't been struck down as irrelevant when brought up?

Obviously, legal history (has someone been convicted of this kind of thing before) is relevant, if a girl enjoys being tied up and fucked roughly isn't relevant, the only relevant criteria is if she consented to it.

Please feel free to explain to me or link any proof that sexual deviancy is in any way related to a tendency to make false rape accusations and we can continue having this conversation.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

I think this is where we (me+canadian state and you) have to agree to disagree, the illusion that this kind of information is relevant leads to exactly the kind of slut-shaming media circuses that we see otherwise, therefore this law (and previous court rulings) have ruled that this kind of information is irrelevant. Similarly, if the perpetrator having dominant sexual tendencies is irrelevant as well, as long as those dominant tendencies were previously shown in sexual encounters where both parties were partaking voluntarily.

Obviously, legal history (has someone been convicted of this kind of thing before) is relevant, if a girl enjoys being tied up and fucked roughly isn't relevant, the only relevant criteria is if she consented to it.

Please feel free to explain to me or link any proof that sexual deviancy is in any way related to a tendency to make false rape accusations and we can continue having this conversation.

We must be watching completely different kinds of media then.

Also, what the media does with X and Y information still should not correlate to what is admissible in a court case. Carrying out justice to the best of our ability does not involve us going, "Oh noes, the media might have a frenzy with this!" Even though that's exactly what happens to the accused as well and just about everyone revolving the case in question.

Again, the law does not provide special protections. It is meant to be dealt out fairly and equitably to all parties. I like how we as Americans tend to lean towards equal application but other countries are VERY quick to tip the scales of justice and law to suit their immediate needs/views.

It's a very interesting difference I've noticed as of late.

[Gangresnake]

Could you give an example of the kind of information that you feel that is being included about the defendant that shouldn't be? I kinda feel like you are missing the point here, including irrelevant information in a court case will only lead to a media circus, not reduce the chances of that happening

I made my personal opinion clear about what shouldnt be included : Nothing.
But as a rule of fairness, if the accuser's information cannot be displayed, then the same should apply for the defendant. After all the accuser do not get any special treatment, because he's just that, someone who "accuse".
If the defendant information are on the public place and under heavy scrutiny while he's refused the right to contest/cross-examinate in the same manner, then it's a simple case of kangaroo court.

[Runenwächter]

Wait what? The accused cant argue that the bitch was LITERALLY PSYCHO or delusioonal or a habitual liar, etc. when she accuses them and that maybe the court should take that into account when they examine evidence, which includes the testimony of the accusing party?

No way this is real Canada, this is some Berlusconi special exemption level stuff.

[Deleted]

We must be watching completely different kinds of media then.

Also, what the media does with X and Y information still should not correlate to what is admissible in a court case. Carrying out justice to the best of our ability does not involve us going, "Oh noes, the media might have a frenzy with this!" Even though that's exactly what happens to the accused as well and just about everyone revolving the case in question.

Again, the law does not provide special protections. It is meant to be dealt out fairly and equitably to all parties. I like how we as Americans tend to lean towards equal application but other countries are VERY quick to tip the scales of justice and law to suit their immediate needs/views.

It's a very interesting difference I've noticed as of late.

I am failing to see any evidence to back up your ridiculous previous claim.

Obviously if information is irrelevant in a court case it shouldnt be mentioned, regardless of the media, I am just mentioning what will happen if the kind of information you want to be out there so desperately comes out.

The idea that laws shouldn't provide special protections and still be equitable is ridiculous as well, equal=/=equitable or do you disagree with the concept of protected classes as well?

Anyways, if you are making wild claims like this, you should really be linking some evidence to back things up.

- - - Updated - - -

I made my personal opinion clear about what shouldnt be included : Nothing.
But as a rule of fairness, if the accuser's information cannot be displayed, then the same should apply for the defendant. After all the accuser do not get any special treatment, because he's just that, someone who "accuse".
If the defendant information are on the public place and under heavy scrutiny while he's refused the right to contest/cross-examinate in the same manner, then it's a simple case of kangaroo court.

So do you think that irrelevant information that will only lead to confuse juries and cause media frenzies should be included in court cases?

Also nobody is talking about any right to contest/cross-examinate here, I suggest you reread the article.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

I am failing to see any evidence to back up your ridiculous previous claim.

Obviously if information is irrelevant in a court case it shouldnt be mentioned, regardless of the media, I am just mentioning what will happen if the kind of information you want to be out there so desperately comes out.

The idea that laws shouldn't provide special protections and still be equitable is ridiculous as well, equal=/=equitable or do you disagree with the concept of protected classes as well?

Anyways, if you are making wild claims like this, you should really be linking some evidence to back things up.

Sexual behavior in a case revolving sexual assault or rape should always be brought in as pertinent information; otherwise we have to throw out the accused's history as well as the accuser's which only further limits and constrains an already likely struggling case. We cannot be making special exceptions, period. The law and judicial system is not meant to operate in this capacity as it absolutely corrupts said system and its ability to fairly deliver said justice.

[Deleted]

Wait what? The accused cant argue that the bitch was LITERALLY PSYCHO or delusioonal or a habitual liar, etc. when she accuses them and that maybe the court should take that into account when they examine evidence, which includes the testimony of the accusing party?

No way this is real Canada, this is some Berlusconi special exemption level stuff.

You are allowed to include that, but only if you can show it through previous actions (IE previous wrongfull lawsuits she filed, other people that can testify to her behaviour, there are a multitude of ways that you can bring this stuff up).

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

You are allowed to include that, but only if you can show it through previous actions (IE previous wrongfull lawsuits she filed, other people that can testify to her behaviour, there are a multitude of ways that you can bring this stuff up).

Her sexual history is pertinent as is the accused's. End of story. You're attempting to create special parameters for the prosecution over the defendant and that does not make for a fair trial.

[Deleted]

Sexual behavior in a case revolving sexual assault or rape should always be brought in as pertinent information; otherwise we have to throw out the accused's history as well as the accuser's which only further limits and constrains an already likely struggling case. We cannot be making special exceptions, period. The law and judicial system is not meant to operate in this capacity as it absolutely corrupts said system and its ability to fairly deliver said justice.

''Why is sexual behaviour relevant information?'' ''Because it is pertinent information''

I hope that you can see the stupidity of the circle argumentation that you are presenting here and the burden of proof is still on you to show relevancy. I could lower the bar a bit for you and you could show me an example (doesn't need to be real-world or any citations) where this would actually be relevant.

Again, I think that the accused sexual history is irrelevant to the case as well, so I am not sure why you are making a false appeal to hypocrisy here?

Honestly, if you think that excemptions for some classes of citizens are bad, you are beyond salvagable, I suggest you start picking up a book and reading something before you spew uninformed opinions on the internet.

[Deleted]

I wonder if the article did some framing by naming one added rape definition the majority could agree with and leaving the rest out.
Because the sex with an unconscious I can very much understand to be rape. Although im somewhat unopiniated about if everything on rape should also count for long term relationship.
Generally their is a huge grey area that might just not be rape but I could see it as such if was a 'mastermind' intent behind which is something perfect for the courts to find out.

The rape shield laws however are bulshit. Maybe a certain limit to agressiveness could be curtained but everything should be allowed to explore.

For me the most important rule it's better several rapists get out scot free than an innocent citizen gets convicted for something he did not do.
Maybe their is a ratio of acceptable amount but it would be unimaginiably high.

This is another gender thread started by Tennisace (not a surprise)

Should have been locked a long time ago.

What's up with those infractions at the start why?
Noticed some really weird modding. If a subject is too close to a not allowed discussion topic than don't allow such topics (like the london bombing). Don't be hypocritical and disallow one side of the discussion.

Where do you go to communicate concerns about mods btw?

[Deleted]

Her sexual history is pertinent as is the accused's. End of story. You're attempting to create special parameters for the prosecution over the defendant and that does not make for a fair trial.

Holy mother of circular argumentation, do you seriously think that saying ''End of story'' makes your argument any more credible?

[Powerogue]

The accused need some form of protection as well, until convicted. Currently just even being accused of rape ruins lives even if aquited.

That's what I'm concerned about. Granted this change to sex assault laws doesn't seem to make that problem worse, but it doesn't seem to make it better either.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

''Why is sexual behaviour relevant information?'' ''Because it is pertinent information''

I hope that you can see the stupidity of the circle argumentation that you are presenting here and the burden of proof is still on you to show relevancy. I could lower the bar a bit for you and you could show me an example (doesn't need to be real-world or any citations) where this would actually be relevant.

Again, I think that the accused sexual history is irrelevant to the case as well, so I am not sure why you are making a false appeal to hypocrisy here?

Honestly, if you think that excemptions for some classes of citizens are bad, you are beyond salvagable, I suggest you start picking up a book and reading something before you spew uninformed opinions on the internet.

Then if the accused's sexual history is irrelevant, you likely don't have much of a case, as a repeated, cyclical behavior helps GREATLY to establish guilt.

It is better to have everything laid out on the table rather than picking and choosing what can be admissible in a case and what can't all for the sake of trying to protect someone. There should never, ever, be any exemptions for any class of citizen. Law is law. If it is not applied equally across the spectrum then it ceases to be a respectable institution and swayed too readily by politicking.

I'm trying to help you to understand why picking and choosing who gets what in a court case doesn't add up to a fair trial. Even if you were to go, "Fuck it, they both can be exempt!" you're denying possibly VERY critical evidence that could've put the defendant away from being brought to light all to "protect" the accuser who may not need any special protection to begin with.