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

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

Yeah, that's not material to any specific charge. Why should that be admissible? You are aware that the prosecutor gets to decide whether the case is worth pursuing, right? And they are allowed to take things like that into consideration? This is strictly about what is allowed in court.

- - - Updated - - -



Ran out of arguments, got it, have a nice day!

You ran out the moment you chose to open your mouth.

You're comparing expunged criminal records(EXPUNGED BEING THE KEYWORD HERE) versus establishing behavioral patterns. There are some things that make sense from the outset. You made mention of one and that's because said criminal record is irrelevant, it doesn't hold weight/water anymore. No judge with or without a mandate to do otherwise would take such evidence seriously and make it admissible in the first place. It is one of those, "No shit, Sherlock," examples you've thrown out just to disorientate me and yet you're not. It's a cheap ploy.

When it comes, however, to the history of one's personal life, especially if it can establish behavioral patterns, it has to be admissible. Your character and the character of your opposition tend to be critical, especially when evidence runs short. Deciding what is or isn't based off of arbitrary political banter is dangerous. What's more is let's detract politics from the equation. Would it be advantageous or helpful in any way to default it to inadmissible? No. Unlike expunged criminal records, one's sexual history can still matter in given cases.

So, on that note, I've grown very weary of this conversation. Like I said, this is merely another example of authoritarians versus non and of course the former is going to argue for greater restrictions(as long as it favors their political leanings, of course) while the latter either at minimal, questions the validity of it, or outright sees it as trespass upon the sanctity of the justice system.

There's no winning these debates. I'm done. Continue to reply to me. I'm not going to bother.

[NineSpine]

Heres a lollipop for being a suckup...not!

I just don't go post on Stormfront and act shocked that my views aren't welcome there.

[Deleted]

I just don't go post on Stormfront and act shocked that my views aren't welcome there.

Well the thing is, the SJW garbage is everywhere.. if a forum claims to be unbiased, I expect them to be that way.

[Cosmic Janitor]

That doesn't even make sense in the context of what you are replying to. Do you have a cogent reason why a victim's previous sexual history should be admissible, or do you not?

I just prefer everyone to be equal in the eyes of the court, that means the supposed viticm/accuser has the same standards applied to them as the accused. I don't see a ban for the history of the accused in that regard. We are obviously not going to agree on the topic, so let's just leave it at that.

[NineSpine]

You ran out the moment you chose to open your mouth.

You're comparing expunged criminal records(EXPUNGED BEING THE KEYWORD HERE) versus establishing behavioral patterns.

There are some things that make sense from the outset. You made mention of one and that's because said criminal record is irrelevant, it doesn't hold weight/water anymore. No judge with or without a mandate to do otherwise would take such evidence seriously and make it admissible in the first place. It is one of those, "No shit, Sherlock," examples you've thrown out just to disorientate me and yet you're not. It's a cheap ploy.

When it comes, however, to the history of one's personal life, especially if it can establish behavioral patterns, it has to be admissible. Your character and the character of your opposition tend to be critical, especially when evidence runs short. Deciding what is or isn't based off of arbitrary political banter is dangerous. What's more is let's detract politics from the equation. Would it be advantageous or helpful in any way to default it to inadmissible? No. Unlike expunged criminal records, one's sexual history can still matter in given cases.

So, on that note, I've grown very weary of this conversation. Like I said, this is merely another example of authoritarians versus non and of course the former is going to argue for greater restrictions(as long as it favors their political leanings, of course) while the latter either at minimal, questions the validity of it, or outright sees it as trespass upon the sanctity of the justice system.

There's no winning these debates. I'm done. Continue to reply to me. I'm not going to bother.

Let's get this straight here: You think someone's sexual history should be admissible, but their history of getting into trouble with the law SHOULD NOT be admissible. That's a ludicrous, backwards, nonsensical standard. You think "She's a big fucking slut" is something courts should be adjudicating but "She gets arrested frequently" is not.

I hate to break it to you, but the authoritarian stance here is YOUR stance: The belief that it is the job of the government to adjudicate whether women are too big of sluts to be counted as raped. That's authoritarian. We are saying that the government has no business adjudicating that.

It's just painfully, almost hilariously, obvious that you have some kind of chip on your shoulder about this and you are willing to engage in any kind of flagrantly nonsensical babble to justify that.

- - - Updated - - -

I just prefer everyone to be equal in the eyes of the court, that means the supposed viticm/accuser has the same standards applied to them as the accused. I don't see a ban for the history of the accused in that regard. We are obviously not going to agree on the topic, so let's just leave it at that.

Victims and accused never have the same standards applied to them. The law by default sides with the accused by having a standard of innocent until proven guilty, and beyond a reasonable doubt. The victim is the extremely disadvantaged party. If it was to be even, the standard would be "more likely than not".

- - - Updated - - -

Well the thing is, the SJW garbage is everywhere.. if a forum claims to be unbiased, I expect them to be that way.

There is way more whining about SJW nonsense than their is SJW nonsense.

[Deleted]

There is way more whining about SJW nonsense than their is SJW nonsense.

Somehow I doubt it.. but then again maybe its cause Im in college. God I love triggering these losers, wish it didnt affect my grades though.

[NineSpine]

Somehow I doubt it.. but then again maybe its cause Im in college. God I love triggering these losers, wish it didnt affect my grades though.

I spend a lot of time on a very liberal college campus. Even there, there is WAY more whining about SJWs than there is actual SJW nonsense. I just recently had a situation where a student was crying that being forced to learn about MLK was SJW blah blah blah.

[Deleted]

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

most mods here are retarded and ban you for disagreeing with them even if you provide evidence, this is a thing for more than five years already and will never change.

yeah yeah infracted, as you see in my activity lately I really couldn't care less.

[NineSpine]

most mods here are retarded and ban you for disagreeing with them even if you provide evidence, this is a thing for more than five years already and will never change.

yeah yeah infracted, as you see in my activity lately I really couldn't care less.

If you find it unfair here, I can guarantee you will find a lot more likeminded people here: https://www.stormfront.org/forum/index.php/

[Tennis]

And you're surprised? Lucky for me I have sone points to spare becuase apparently us plebs can't tell people like endus they suck at their job.

Oh please. All those who were infracted were breaking the rules of the forums. It's that simple.

[Seranthor]

Oh please. All those who were infracted were breaking the rules of the forums. It's that simple.

And then there are those that knowingly make intentionally baiting threads or threads about forbidden topics, thread gets closed, and they get a pass.

[Vynny]

If Ghomeshi had been found guilty this might undermine your point, but the charges against him were dismissed due to a lack of evidence and nothing in Canada's updated rape shield law would have changed this.

Yes it would have. Here read this article that details the exact way rape shield laws are changing due to this bill ( http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...nges-1.4150271 ). Basically, Ghomeshi's defense primarily relied upon the fact that the complainants were withholding key information seemingly in order to make their testimony more believable. The proposed changes would force the defense to share evidence pertaining to the complainants sexual history with a judge and the prosecution before the trial thus warning them that they're going to get caught in a lie and allowing them to craft a better lie that doesn't contradict the evidence that they now know exists. For example, one of the complainants in that case who said that she didn't contact him afterwards wouldn't have been caught in that lie due to the fact that the email she sent saying "You kicked my ass last night and that makes me want to fuck your brains out" would had to have been disclosed to the prosecution before the trial in order for the judge to determine the permissibility of that evidence.

Hell, if you wanted to be cynical about it, you could say that the Canadian government has lost faith in the crown prosecution due to the shit show that this case was thus they're legislating so that the crown is never caught with their pants down like this again.

- - - Updated - - -

Decrying actions of government based on "politics" is nonsensical. What you mean to say is "I don't believe victim protections are a good reason to preclude evidence." Say what you mean.

You're right, I don't think victim protections are a good reason to preclude evidence from a trial that is meant to establish the veracity of the complainants victimhood. You're assuming that the victimhood is genuine thus giving them every sympathy before even verifying whether or not they are actually a victim.

[Rennadrel]

If Ghomeshi had been found guilty this might undermine your point, but the charges against him were dismissed due to a lack of evidence and nothing in Canada's updated rape shield law would have changed this.


Do yourself a favor: Go read a book before you decide to inveigh on a topic on which your understanding is as shallow as a rain puddle, thus requiring you to put words in someone's mouth in order to save face.

Inconsistent testimony and collusion by his alleged victims were what got the charges dropped. He got away with whatever he did because the courts didn't have enough evidence to convict him without it seeming like it was a win for social justice and not real justice being served, but that doesn't mean he isn't guilty.

[Doctor Amadeus]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40180103



Seems like Canada is a world leader in protecting victims of sexual assault.

How do you feel about this latest development? What do you make of the last line that a person's history could be admissible?

It is also a good idea to protect the victims, but I ALSO think there should be protection for the accused, meaning no release of names or information until after the process is included, because in the wake of the more modern experiences, while yes, it shouldn't be needed, unfortunately it is.

I don't think women or men should be punished for there not being enough evidence to go further, however by that same line there should be a protection for both parties involved. And if a false claim is known, and confirmed, then I believe the accuser should face more serious consequences.

[Ealyssa]

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

You took the bait, never take the bait...

There is a troll-shield law on MMO-C where Tennisace, Jays, LolTony and many mores are protected from their past trolling. It's up to you to dodge the bullets.