Here comes the backlash:

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentar...trial.html

Quote: (03-26-2016 02:08 PM)CH-Toronto Wrote:  

Here comes the backlash:

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentar...trial.html

Insane.

These people write columns and columns worth of articles decrying the "victim-blaming" nature of the judgement, when in truth the judge said repeatedly that what obliterated the credibility of the witnesses was not the fact that they engaged in flirtatious actions with Ghomeshi, or even had sexual encounters with him afterwards, or acted in an unstereotypical way to that of a victim, it was the fact that all three of them repeatedly misled, and in some cases outright deceived, the police, the Crown, and the Court itself as to their actions.

To them, even asking a woman merely to tell the truth (even if only just her recollection) is victim blaming. These people call themselves 'strong, independent women' and yet demand that society not only tolerate, but celebrate their complete relinquishment of any sense of personal agency or responsibility for themselves.

Quote: (03-26-2016 02:23 PM)HighSpeed_LowDrag Wrote:  

Quote: (03-26-2016 02:08 PM)CH-Toronto Wrote:  

Here comes the backlash:

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentar...trial.html

Insane.

These people writes columns and columns worth of articles decrying the "victim-blaming" nature of the judgement, when in truth the judge said repeatedly that what obliterated the credibility of the witnesses was not the fact that they engaged in flirtatious actions with Ghomeshi, or even had sexual encounters with him afterwards, or acted in an unstereotypical way to that of a victim, it was the fact that all three of them repeatedly misled, and in some cases outright deceived, the police, the Crown, and the Court itself as to their actions.

To them, even asking a woman merely to tell the truth (even if only just her recollection) is victim blaming. These people call themselves 'strong, independent women' and yet demand that society not only tolerate, but celebrate their complete relinquishment of any sense of personal agency or responsibility for themselves.

These psychopaths believe that any time a woman accuses a man of anything, he should immediately be thrown in jail for the next 15 years.

Quote: (03-24-2016 12:17 PM)C-Note Wrote:  

I hope he sues all three women since it is unlikely they will be charged with perjury.

Lawsuit might work but no cop in Canada would EVER get clearance to lay such a perjury charge. The pussy pass is strong here bro.

Quote: (03-26-2016 02:08 PM)CH-Toronto Wrote:  

Here comes the backlash:

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentar...trial.html

Leaving aside this idiot typist didn't actually read the judgment, here's the stupider part of her testimony:

Quote:Quote:

One thing this trial has led me to think about is this: why do we have a special category for sexual assault? Rape and other forms of sexual violence are violence, not sex, so why the modifier? Why not just call it assault, and lump it under the same heading as muggings, beatings, and other instances of physical aggression?

I don’t know the legal reason for the distinction, but I think there is a philosophical one, and it has to do with the fact that when violence and intimacy collide there is a whole set of psychological and emotional repercussions that go along with it, and these need to be accounted for. When the vast majority of instances of sexual assault take place between people who know each other — who are in relationships, or friendships, or marriages — it means that the boundaries around violence are not always cut and dried

This ignoramus should be careful what she wishes for, and should actually try reading books instead of burning them. Rape is subject to special rules because women demanded it over literally hundreds of years. It has special rules in place because juries tended to convict, overwhelmingly, because the sheer horror of the crime tended to carry juries away. The prosecution is already given evidentiary rules, and in the US, closed trials, in favour of the complainant in sexual assault trials -- in that respect it is treated literally like matters of national security, because these, too, have closed trials. It is so done because women harp constantly about how rape is "the ultimate crime against a woman".

If they suddenly want to treat sexual assault like every other form of assault, they need to understand the consequences: no more special-snowflaking and no more allowances for "individual reactions of abusers".

Here's a question: Would Ghomeshi have been convicted without his emails that he saved?

Again, this seemed like a case of 'evidence proving innocence', where had he not, he would have been prosecuted.

Quote: (03-26-2016 07:51 PM)CH-Toronto Wrote:  

Here's a question: Would Ghomeshi have been convicted without his emails that he saved?

Again, this seemed like a case of 'evidence proving innocence', where had he not, he would have been prosecuted.

It would have been a lot harder, but the three clowns they brought to trial were not sufficiently cunning to keep their stories straight between their TV interviews, their police statements, and what they said to the court.

That said, you can't discount the advantage of surprise. Confronted for the first time on the witness stand with outright lies, most people have a very hard time backpedalling or making a story up on the spot - as these three demonstrated. And the second witness made it worse for all of them because, having seen the first utterly BTFO on the stand for concealing evidence, she suddenly disclosed a shitload of material she hadn't mentioned before. This would have pissed off the judge even more, because it demonstrated how the prosecution and/or the women were deliberately trying to mislead the court by withholding evidence. The oath is to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, but also the whole truth.

I've got to say, though, he was extremely lucky. Opportunities to knock over a complainant's credibility so conclusively like this do not come along very often, and rarer still that you can torch multiple complainants for the same issue. The reason they tried Ghomeshi for all counts together was to maximise the opportunity for a conviction -- while in theory you're meant to dispassionately assess each count on its own evidence, the more charges there are, the harder it is to be dispassionate about it. I cannot think of a recent case where a prosecution set of complainants has been so thoroughly nuked on the witness stand one after the other.

I've read probably about one reasonable article on this case, the rest have been following the narrative that these women have been denied justice.

I've not read more than one piece of objective criticism or commentary that asks why these women LIED and OBFUSCATED. These women have only themselves to blame for the verdict, which was completely reasonable given the facts: that these three crazy cunts single-handedly obliterated their own credibility.

Feminists and white knights who are lamenting about this case are basically saying: anybody has the right to make an allegation against anyone at any time, and even if they're found to have LIED about the specifics, it doesn't matter.

Only when it comes to rape and sexual assault, of course, which for some reason should have zero burden of proof.

Edit: Partial dupe - video was posted by Hispeed_Lowdrag in the Canada Politics thread. thread-53350...pid1262406
---

Did anybody up here in Canada catch the panel on last night's The National? (The National is CBC's flagship news program, for those not familiar)

Quote:Quote:

It's been an intense year and a half of revelations, accusations, and discussions about sexual assault. We've heard from women about their experiences. And we've heard from many experts. But what about men?

They got together three media pundits (one from Buzzfeed) to talk about all of this. You can guess how it went.

At one point the host had to remind the panelists that Ghomoshi had been found not guilty!

Also, Return of Kings gets mentioned towards the end of the segment and I'm fairly certain one of the panelists hate-reads RVF

Henein shreds SJW hashtag:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jian-gho...-1.3512070

Seeing her destroy politicians who use the #IBelieve hashtag was an absolute thing of beauty.






The money quote comes at around the 3:20 mark.

Quote:Quote:

Hashtag I believe is not a legal principle, nor should it ever be. Because you can't believe people based on who they are or the nature of the crime. We would never want that and historically when that has happened, it's never been to the benefit of the most disadvantaged or the most marginalized. So we don’t presumptivelу believe police officers, we don’t presumptivelу believe politicians or priests or whatever it is.”

"On a personal level if somebody wants to express their support [to a complainant], that's their choice. When a politician weighs in, that's a little more concerning to me because you're a person who's engaged and should be more knowledgeable about what you're commenting on."

“When уou are denigrating the legal sуstem in which he worked and which уou should actually be verу proud of — we have one of the greatest legal sуstems in the world — and уou do so not having read a word of transcript, and not having informed уourself of the case, that’s disappointing and not something I would put much stock in.

But it sure does get уou a lot of votes doesn’t it?

Many prominent politicians in Ontario, including my own city councilor put the hashtag on blast following the judge's decision. Women I've worked with took to Facebook to post the hashtag and complain about the verdict.

This interview is the top story in Canada today. The number one "water cooler" topic. Not a single peep from any of them today. Only the most broken and angry feminists are still going on about it on Twitter, incensed at how everything has turned out.

I'm so glad that I don't live in Canada anymore.






WB and grant honorary forum membership status.

Looks like the media is run by male hating Feminists just like my shitty country Australia!

^ No doubt

There is literally no pushback from men.

Quote: (03-30-2016 07:49 PM)Nemausus Wrote:  

Great, great interview, I urge everyone to watch it in full. That is one smart woman, and thank God for her.

There are few things in the world that are more chilling -- more purely and deeply evil -- than the intense sadistic desire of Year Zero fanatics to dispose with the idea of the presumption of innocence and to destroy the lives of the falsely accused on the say-so of sacred "survivors". In the face of that unthinkable evil, we should give daily thanks for the great great justice system that we have nurtured over the course of centuries -- in the English-speaking countries in particular -- where brilliant lawyers like Marie Henein can still calmly and competently thwart the YZ mobs, and give defendants a chance to have their day in court.

Now if we could -- some day -- find a way to rein in corrupt and overzealous prosecutors who bring such life-destroying cases to trial, and to find a fitting and deterrent punishment for proven false accusers, we would come a long way towards restoring some sanity in our societies and making up for the irreparable evil that has been committed against so many innocent men. But that, for now, is just a dream; so thank God for lawyers like Marie H. who are quite literally our last line of defense.

Quote: (03-30-2016 10:13 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Quote: (03-30-2016 07:49 PM)Nemausus Wrote:  

Great, great interview, I urge everyone to watch it in full. That is one smart woman, and thank God for her.

There are few things in the world that are more chilling -- more purely and deeply evil -- than the intense sadistic desire of Year Zero fanatics to dispose with the idea of the presumption of innocence and to destroy the lives of the falsely accused on the say-so of sacred "survivors". In the face of that unthinkable evil, we should give daily thanks for the great great justice system that we have nurtured over the course of centuries -- in the English-speaking countries in particular -- where brilliant lawyers like Marie Henein can still calmly and competently thwart the YZ mobs, and give defendants a chance to have their day in court.

Now if we could -- some day -- find a way to rein in corrupt and overzealous prosecutors who bring such life-destroying cases to trial, and to find a fitting and deterrent punishment for proven false accusers, we would come a long way towards restoring some sanity in our societies and making up for the irreparable evil that has been committed against so many innocent men. But that, for now, is just a dream; so thank God for lawyers like Marie H. who are quite literally our last line of defense.

A sobering point: let's remember that the same justice system which preserves the precious possibility of innocence for Ghomeshi is the same justice system that preserves the precious possibility of innocence for his accusers as well. Inconsistency in accounts does not by itself prove an accusation was falsely made beyond reasonable doubt, in the same way that answering "I can't remember" might be suspicious but is neither a yes or no answer. Only direct proof of an acknowledgment of the falsity of the claim by the victim is going to cut it, and even then that accusation must be tested by a court as well.

That is the price that you pay for living in a Western culture where justice is an adversarial system, where a court is only designed to adjudicate two sets of facts, not discern the truth. As with democracy, it is arguably the least worst answer to the intractable problem of determining who is guilty and who is not. It is our rule of law, more than our governments, more than our militaries, which holds the West together.

Checked Twitter to see what the outraged masses (feminists, SWJs, and white knights) had to say about the Marie Henein interview, and the answer is: nothing. They have been resolutely silent in the face of calm, rational, and intelligent arguments from such a strong, esteemed woman.

It's a bit long but around 9 minutes in they start doing the trial re-enactments.

Holy shit - it's even more glorious than you could imagine.

Quote: (04-03-2016 04:39 PM)CH-Toronto Wrote:  

It's a bit long but around 9 minutes in they start doing the trial re-enactments.

Holy shit - it's even more glorious than you could imagine.

You are not exaggerating. Women are sooo bad at this!

They don't even think their truth has to match up in any way with reality.

When oh when will we see a rape case that blows up in the mainstream media that doesn't turn out to be fake?

The main reason I originally had doubts about Bill Cosby was because it seemed like there was no way that many women could be lying.

Now . . . .

The video is well worth watching.

I used to like Lucy DeCouterre through her work with the Trailer Park Boys. She's a lying sloot.

In one of the police interviews she's saying 'like' in every sentence, and in the video interview she is 'uptalking'. Just another post-Wall woman desperately trying to appear youthful and fertile.

All those women should be charged with perjury, no doubt about it.

The police should be fined for wasting the courts time, but ultimately that would hurt the taxpayer who pays for them. The police screwed up big time by not investigating the claims properly.

Quote: (04-03-2016 06:14 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  

[...]Lucy DeCouterre [... is] a lying sloot. [...]

The police should be fined for wasting the courts time, but ultimately that would hurt the taxpayer who pays for them. The police screwed up big time by not investigating the claims properly.

L does not come through like a sloot and nothing I read about her in the extensive trial coverage supports that.

The people who started this all are lawmakers who COMPLETELY repealed statute of limitations on SA (and other "violent" offences) back in the 80s. Why. The. Fuck. A. Summary. Conviction. Offense. sees court >10y after it happened?

Can you explain that in a bit more detail please AS?


And maybe she isn't a bona fide sloot, but she is certainly a liar.

Quote: (04-04-2016 04:02 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  

Can you explain that in a bit more detail please AS?

And maybe she isn't a bona fide sloot, but she is certainly a liar.

L's comes through like a somewhat empty-headed ditz but there is no evidence of her slooting around, no tell-signs whatsoever (but i'm not an expert on subtle signs).

She did purposefully hid important details from police and lied about further contact with jg. Still, I'm quite certain that her core allegations (or some approximation of them) are true, but I find it preposterous that a man could go to prison a decade after that, especially given her "after-incident" conduct. Based on her unscripted interviews away from spotlight, she genuinely wanted to help other women who experienced much worse things than her, she was egged on by the "journo" Jesse Brown and TO police (with their public announcement "we believe women 100%") and, of course, she wanted to "sink the prick" as many scorned women want. Attention, spot-light and "extra 25K" twitter followers didn't hurt either. Of course these desires don't justify filing charges (given her situation) when prison time is on the line. On the other hand, I can't condemn publishing a media story on jg given everything I read.

I did want to emphasize that the problem lies not only with L, but with law-makers, police and the Crown (who pulled a bogus, rarely used "choking to overcome resistance" charge with a max LIFETIME in prison, unlike other (summary conviction) SA charges with 18 months tops per charge). As for the sloot comment - I like precision. I called her a lying cunt on twitter before I learnt a bit more (I would not call her a cunt now) but she doesn't come through as a sloot.

Dude I just watched The Fifth Estate and one thing stood out, the lack of awareness by the women. The accusers are totally wacked out of their fucking minds and cannot see how incongruent their behavior is with their accusations. They omit relevant facts, lie, and openly commited collusion , and expected to explain it all away- and got upset when they were called out on it. They fucking told bold faced lies about this man and destroyed his life, and they have no remorse. Fuck these nutty broads, their open dishonesty and vindictivness has been laid bare and they face no consequences, Jian has my deepest sympathy.

Quote: (04-04-2016 05:44 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

Dude I just watched The Fifth Estate and one thing stood out, the lack of awareness by the women. The accusers are totally wacked out of their fucking minds and cannot see how incongruent their behavior is with their accusations. They omit relevant facts, lie, and openly commited collusion , and expected to explain it all away- and got upset when they were called out on it. They fucking told bold faced lies about this man and destroyed his life, and they have no remorse. Fuck these nutty broads, their open dishonesty and vindictivness has been laid bare and they face no consequences, Jian has my deepest sympathy.

At the 27:00 mark, you can clearly see in her eyes her hamster running at 9000km per hour trying to rationalize her behavior in writing love letters to Jian after the supposedly non-consensual attack.