4 ms·

> In Canada, and in a growing number of jurisdictions - there is 'harassment' so long as the victim feels as if there was. Nonsense, it's still an uphill battl

> In Canada, and in a growing number of jurisdictions - there is 'harassment' so long as the victim feels as if there was. Nonsense, it's still an uphill battle for victims to get their harasser convicted in Canada. See Jian Ghomeshi, Marcel Aubut and the First Nations women v. the police in Val d'Or for recent examples.

edblarney 10y ago
"Nonsense, it's still an uphill battle for victims to get their harasser convicted in Canada. See Jian Ghomeshi, " A) I don't doubt it can be difficult for women - but my statement holds true. B) Referencing 'Giah Gomeshi' entirely validates my point. He was put on trial by a woman who was blatantly and vindictively proven to be lying through her teeth. Gian Gomeshi's trial was a farce - he should have never been prosecuted. As for his terrible behaviour at the CBC - that's another thing entirely, he should have been dropped years before. It seems his office behaviour was no appropriate - but his trial was not for that. His trial was a witch hunt. He's a weirdo, not a criminal. That trial also demonstrated how far some women are willing to lie, to the courts, to the public - for whatever reason (retribution?). Lucy De Coutere was asked by the Prosecution if she had ever had contact with Gian in the years after the fact, she responded 'no of course not' because of course she hated the man for what he did, why would she communicate with him? As it turns out - she had 5000 emails worth of correspondence that she magically 'forgot' about. 5000 emails. And all of it fawning, appreciative, and most of it about her trying to elicit his attention, to get him to visit, to go out with her - over many years. And so she tells the court that none of this happened? She should be jailed. Anyhow - the Gomeshi is another very terrible example for women, it it's not going to help those women in actual need, it will only add a layer of cynicism.
- PuerkitoBio 10y ago
  > A) I don't doubt it can be difficult for women - but my statement holds true. That doesn't make any sense? You said: > If a girl feels harassed - then that's it. Guilty. Yet you go on and acknowledge that it may be hard to get their harasser convicted. In all those 3 cases I mentioned (including Ghomeshi), there were many victims that felt harassed. Yet no one in any of those cases was convicted. How does that make your statement true?
  - edblarney 10y ago
    "In all those 3 cases I mentioned (including Ghomeshi), there were many victims that felt harassed. Yet no one in any of those cases was convicted. How does that make your statement true?" That's a fair point. Because it was a criminal trial - not civic or employment suit, also, by blatantly lying, those women destroyed their own credibility. He was definitely fired by the CBC - and I don't think anyone is questioning that. No trial or legal examination needed. He should have been fired by the CBC long time ago - then those suits would have never come up.
  - mst 10y ago
    I think it makes sense if I rephrase it this way: "Many valid incidents of harassment are dismissed/ignored, and many invalid/borderline incidents are punished unfairly, and therefore the current system sucks for everybody". Which seems entirely possible.
  - stcredzero 10y ago
    Yet you go on and acknowledge that it may be hard to get their harasser convicted The structure of western government and judicial systems is set-up to make it hard for the individual to get convicted. This is why there is a 5th amendment. This is why "innocent until proven guilty" is a part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (Supported by Eleanor Roosevelt.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human... It's about protecting the individual against the group, even if the group is operating under the auspices of the state. If such principles are abrogated to convict a guilty man, then the state can start to abuse its authority to start convicting innocent men. Precisely such actions are what spurred the creation of the Magna Carta. Just because someone advocates free speech for a White Supremacist, doesn't make them a White Supremacist. Just because someone advocates the 5th amendment for a an organized crime chief doesn't make them a mob supporter. Just because someone advocates for due process and innocent until proven guilty for an accused harasser doesn't make them an advocate of harassment.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

edblarney 10y ago

"Nonsense, it's still an uphill battle for victims to get their harasser convicted in Canada. See Jian Ghomeshi, " A) I don't doubt it can be difficult for women - but my statement holds true. B) Referencing 'Giah Gomeshi' entirely validates my point. He was put on trial by a woman who was blatantly and vindictively proven to be lying through her teeth. Gian Gomeshi's trial was a farce - he should have never been prosecuted. As for his terrible behaviour at the CBC - that's another thing entirely, he should have been dropped years before. It seems his office behaviour was no appropriate - but his trial was not for that. His trial was a witch hunt. He's a weirdo, not a criminal. That trial also demonstrated how far some women are willing to lie, to the courts, to the public - for whatever reason (retribution?). Lucy De Coutere was asked by the Prosecution if she had ever had contact with Gian in the years after the fact, she responded 'no of course not' because of course she hated the man for what he did, why would she communicate with him? As it turns out - she had 5000 emails worth of correspondence that she magically 'forgot' about. 5000 emails. And all of it fawning, appreciative, and most of it about her trying to elicit his attention, to get him to visit, to go out with her - over many years. And so she tells the court that none of this happened? She should be jailed. Anyhow - the Gomeshi is another very terrible example for women, it it's not going to help those women in actual need, it will only add a layer of cynicism.

PuerkitoBio 10y ago
> A) I don't doubt it can be difficult for women - but my statement holds true. That doesn't make any sense? You said: > If a girl feels harassed - then that's it. Guilty. Yet you go on and acknowledge that it may be hard to get their harasser convicted. In all those 3 cases I mentioned (including Ghomeshi), there were many victims that felt harassed. Yet no one in any of those cases was convicted. How does that make your statement true?
- edblarney 10y ago
  "In all those 3 cases I mentioned (including Ghomeshi), there were many victims that felt harassed. Yet no one in any of those cases was convicted. How does that make your statement true?" That's a fair point. Because it was a criminal trial - not civic or employment suit, also, by blatantly lying, those women destroyed their own credibility. He was definitely fired by the CBC - and I don't think anyone is questioning that. No trial or legal examination needed. He should have been fired by the CBC long time ago - then those suits would have never come up.
- mst 10y ago
  I think it makes sense if I rephrase it this way: "Many valid incidents of harassment are dismissed/ignored, and many invalid/borderline incidents are punished unfairly, and therefore the current system sucks for everybody". Which seems entirely possible.
- stcredzero 10y ago
  Yet you go on and acknowledge that it may be hard to get their harasser convicted The structure of western government and judicial systems is set-up to make it hard for the individual to get convicted. This is why there is a 5th amendment. This is why "innocent until proven guilty" is a part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (Supported by Eleanor Roosevelt.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human... It's about protecting the individual against the group, even if the group is operating under the auspices of the state. If such principles are abrogated to convict a guilty man, then the state can start to abuse its authority to start convicting innocent men. Precisely such actions are what spurred the creation of the Magna Carta. Just because someone advocates free speech for a White Supremacist, doesn't make them a White Supremacist. Just because someone advocates the 5th amendment for a an organized crime chief doesn't make them a mob supporter. Just because someone advocates for due process and innocent until proven guilty for an accused harasser doesn't make them an advocate of harassment.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]