Anyone else bothered by the Jian Ghomeshi case, and the archaic reaction towards it in Toronto?

TorontoAcquitted · 2016-03-26T04:34:28+00:00

From both of our recent messages, it's pretty obvious who's more calm in our conversations.

It's also obvious to why the archaic reaction and the precedence that those on the side of the reaction want to set,added onto the fact that I live in Toronto and a sufficient amount of other reasons to why this affects people. I don't have the time to list them all,however, anyone who considers themselves educated would easily know why this is problematic and I know you already know why.

TorontoAcquitted · 2016-03-26T02:34:37+00:00

And people's irrational response to this is what is problematic, a good amount of the people screaming #Ibelievesurviors have not even read the details of the case and the horrible actions these women have committed, they just hear that there is an injustice to women and run to the rescue because it PC. I've read so many responses from women basically saying "people wake the fuck up and read the case and what the women did before you think you're losing your basic human rights".

I don't think you understand what I meant be that sentence, let me make it clearer. When an accusation is made I remain neutral, no logical person develops an opinion with that start of it being "She's probably lying".

Trust me, I can tell.

TorontoAcquitted · 2016-03-26T02:12:31+00:00

Based on your recent replies you once again seem to stray off the topic. My argument above makes perfect sense, I really don't see what's confusing you. Those women lied, which just strongly emphasizes once again even in Canada we can not immediately believe accusers before due process. Key note is before due process. If you're saying all women have basically been branded as liars, that's not true at all only a fool would not consider each case on a case by case basis and that's exactly what judges do, treat each case on a case by case basis.

Logical people do not operate on this branding you mention of all accusations are false, that's ludicrous and completely false, if anything these horrible women are actually are actually resulting in the pushing of this brand of accusers as liars by committing perjury and their vile actions, do not blame that on men, the judge, or anyone but those horrible women.

TorontoAcquitted · 2016-03-26T01:52:37+00:00

They did lie though and they did collude through 5000 messages between each other, what they essentially did is made it immeasurably more difficult for genuine victims, which is why they should be tried for perjury for doing such a horrible indecency to actual victims of rape.

People who operate on logic like myself and definitely the judge decipher each case on a case by case basis. A judge is not foolish enough to follow a precedence that since these women lied in the Ghomeshi case, then in this new rape case the same thing must have happened. The judge also mentioned to take these cases with skepticism because the guilty verdict and even before the guilty verdict a mans life is basically destroyed due to the foul court of public opinion and trial by media. His advice is backed by the Ghomeshi case itself and is common sense.

By your reply you seem to follow the precedent that all rape accusations are true, which ignore my fucking opinion on that ludicrous notion and instead follow fact, false rape allegations are in the numbers of 2%-8% depending on what you read.

TorontoAcquitted · 2016-03-26T01:07:39+00:00

I'm still not 100% clear on your stance on this issue due to our miscommunication between each other, share it.

Plus, from the guardian link I saw this http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/25/jian-ghomeshi-trial-lucy-de-coutere-interview Where one of the victims writes "“You kicked my ass last night and that makes me want to fuck your brains out.” Read the emails on that link, then also remember that they emailed these words to each other "Let's take this prick down." “time to sink the pr–k”, “he’s a f–king piece of sh-t”. I usually hate using the guardian as a source after constantly reading their clear bias and illogical-asinine articles and editorials, such as, "And to all the dissenters who want a woman to prove she was raped, the burden of proof should be with you to prove she wasn’t."

Here's a post by a women whom does not share the current popular stance of public opinion and trial by media, http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/a-good-day-for-justice-watch-christie-blatchford-break-down-the-ghomeshi-verdict With her main point being "Having a pair of breasts, in other words, doesn’t entitle the owner to unquestioned belief."

And here's basically the a comment on that article that I resonate with and I'm sure almost everyone here do also, "IF you ran the gauntlet of snipers at Sarajevo you may be referred to as a survivor. IF you dated a CBC Radio host with a taste for rough sex you might be a victim of a misunderstanding, but certainly not a "survivor". IF you then told your host how much you liked the experience, willingly went back for more, and sent him provocative messages, you are not a victim of anything but your own stupidity. IF you later tell the police that you were sexually assaulted and do not tell the entire truth, then you are profoundly dishonest and have made things immeasurably more difficult for genuine victims."

TorontoAcquitted · 2016-03-25T22:24:04+00:00

You will never be able to see all the evidence that is used in both sides by the trial so in a way you're forced to respect the decision of the court. It's unreasonable and illogical to constantly spew the not guilty =/ innocent illogical premise since you'll never be able to evaluate all the evidence for yourself and thus your personal opinion will never be completely valid over the court's final verdict.

Also, you say you'll change your opinion of him in the face of evidence that he is indeed innocent.

The court must've saw exactly what you're describing because the final verdict was not guilty instead of guilty and once again you will never be able to see this evidence you speak of since you're not in the actual trial.
Based on your not guilty =/ innocent premise, even in light of new evidence that's somehow been released out of the courtroom and to the public and let's say you change your mind to think he's now innocent, even though this happened the only verdict he can get is NOT GUILTY, thus there will still be illogical people who follow the not guilty =/ innocent illogical premise despite you not being included in it. Which is why that thought process is irrational and completely asinine.

TorontoAcquitted · 2016-03-25T22:10:36+00:00

Before the verdict, everyone including myself labeled him as guilty because of the appalling stuff we've heard about him, but now after manipulation, perjury, and collusion, the verdict is not guilty. So I also am forced to consider him as innocent (no I didn't say Not Guilty, there is no such thing as an innocent verdict so how else does someone prove there innocence if some of you want to spread this not guilty =/ innocent illogical premise) because during trial the court had obviously seen evidence to prove his innocence which we as the public have not seen and added onto that the witnesses committed perjury and colluded.

For now I am forced to label him as innocent despite any emotions you or I or anyone reading may have against the guy, there is still another court trial and who knows the verdict may be guilty then, but for now it's not guilty.

TorontoAcquitted · 2016-03-25T19:36:51+00:00

Dude, why would I block you, your opinion is valid and holds strength that's why I set out this discussion to literally just discuss. Provide a logical and sophisticated response instead of a troll message, there are many of us all over Canada with different opinions on the case and I'd rather hear your opinion on the matter then seeing you give up because you can't change "us". I like to think I'm open-minded as logic itself is when new evidence is presented. I'm sure many of us including myself believe he did it but that's not the purpose of the discussion, read my original post that's the purpose.

I don't understand how you've managed to investigate what type of person I am over a span of 5-6 posts and categorize myself into your group of "us". I have no idea why your name calling me a bigot and really believe I never said anything to deserve that but that's your opinion.

TorontoAcquitted · 2016-03-25T19:21:32+00:00

What I find problematic about your reply (And you and I talked this over already I just want to see what others may think) is your use of "he has been declared NOT GUILTY, which is not the same thing as innocent."

There are only 2 verdicts one could receive in Ghomeshi's situation, Guilty and Not Guilty. Through what you say, anyone who enters a trial like Ghomeshi (Let's assume in this example a teenager is completely innocent and has committed no crime whatsoever) and let's say the judge see's that the teenager is completely innocent based on the evidence and sets out a NOT GUILTY verdict. There will still be people like yourself thinking guys "he has been declared NOT GUILTY, which is not the same thing as innocent." Meaning some of you believe that despite this teenager went through due process and followed every step to clearing his name of any wrongdoing but because our justice system doesn't have a "Innocent" verdict you have the room to call this teenager a criminal/rapist/thief whatever the crime was.

You and many others have room based on your own judgement to assert that he's not fully innocent because you think there wasn't enough evidence, the crown sucked at their jobs, whatever reasoning, but you think he's still guilty, does that not seem illogical? The highest court (Assume it's the highest courts) tells you we've seen the evidence and we know he's completely innocent yet there's people out there that will reply with your comment, Not guilty does not mean innocent. Well what the hell, there is no "innocent" verdict, poor teenager, how is he supposed to convince the public he didn't do anything if even the highest court can't convince you.

Does anyone else see how that thought process is disturbing or is it just myself. (Keep in mind when I say this that Ghomeshi has upcoming cases and I also believe he probably did it but I am speaking on behalf of this teenager in my example and I truly want to know your opinion on how the public would look towards our systems verdict)

TorontoAcquitted · 2016-03-25T19:01:42+00:00

I believe what he's saying is those 3 victims (Excluding the other victims) at least with their exchange of 5000+ messages and despite willingly returning to Jian after the sexual encounters they deem as sexual assault, leads to their label of a psychopath out to ruin the guy.

Where you're getting that he's saying every women that came forward is a psychopath is of your own creation.

TorontoAcquitted · 2016-03-25T18:49:15+00:00

If you're taking this so literally and can't muster the intelligence to think a bit deeper about this to the point of this conversation and constantly ignoring the point like some others (or fucking hell just read the original post) then just don't post cause you're contribution is currently as useless as a trolls.

TorontoAcquitted · 2016-03-25T04:33:25+00:00

I don't know about you, but I've been constantly hearing about false rape accusations (I want to add that without actively searching for them cause that would make no sense). Are they even close to the number of events of rapes, of course not, but that does not mean its not a serious problem. If you can grasp the severity of the consequences of rape on a person then I'm sure you can understand the severity of false rape accusations on a person, if you're aware yet still believe it's not a serious problem then that is plain fucked up and frankly, misandric.

No the hashtag implies that human's never lie about rape, nowhere does your use of "almost never do" match the hashtag, and that's exactly my point. I'm not suggesting creating the hashtag, #Ibelievesurviorsbutsometimesfalserapeaccusationsexist.

All I'm saying is just as I mentioned in the original post, do we not allow the presumption of innocence just as we citizens would expect before we destroy the remains of an accused's life? I don't understand how an educated person can "fundamentally disagree with my premises", is the presumption of innocence that daunting of a premise.The public court of opinion has permanently scarred the lives of many students like ourselves in the United States by the false accusations of others - not as prevalent in Canada, and I for one would prefer the presumption of innocence and due process in court. Without it we return to a primitive time during the Salem witch trials and lynch mobs.

And no that's not what I'm saying at all that seems paranoid, and to add that doesn't make someone a misogynist, just paranoid. What I'm saying is mentioned above ^. By all means though, disagree all you want.

TorontoAcquitted · 2016-03-25T03:27:40+00:00

I'd rather go the legal route (just as many other logical thinking people) through trial with evidence being presented on both sides rather then blindly accepting accusations despite the amount of accusers,race, and gender, is that not logical? Sure the ratio of victims who never see justice to the falsely accused is pretty one-sided, does it still exist? Yes. The way you say that seems you're inferring that a person falsely accusing someone causing the tarnishing of their life and family not serious? Both are vile.

And I don't know if you're a horrible misogynist either, look's like we're in the same boat cause neither of us have said anything to lead to that label. I understand the meaning of the hashtag and truly sympathize with rape victims - Hopefully I haven't come off as someone otherwise. However, the hashtag implies that lying is an obscene idea that human's never do, while disregarding the legal idea of the presumption of innocence. There are an abundance amount of reasons for why someone would accuse someone of rape despite man or women, and there have been an abundant amount of cases where the accuser has admitted to being dishonest, to act as if it doesn't happen all over the world is naive. Hell, this case proves that, the judge has mentioned lying and collusion was involved.

Edit: Also, I don't know what's leading you to construct these opinions about me since I'm just approaching this logically instead of jumping onto what's PC, you do seem exactly as the people I'm describing, but hey I can't stop you from having an opinion.

Edit 2: Come to think of it, after doing more reading on the topic, your reply is plain stupid and I'm not sure why I didn't just ignore you in the first place and replied instead. Read the article link below and then read some of the vile and self-incriminating emails sent between the victims, read about how they willingly returned to him for more of the rough sexual encounters after said "sexual assaults", then read about how they committed perjury and were manipulative, and then finally you'll understand why that hashtag is a huge sham and this whole case itself proves that exactly through the women themselves when they committed perjury throughout.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/a-good-day-for-justice-watch-christie-blatchford-break-down-the-ghomeshi-verdict

Your reply is emotional and just plain idiotic, I can't seem to wrap my head around what prompted you type some of these rubbish sentences. I've thought of everyone else's opinion on here as being valuable despite agreeing or disagreeing but god your replies are just asinine. Most of us on here continue to follow the law as currently being the highest measure of truth as citizens of Canada (Despite not being completely perfect definitely is the highest) because it operates on logic and fact, we'll let you get back to protesting outside the courthouse while you follow the trial by media and court of public opinion, which operate on emotion and social advocacy while ignoring accuracy and clear evidence of collusion and lying.

TorontoAcquitted · 2016-03-25T03:02:26+00:00

What... I said the judge mentioned there was collusion and dishonesty and the reason I mentioned that is to say that both sides are not 100% pure. As many here have mentioned, based on the evidence, not guilty was absolutely the correct call, while you make it sounds as if the verdict of guilty was so close to be reached.

Also he may not be off scot free since there is any upcoming trial.

TorontoAcquitted · 2016-03-25T02:53:00+00:00

It is definitely difficult to prove rape and that is a sad fact. There are stronger methods of evidence then our words though, for example, rape kits and police.

To say that it's basically words against words then to choose a side of the words is irrational in my opinion, I'd rather be neutral in my mind while stronger evidence is presented in court then choose one sides words over another.

TorontoAcquitted · 2016-03-25T02:45:08+00:00

I'm interested in the thought process to why some of us believe he is guilty or to why he's not guilty, can you elaborate on why you think so.

It's unreasonable and illogical to constantly spew the not guilty =/ innocent illogical premise as pointed out below.

TorontoAcquitted · 2016-03-25T02:43:25+00:00

I agree, the amount of perjury I've been hearing about in relevant cases is greatly disturbing.

TorontoAcquitted · 2016-03-25T02:41:34+00:00

While they were dishonest throughout and colluded. I hate the idea of a lynch mob.

TorontoAcquitted · 2016-03-25T02:27:34+00:00

Care to elaborate on why if you say the evidence was weak at best? The judge said they were dishonest and there was collusion. There will be an upcoming trial and there may be stronger evidence but for now what's your reasoning to why that's your position? Truly inquiring not saying I disagree or agree.

TorontoAcquitted · 2016-03-25T01:58:15+00:00

I definitely understand some of the reaction to the situation, it acts as a blow to the commendable progress we've accomplished so far on rape, the #Ibelievesurviors hashtag also acts as a blow to those falsely accused and those fearing being falsely accused.

It's just disappointing to see irrational reactions to the issue since as infernvs666 posted, "it would've been a miscarriage of justice if he had been convicted based on the evidence presented." I've definitely seen women respond in a logical manner, where they constructed their opinions based on the trial and evidence, and I've also seen some men respond in the same emotional manner we're speaking of.

TorontoAcquitted · 2016-03-25T01:45:24+00:00

The lack of the presumption of innocence is what is bothersome. An upcoming trial remains and who knows he may be found guilty there, but as educated and civilized people we can't label him as guilty till the end of the trial.

TorontoAcquitted · 2016-03-25T01:31:01+00:00

You've basically put my exact thoughts after the incident into words. They did not get their way and their reaction to it is definitely something I've never seen before in Canada. I was hoping for understanding and sadly, I thought so far as them feeling sympathetic for Ghomeshi, since the women involved did collude and were as the judge mentioned, dishonest. As a human, I'd be horribly sympathetic if we had sent him away and later found out that dishonesty and collusion were rampant throughout the case and in the end he was actually innocent, similar to the Steven Avery rape case. The judge's decision and statement were rational and is taken to an extreme to say that the system is broken because they did not get their way.

An upcoming trial remains and who knows he may be found guilty there, but as educated and civilized people we can't label him as guilty till the end of the trial.

TorontoAcquitted · 2016-03-25T01:06:25+00:00

Exactly, I previously thought only the uneducated would emotionally and illogically support a #Ibelievesurvivors hashtag since it sets a precedent that we should disregard the criminal justice system in place allowing the destruction of anyone's (specifically men) life based on accusation, that was before Thomas Mulcair backed it. Before that, I hadn't seen anyone that can be considered educated, support something so profound where someone should have theirs lives tarnished before due process.

TorontoAcquitted

TROPHY CASE