Jian Ghomeshi no longer with CBC

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Buster

Whether you like the satire or not is unrelated to whether or not it is appropriate to mis-represent peoples' views. The most unhelpful thing we can do for the discourse is to be innaccurate or otherwise obfuscate the point someone is trying to make.

It is much better to take their point and criticize the merits of it, rather than deliberately attempt to bury it under inaccurate smears. It's a common tactic that seems to be pervading public discourse - and frankly is turning into a regular tactic for those on the Left. Think Glenn Greenwald or Reza Aslan.

I hope my defense of accuracy is not being conflated with a defense of Roosh. I don't particularly like what he does. (Although I do think that provocateurs have a valuable place in society - I really enjoy Gavin, and Milo Yiannopolis for instance).

As an aside, the above reasoning is why I am a staunch defender of ALL speech being free, regardless of its content. Much better to hear a stupid/offensive argument and discredit it, than it is to try to silence it.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I don't think it's as much misrepresenting him as it is having reasonable concerns as to whether it's actually satire.

[rubecube]

Mind you I also think McInnes is a massive tool, so maybe we just have different tastes.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I think you're misrepresenting the BDSM community a bit. There's a pretty heavy message of prior consent, at least among the people I know that practice it. That obviously represents a bit of a grey area itself but it's not quite what your characterizing it as.

I'm telling you that, unless they're deliberately trying to modify what they're doing so as not to run afoul of the precedents, the people you know who practice it are almost certainly engaging in behaviour that is sexual assault according to the law in Canada. Even with the high concern for safety and prior consent. This just demonstrates how hard it is to come up with an across-the-board set of rules on consent.

Yeah, exactly. I also firmly believe that satire is most effective when aimed at the powerful or the elite, not those who are being victimized. There are effective instances of satire that are aimed at bringing attention to the plight of victims, but this is clearly not one of them.

First, satire generally is aimed at ideas, or ideas through the proxy of actions. No idea is more or less subject to criticism than any other. People are worthy of respect; beliefs aren't.

Second, it's generally the case that you're right in so far as the most effective satire is a check on the tyranny of a majority viewpoint or idea, or at least a highly popular idea even if it isn't necessarily a majority one. In this case, the majority viewpoint is "no means no, period, in all cases", which it seems to me that vast numbers of people agree with. Hence, that idea would be a totally valid target for satire. I'm not planning to read that guy's so-called satire, because I don't want to give him the page hits, but just as an example. And this has nothing to do with "targeting victims" - the ideas are not the same as the people who hold the ideas, or the people affected by the ideas.

And on the former point, where we were talking about trolls whipping up supporters who end up doing awful things, I just want to point out that I really struggle with that. Where is the line? Let me give you an example - the Chapel Hill shootings. Three Muslims killed by an atheist shooter. Now, there's no evidence to suggest that there's any truth to this whatsoever, but let's imagine it WERE true: several people used this as an example of atheism motivating violent behaviour as a comparable to Islam doing so. Again, no reason to think it happened that way, seems to have been a parking dispute... but imagine the shooter had said, "I've read my Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris, and I agree with them that religion is a force for ill. I'm so convinced that I now think religious people must be eradicated, and so I've decided to start by murdering these three."

Would Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris bear any moral responsibility for those actions? I'm inclined to say no. Yet, it's not so easy in the case of a Donald Trump, who whips up xenophobic sentiment, if a Trump supporter were to say, "I'm with Donald, we need to keep these people out, so I beat up a muslim and told him to go back to his country". Does Trump bear any responsibility for that? I still think probably not, but I'm a bit less quick to respond, right? And then we get to this Roosh guy, who we both seem to think should probably bear some responsibility... Again, where's that line?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I'm telling you that, unless they're deliberately trying to modify what they're doing so as not to run afoul of the precedents, the people you know who practice it are almost certainly engaging in behaviour that is sexual assault according to the law in Canada. Even with the high concern for safety and prior consent. This just demonstrates how hard it is to come up with an across-the-board set of rules on consent.

You're definitely more educated in the law than I am, so I'll concede the point.

Second, it's generally the case that you're right in so far as the most effective satire is a check on the tyranny of a majority viewpoint or idea, or at least a highly popular idea even if it isn't necessarily a majority one. In this case, the majority viewpoint is "no means no, period, in all cases", which it seems to me that vast numbers of people agree with. Hence, that idea would be a totally valid target for satire.

Is it the majority viewpoint, though? Among feminists, progressives (and even some of these are wolves in sheep's clothing), etc., it would be, but I've also had plenty of conversations with dudes who think like Roosh does.

And on the former point, where we were talking about trolls whipping up supporters who end up doing awful things, I just want to point out that I really struggle with that. Where is the line? Let me give you an example - the Chapel Hill shootings. Three Muslims killed by an atheist shooter. Now, there's no evidence to suggest that there's any truth to this whatsoever, but let's imagine it WERE true: several people used this as an example of atheism motivating violent behaviour as a comparable to Islam doing so. Again, no reason to think it happened that way, seems to have been a parking dispute... but imagine the shooter had said, "I've read my Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris, and I agree with them that religion is a force for ill. I'm so convinced that I now think religious people must be eradicated, and so I've decided to start by murdering these three."

Would Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris bear any moral responsibility for those actions? I'm inclined to say no. Yet, it's not so easy in the case of a Donald Trump, who whips up xenophobic sentiment, if a Trump supporter were to say, "I'm with Donald, we need to keep these people out, so I beat up a muslim and told him to go back to his country". Does Trump bear any responsibility for that? I still think probably not, but I'm a bit less quick to respond, right? And then we get to this Roosh guy, who we both seem to think should probably bear some responsibility... Again, where's that line?

Well I think the clear difference is that Hitches, Dawkins, etc., where concerned with getting people to think critically, not attempting to mobilize them the way that Trump and Roosh are.

[troutman]

Statement of first complainant, through her lawyer:

[troutman]

What’s really on trial in the Ghomeshi case

The trial is poised to show that women in sexual assault cases may be worse off than ever

http://www.macleans.ca/society/whats...ghomeshi-case/

Sex crimes continue to be treated singularly within the law. No one asks the victim of a mugging why they handed over their wallet, or what they were doing in that neighbourhood, or question whether the crime even took place. We know false claims are the anomaly (two to eight per cent, according to FBI studies). Yet disbelieving the complainant remains the norm. Conviction rates have not risen a whit: according to the 2012 study “Sexual Assault in Canadian Law” they stand at 0.3 per cent. And complainants are still on trial.

Yet those working within the system note changes unanticipated when laws were rewritten decades ago—like cellphones and social media—which render rape shields porous and that breach complainant privacy in new ways. Twenty years ago, complainants protected by publication bans weren’t at risk of online bullying and harassment. And there was no risk of defence lawyers combing through Instagram and Tinder to seek out incriminating pics or posts to create reasonable doubt. All of that makes coming forward fraught in ways it wasn’t a generation ago.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by troutman

What’s really on trial in the Ghomeshi case

The trial is poised to show that women in sexual assault cases may be worse off than ever

http://www.macleans.ca/society/whats...ghomeshi-case/

Sex crimes continue to be treated singularly within the law. No one asks the victim of a mugging why they handed over their wallet, or what they were doing in that neighbourhood, or question whether the crime even took place. We know false claims are the anomaly (two to eight per cent, according to FBI studies). Yet disbelieving the complainant remains the norm. Conviction rates have not risen a whit: according to the 2012 study “Sexual Assault in Canadian Law” they stand at 0.3 per cent. And complainants are still on trial.

Yet those working within the system note changes unanticipated when laws were rewritten decades ago—like cellphones and social media—which render rape shields porous and that breach complainant privacy in new ways. Twenty years ago, complainants protected by publication bans weren’t at risk of online bullying and harassment. And there was no risk of defence lawyers combing through Instagram and Tinder to seek out incriminating pics or posts to create reasonable doubt. All of that makes coming forward fraught in ways it wasn’t a generation ago.

People do question the victims of muggings. That would be the lawyer for the person arrested/on trial for the mugging. Even the police I'm sure ask simple questions to establish the story when the victim initially reports a mugging.

As for the norm being disbelieving the complainant, who is the author talking about? The public? The police?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by darklord700

http://www.calgaryherald.com/christi...844/story.html

Doesn't look good for Crown witness no. 1 with the yellow VW Beetle to GTI mix up. The Crowd should have prepared their witnesses better.

Did anyone else read this? Am I correct in assuming that Blatchford is the Eric Francis of non-sports journalism?

I don't have time to quote all of Blatchford's attacks on this woman but I feel like Blatchford wrote this article as if she's personally offended that this young lady didn't remember the make and model of the car from 13 years ago. Nor whether she was wearing hair extensions.

Furthermore, I totally agree with the witness to dismiss such "inconsistencies" as trivial. I'm no lawyer, that's just my opinion. I couldn't remember an event from last week in that much detail, let alone more than a decade ago.

[CaptainCrunch]

Blanchford used to be very good and very thorough back in the day. Now she's just bitter about everything.

[CliffFletcher]

If we want to make it easier for victims of sexual assaults to come forward, what specific changes do we need to make to our legal system? It's one thing to point out how difficult it is now. But if we're going to change that, we need feasible alternatives that fit into the framework of our legal system.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Buster

Whether you like the satire or not is unrelated to whether or not it is appropriate to mis-represent peoples' views. The most unhelpful thing we can do for the discourse is to be innaccurate or otherwise obfuscate the point someone is trying to make.

It is much better to take their point and criticize the merits of it, rather than deliberately attempt to bury it under inaccurate smears. It's a common tactic that seems to be pervading public discourse - and frankly is turning into a regular tactic for those on the Left. Think Glenn Greenwald or Reza Aslan.

I hope my defense of accuracy is not being conflated with a defense of Roosh. I don't particularly like what he does. (Although I do think that provocateurs have a valuable place in society - I really enjoy Gavin, and Milo Yiannopolis for instance).

As an aside, the above reasoning is why I am a staunch defender of ALL speech being free, regardless of its content. Much better to hear a stupid/offensive argument and discredit it, than it is to try to silence it.

As this is getting a long way from Jian and the topic of sexual assault, I'll be briefish and make this my last post off topic:

Don't let your bias overwhelm your critical thought capabilities. The tactic you speak of knows no political boundaries. Ezra Levant says hello.

Free speech is necessary regardless of opinion, and the provocateurs too (even though I'm not sure why you shoe-horned an irrelevant FS argument into this). Proper criticism tho, includes viewing a particular piece in conjunction with their body of work.

Your defence of is wholly based on interpretation, making your ability to be definitive of him against the dark arts of the left completely nil. Based on his history, the interpretation that he believes in his "satire" is equally valid, if not more so (than your interpretation based on taking him at face value).

Nothing is said in a bubble.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Furthermore, I totally agree with the witness to dismiss such "inconsistencies" as trivial. I'm no lawyer, that's just my opinion. I couldn't remember an event from last week in that much detail, let alone more than a decade ago.

No, I'm sorry, if you can't remember the exact model difference between two VW's 13 years ago, how are you supposed to remember something as trivial as being raped?

^jk obviously

Blatchford is... something else.

[darklord700]

nm.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Did anyone else read this? Am I correct in assuming that Blatchford is the Eric Francis of non-sports journalism?

I don't have time to quote all of Blatchford's attacks on this woman but I feel like Blatchford wrote this article as if she's personally offended that this young lady didn't remember the make and model of the car from 13 years ago. Nor whether she was wearing hair extensions.

Furthermore, I totally agree with the witness to dismiss such "inconsistencies" as trivial. I'm no lawyer, that's just my opinion. I couldn't remember an event from last week in that much detail, let alone more than a decade ago.

She was pretty specific about how the car made her feel though, which is a little odd. It was still a VW though, and a GTI Gulf, which the writer claims bears no resemblance, but to a woman with no knowledge of cars, she probably just sees a little VW and assumes it's a Bug.

I am curious about the actual offense though. Was there something else or is him pulling her hair overly hard once, while making out, what the charge is for? Seems pretty tame. I've been with a girl who bit me hard enough to make me yell "ow". I asked her not to bite so hard and that was it. She did it a few more times throughout our relationship in the heat of the moment. Is that sexual assault? The article says he did it and then said "Do you like that? Or do you like this..?" Did he do something else? The article just states he went back to being a "nice guy". Other stories seemed worse, so it makes me curious why this person was on the stand at all.

On a side note, Ghomeshi is 48?! He looks about 30.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by MattyC

She was pretty specific about how the car made her feel though, which is a little odd. It was still a VW though, and a GTI Gulf, which the writer claims bears no resemblance, but to a woman with no knowledge of cars, she probably just sees a little VW and assumes it's a Bug.

I am curious about the actual offense though. Was there something else or is him pulling her hair overly hard once, while making out, what the charge is for? Seems pretty tame. I've been with a girl who bit me hard enough to make me yell "ow". I asked her not to bite so hard and that was it. She did it a few more times throughout our relationship in the heat of the moment. Is that sexual assault? The article says he did it and then said "Do you like that? Or do you like this..?" Did he do something else? The article just states he went back to being a "nice guy". Other stories seemed worse, so it makes me curious why this person was on the stand at all.

On a side note, Ghomeshi is 48?! He looks about 30.

There was a second incident where he allegedly punched her two or three times while at his house.

[zamler]

She was already impressed by Ghomeshi, she said, whom she pronounced funny, bright and charming, and then they walked to his car and it wasn’t a Hummer or some show-off vehicle, but this “Disney car … It reminds me of a 1960s Disney movie … he drives a Disney car. I’m feeling very safe…”

I find this really bizarre.

Originally Posted by MattyC

She was pretty specific about how the car made her feel though, which is a little odd. It was still a VW though, and a GTI Gulf, which the writer claims bears no resemblance, but to a woman with no knowledge of cars, she probably just sees a little VW and assumes it's a Bug. .

The cars look nothing alike and a Golf in no way would remind anyone of a Disney movie, aka Herbie the love bug.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You're definitely more educated in the law than I am, so I'll concede the point.

Quote from R. v. Welch:

Originally Posted by Ontario Court of Appeal

The sadistic sexual activity here involved bondage (the tying of the victim's hands and feet) and the intentional infliction of injury to the body and rectum of the complainant. The consent of the complainant, assuming it was given, cannot detract from the inherently degrading and dehumanizing nature of the conduct. Although the law must recognize individual freedom and autonomy, when the activity in question involves pursuing sexual gratification by deliberately inflicting pain upon another that gives rise to bodily harm, then the personal interest of the individuals involved must yield to the more compelling societal interests which are challenged by such behaviour.

There are plenty of people who enjoy receiving pain during sex in exactly the way described there, and do it safely, responsibly and with consent. You could find a dozen more statements just like that that are seriously troubling if you're part of that community.

Is it the majority viewpoint, though? Among feminists, progressives (and even some of these are wolves in sheep's clothing), etc., it would be, but I've also had plenty of conversations with dudes who think like Roosh does.

I really think you're probably being uncharitable. I have difficulty believing that there are a large number of dudes who think this is acceptable behaviour.

However, I have no difficulty imagining that there is a large group of people who are frustrated by being unable to discuss the corner cases without being thought of as perpetuating rape culture - e.g. where two people are both drunk, or where someone embarks on a sexual encounter willingly, changes their mind and the question arises as to how to communicate that, or just the basic question of doing things when caught up in an encounter without asking (e.g. you're having sex and someone... well, use your imagination). Those are not only difficult questions, they're important conversations that aren't necessarily being had because there's a chilling effect that's partly an unwillingness to talk about sex stuff generally and partly an unwillingness to be thought of as unenlightened in this area. Much easier to just repeat "no means no" ad nauseum.

Well I think the clear difference is that Hitches, Dawkins, etc., where concerned with getting people to think critically, not attempting to mobilize them the way that Trump and Roosh are.

I really believe that Trump isn't trying to mobilize people to act in a xenophobic way. He wants to do it through legislation, orders, however you like, but legally. His message is, "vote me in and I'll implement measures". Maybe the line is active and intentional incitement of illegal activity, but in that case, I think we're giving a lot of ground to the trolls. Maybe that's right as a matter of principle; maybe we have to. I'm just saying, there are probably a lot of things you'll want to intuitively hold the person riling people up accountable for that you won't be able to. @Nero can say pretty much whatever he likes, and his twitter followers are free to harass or issue death threats, etc...

[Coach]

Originally Posted by zamler

I find this really bizarre.

The cars look nothing alike and a Golf in no way would remind anyone of a Disney movie, aka Herbie the love bug.

Maybe not to you. But to someone that has no idea about cars, it might. Its a two door, hatchback, small bubbly car. No idea what color it was. An F150 and Honda Ridgeline don't look much alike, but to someone without much car knowledge, they're both just trucks.

If I was on the stand asking testify about what type of hair cut a woman had, and I said long, but then it was shoulder length. Well, that's still long comparatively. Or ask to name the type of haircut and it wasn't correct. Some things people just don't know.

It is weird that she described it so thoroughly though, and that the prosecutors didn't confirm his car at the time.

[Johnny199r]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If we want to make it easier for victims of sexual assaults to come forward, what specific changes do we need to make to our legal system? It's one thing to point out how difficult it is now. But if we're going to change that, we need feasible alternatives that fit into the framework of our legal system.

I agree. I see people asking for changes, well, what does that mean? It seems like some advocates think that defence lawyers shouldn't even be able to question complainants in sexual assault trials. I've yet to see any valid suggestions...

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Johnny199r

I agree. I see people asking for changes, well, what does that mean? It seems like some advocates think that defence lawyers shouldn't even be able to question complainants in sexual assault trials. I've yet to see any valid suggestions...

If you read the link Troutman provided,
http://www.macleans.ca/society/whats...ghomeshi-case/
Everything below the last picture discusses ideas.