[ShepherdsDog]

A basic principle of Canada's justice system is that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Was Ghomeshi proven guilty? No. technically he's innocent of the charges levied against him. It doesn't mean that he's not a sick f*ck.

See section 11(d) Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms.

[Lemmy]

Not quite, Shep. You're reading 11(d) without reading the first part that applies to all of Section 11: "Any person charged with an offence".

Ghomeshi no longer has the presumption of innocence in this matter because he is no longer charged with an offence. That presumption of innocence ended when the trial ended with the verdict in court that he was not guilty. So no, he is not technically innocent. He is technically not guilty.

[andyt]

The hated Neil McDonald:

$1:

You don't like the Ghomeshi verdict, fine, but don't take it out on the judge

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ghomeshi- ... -1.3506958

The hated CBC:

$1:

"There are those who disagree strenuously with the outcome of this trial. Our audiences will be interested in hearing those opinions. But it's important that our coverage continue to pay careful attention to facts, evidence, balance and respect for the legal process. Take the time, if possible, to read and digest the actual judgment. When reporting contrary views, be sure to provide perspective and balance. Above all, let's not overweight the voices of protest and suggest or imply that the acquittal is somehow unjust or unfair to the complainants."

Good advice, I'd say, especially the bit about actually reading the judgment.

[BRAH]

Thanos Thanos:

BRAH BRAH:

Thanos Thanos:

Does Canada even have civil trials for this kind of thing?

They have civil trials for hurt feelings on Twitter so one would assume they would have civil trials for this.

That's what made the meltdown on Jezebel most amusing today. Sorry, your tears and boo-boos are not proof enough that the icky man broke the law, especially not when you meet up with him again weeks later to give him a handjob in the park.

Well.

peck420 peck420:

BRAH BRAH:

Jian Ghomeshi could still be found guilty in a civil trial.

You can't be found 'guilty' in a civil trial.

In Canadian law, guilt (guilty vs not guilty) only pertains to criminal cases. Civil cases end with the presiding judge ruling in favour, or not in favour, of the party initiating the dispute.

I'm sure this has some legal linguistic significance somewhere.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

BRAH BRAH:

Jian Ghomeshi could still be found guilty in a civil trial.

Neither of the women would have the resources or the credibility to pursue a civil trial nor can one be found 'guilty' in a civil trial.

A civil case is the closest they could get.

[Jabberwalker]

andyt andyt:

The hated Neil McDonald:

$1:

You don't like the Ghomeshi verdict, fine, but don't take it out on the judge

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ghomeshi- ... -1.3506958

The hated CBC:

$1:

"There are those who disagree strenuously with the outcome of this trial. Our audiences will be interested in hearing those opinions. But it's important that our coverage continue to pay careful attention to facts, evidence, balance and respect for the legal process. Take the time, if possible, to read and digest the actual judgment. When reporting contrary views, be sure to provide perspective and balance. Above all, let's not overweight the voices of protest and suggest or imply that the acquittal is somehow unjust or unfair to the complainants."

Good advice, I'd say, especially the bit about actually reading the judgment.

Now, Ghomeshi is going to successfully sue the CBC for a quadrillion of our tax dollars because some two bit Crown Attorney had no control over his dim-witted complaintants.

[andyt]

Ghoemshi already lost his wrongful dismissal suit against the CBC with costs assigned to Ghomeshi. So, no.

[Jabberwalker]

andyt andyt:

Ghoemshi already lost his wrongful dismissal suit against the CBC with costs assigned to Ghomeshi. So, no.

He can easily try again with an acquittal behind him. If he gets two more of them, and he may just, he'll try for something. The tide just turned, a lot. Watch him try to get reinstated as a radio host!

[OnTheIce]

andyt andyt:

Ghoemshi already lost his wrongful dismissal suit against the CBC with costs assigned to Ghomeshi. So, no.

Wrong. He didn't lose as the case never went to trial.

He withdrew the lawsuit.

[OnTheIce]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

andyt andyt:

Ghoemshi already lost his wrongful dismissal suit against the CBC with costs assigned to Ghomeshi. So, no.

He can easily try again with an acquittal behind him. If he gets two more of them, and he may just, he'll try for something. The tide just turned, a lot. Watch him try to get reinstated as a radio host!

No, he can't. The lawsuit was a non starter to begin with.

He has to go through his union.

[andyt]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

andyt andyt:

Ghoemshi already lost his wrongful dismissal suit against the CBC with costs assigned to Ghomeshi. So, no.

Wrong. He didn't lose as the case never went to trial.

He withdrew the lawsuit.

CBC reported he lost. But OK:

$1:

Former Q host Jian Ghomeshi is taking his fight against the CBC to “binding arbitration” after agreeing to drop a $55-million lawsuit for breach of confidence against the national broadcaster.
Ghomeshi’s new civil lawyer, Jonathan Lisus, said Tuesday that he is on the case. He’s with Lax O’Sullivan Scott Lisus LLP.
“I represent Mr. Ghomeshi and confirm that the lawsuit between Mr. Ghomeshi and CBC has been resolved on the basis that CBC and Mr. Ghomeshi will address all issues in the lawsuit in binding arbitration in accordance with the collective agreement between them,” Lisus said in an email.

If CBC doesn't have a clause in there that he can't sue them, they are nuts.

[xerxes]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

xerxes xerxes:

Or that they'd brought in a sexual violence expert who could explain how in many cases women go right back to the their abusers.

I'd like to hear that explanation too. It makes no sense to me.

A few pages late.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/13/jian-ghomeshi-trial-sexual-assault-victims-response

[andyt]

BRAH BRAH:

Well.

No class at all, Brah.

[andyt]

xerxes xerxes:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

xerxes xerxes:

Or that they'd brought in a sexual violence expert who could explain how in many cases women go right back to the their abusers.

I'd like to hear that explanation too. It makes no sense to me.

A few pages late.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/13/jian-ghomeshi-trial-sexual-assault-victims-response

Read the article. While yes, in long term relationships there can be all sorts of hooks that keep a victim around, that doesn't apply to these women. If negative feelings are so hard for them they try to normalize Ghomeshis behavior, how is it they are later able to file police reports? I'm sorry, but to me it sounds like while he was on the up, they were willing to tolerated all sorts of shitty behavior, because they wanted to be around him. Once he got fired, they ganged up on him, and what he did went from no big deal to violation.


Thought I heard one victim on TV (so no link) say "we didn't really want to convict him, just embarrass him." Note the "we".

[BRAH]

andyt andyt:

BRAH BRAH:

Well.

No class at all, Brah.

Yeah when it comes to Lucy, her story has a few holes in it Email, letter, Facebook messages.

[andyt]

Yeah, but for you to bring up her TPB persona is not cool and has nothing to do with the trial.